It was both a fun challenge (using vanilla JS to render) and has been fun to share with friends, Twitter mutuals etc.
Plus, people know it's MY reviews so if they like my suggestions/tweeting/poasting/etc, they know the review is from me and not some bot.
One way to look at what you've done is authenticated the source of your reviews. They're not anonymous people behind a fake username.
Yet another reason that the legitimate press still wins over the internet rabble.
I follow a couple of professional movie reviewers who have been doing it since before the internet took off, and their reviews are almost always better than the dross online.
The same is true for books. The New York Times book review, for example, is so good and trusted that you can actually subscribe to it separately, without getting the rest of the newspaper.
When they asked Yuval Noah Harari his opinion on AI deepfakes, I liked his answer (paraphrased):
"Fake information has always been a problem and my answer is the way we have always dealt with it: having trusted institutions."
I took this to mean things like newspapers (e.g. the New York Times as the 'paper of record').