Why do critics need to spoil movies? Really

oxygen_old

I just read a review of "The Hurt Locker", which I was really looking forward to seeing. I think the director and writer involved are both solid and crafted a nice little thriller. However, the review was in the Day and Night Irish Indo supplement and the reviewer was Paul Whittington. This jerk proceeded to tell me who from the movies dies, and at what point in the film. Just to remove any shock value for me from the movie.

Why? What was the point of spoiling the movie for me? What is is with modern critics,who need to ruin every spoiler to a movie you might want to see, whats the compulsion. He done the same a couple of weeks ago for Orphan.

I enjoyed reading Day and Night every Friday, but it looks like Im going to have to give it up now, I like my movies unspoiled to much

Laphroaig52

You mean someone dies in it??

Aw, you've ruined it for me now.

Sleazus

[double post, deleting - thought I was editing the post, sorry]

Sleazus

Yep, I can understand being ticked off.

I always think it's a little difficult to review a movie without giving away some stuff. i mean, obviously who dies when (as in the above example) is out-of-bounds, but what else?

Does saying Moon

involves clones

spoil the movie even though it's revealed maybe half an hour in? Or how about saying that

Unbreakable

is a superhero movie, even though it seems to go to great lengths to hide that fact (and works the better for it)?

What about mentioning a twist, without specifying? For example, saying a movie has a great twist at the end, deftly executed? Does that put the audience "on-guard" and slightly spoil their viewing experience (it's hard to be surprised if you know you're supposed to be surprised).

Part of me thinks that newspapers should run small ads in their print versions - saying see it or don't see it, or it's poorly written or badly acted or whatever. And then run a fuller discussion on their website over the end, where the critic can look at the film as a whole without worrying about spoilers. It'd also give film fans a nice place to spark discussion, once everyone knows spoilers are acceptable.

Anyway, my two cents...

EDIT: Ironically, forgot spoiler tags!

Birneybau

That Paul Whittington guy is always doing that.

Fcuking Rotter.

oxygen_old

Yea, sure, I can see that it might be a little difficult to review a film without spoiling it. But hey, thats what the job entails, writing is an art, alot of writers are able to review films, heightening the expectation and selling a movie they think particularly good.

This guy does not have it.

MagicMarker

To be honest, I've reported spoilers in this forum before, and as far as I can see, nothing was done about them. Which is a little disappointing tbh.

I hate this as well OP, I don't see how a critic/reviewer can't provide their opinion without spoiling the movie. I read the review of Inglorious Basterds on entertainment.ie on Sunday before going to see it, the reviewer started the review by quoting the last line of the fúcking movie!! :mad: Fair enough, it didn't 'spoil' anything but ffs, why would you do that?

Earthhorse

I think a lot of critics simply don't know how to write well and end up writing plot summaries with a little dash of opinion thrown in, rather than proper, full blooded reviews which would actually take time and effort to compose.

MelonieHead

Some little FM104 pipsqueak ruined a movie in this way. I e-mailed the station about it but they didn't apologise or agree to review their movie critiquing in future with regards to spoilers.

I don't see why film critics have to spoil movies. The questions "Was it a good movie?" or "Did you enjoy the movie" or even "Do you think I would like the movie?" are all very different questions than "What happened in the movie?"

You can say whether it was a good movie without revealing what happens. Instead of saying "The twist will have you questioning your entire belief system" the critic could say "Part of the movie will have you questioning your entire belief system" or "The relationship between (X) and (Y) deepens when (X) reveals something he's been hiding" could instead be "The relationship between (X) and (Y) deepens following certain events". They could end up making the movie sound even more interesting by telling less and suggesting more.

oxygen_old

Im guessing their thinking, if you can really call it that, is that if they dont post the spoiler, some one else will. And then people will be like “I read that spoiler in publication X”. But instead its just putting people off reading the publication.

The director for this movie spent time and money having this plot point jar people at a certain point of the movie. With the readership the Indo gets, this guys owes the producers money, due to diminished returns, from a poorer word of mouth for this movie. A couple of thousand people will now find the movie less enjoyable since that element of shock was removed.

Not that I think it will have any effect, but the Independent will be getting a pretty scathing email from me.

There's no excuse for a critic to spoil a film. If they're incapable of reviewing it without giving away major plot points, they shouldn't be working. Even common courtesy dictates that if a review of a new film contains spoilers, it says as much at the beginning of the text.

If there's a film I'm really looking forward to, I'll read as little about it as possible, it's just not worth the risk. Thanks for the warning about this dick though.

Sleazus

MagicMarker wrote: »

I read the review of Inglorious Basterds on entertainment.ie on Sunday before going to see it, the reviewer started the review by quoting the last line of the fúcking movie!! :mad: Fair enough, it didn't 'spoil' anything but ffs, why would you do that?

In fairness, I can see how a reviewer might deem that particular line as defining or important for a film they want to review. (Much of the movie is rather brilliant metafiction - what with

us in a cinema cheering a massacre in a cinema that had been cheering a massacre

and all that - so it's understandable that reviewers are putting a lot of emphasis on it - what with

Pitt delivering it direct to the camera

.) You can suggest that Tarantino

views the film as his own masterpiece

, which is a fairly important tool in dissecting and understanding the film.

Still, it's amazing how many reviewers actually tell you exactly what happens at the end of a given film. That's unforgiveable in a printed review before a film is released.

ashyle

MelonieHead wrote: »

You can say whether it was a good movie without revealing what happens.

totally agree, I mean I remember in school if we had to review a book or a film we'd get in trouble for just writing a synopsis! reviewing rule 101 imo.

I remember reading a review of the Mist when it was released over here, I had seen it on DVD a few months before and was so glad that I had as the reviewer stated

The finale in which Thomas Jane's character kills his own child and friends moments before the military arrive is up there with the most far fetched endings in cinema.

No one beats my local newspaper for terrible reviews though.

Crank

Derek Statham's character ends the film falling to his death from a helicopter while making a phone call. That the film makers find this a realist ending is beyond me.

Last House on the Left

Wes Craven ends his own remake with a preposterous scene in which the goodies kill the main baddie but microwaving him till he dies.

When reviewing a film I never give away any spoilers and if I fell that I must spoil something in order to write a true account of the film I give ample warning beforehand.

Harry Knowles has to be the worst for ruining films, his reviews are constantly packed with every twist and turn in the film.

Handsome Bob

I think it's a sign of a bad writer if he can't review a film without giving away crucial parts of the film.

I don't mind if as Darko put it that there is plenty of warning given, but to be so blase about it is unacceptable.

krudler

Harry Knowles isnt a film reviewer though, his opinion is no more valid than anyone who posts on here, his reviews are terrible, takes about 10 paragraphs of what he had to eat that morning and how long it took to take a dump before he even gets to the bit where he described what kind of weather conditions were on the way to the cinema