I distinguish between film critics and film reviewers. Perhaps it should be against the rules for reviewers to discuss the endings of films; it's their purpose to cover new releases and make generalized comments with the aim of selling tickets or telling their readers to save their money. But I think it's impossible, or should be, for a critic to delve into any kind of a more meaningful, serious discussion of a film's merit while scrupulously avoiding any mention of its ending, which is, after all, the whole point or summation of the story at hand. The idea that no one should ever write about the endings of THE THIRD MAN, L'ECLISSE, or LOST IN TRANSLATION is preposterous. I stand firmly by my belief that no film truly worth seeing twice can be spoiled by knowing its ending in advance.

Critics and reviewers. I understand the difference but still believe this is just so much semantics. To be told in advance of the key plot element of, say, John Sayles' LONE STAR is to have the movie ruined for you on some important level--at least the first time you see it. Yes, films so good they can withstand repeat viewings are another matter. And good critical discussion--once the movie has made its rounds of theatres, DVD, cable, etc.--demands talking about EVERYTHING. But regarding those initial daily movie reviews? Keep your damn mouth shut--about the ending and every other important plot point!

This whole issue baffles me. How hard is it to slap a SPOILER WARNING on one's review? It's just common courtesy.

"msic" is right, of course: It IS just common courtesy. But way too many reviewers don't understand the whole idea of "common courtesy." They have the first word down pat but they need to work on the second.

I think Tim makes a point worth considering - certainly films relying on tricky endings, such as M Night's ouvre, would officially be called "not good." On the other hand, there is something magical about the first time you see Citizen Kane, to not know the secret of "Rosebud." On the other other hand, as Tim says, this revelation is not what makes Citizen Kane a classic by any means.

At any rate, I try to do what I always do when reading other critics before seeing a film - skim it, then if it's someone whose writing I truly appreciate, go back and read it in full after seeing the film in question. Spoilers or no, it's only then that I can truly enjoy reading about a film anyway.

Still, I've been annoyed by reviews that seem to have gone out of their way to spoil plot twists - or worst, spend most of the review rehashing the plot in general instead of giving us a unique spin on the film.

cp

Truly great storytelling is rarely supported by the crutch of an eleventh-hour plot twist. Knowing beforehand that Janet Leigh gets stabbed to death in the shower doesn’t make "Psycho" any less gripping, just as knowing beforehand that "The Village" actually takes place in modern times doesn’t make that film any less sucky. Hitchcock himself often pointed out that suspense is much more powerful than surprise; the shock of a plot twist or a revelation only lasts a few moments, but suspense, if skillfully handled, can last almost indefinitely. And even once the suspense is over, the story’s attraction shouldn’t be.

Nathan Lee's argument is interesting, but he loses me in the last line.

"The critic who says too much isn’t the problem. The problem is that we don’t trust critics to say exactly what we need to know."

With respect to Tim Lucas' proper differentiation between a reviewer and a critic, this argument is really about the daily/weekly critic spoiling a movie in a day of/week review of an opening film. So I ask you: how many of those reviewers to YOU trust to say exactly what you need to know? How many do you trust to tell you much of anything you even want to know?

I think film writers should feel free to write whatever they want to write. People who don't want movies spoiled for them shouldn't be reading reviews.

I don't read reviews of films that I plan to see. I don't want to know the ending, I don't want to know the beginning, I don't want to know anything, especially not somebody else's opinion. I might check out the reviews afterwards, to see if they can bring a different perspective to my experience of the film.

I also do not like to read too much about a film that I plan to see. I may skim, just to get a general sense of what the critical consensus is, and I'll catch up on the reviews later from critics I enjoy reading. I still appreciate it when the "serious" critic offers some kind of warning about reading his review before seeing a particular type of film.

I saw Last House on the Left yesterday at the Museum of the Moving Image. What's interesting about that particular film is how intrinsic the viewer's expectations are to appreciating what Craven was doing. It's impossible to see that film today the same way audiences saw it in 1972, because it's notorious now. Its tonal shifts served a purpose that they can no longer serve. As with Janet Leigh's early exit from Psycho, there's no way to put that genie back in the bottle for contemporary audiences. There's a loss involved, but I guess ideally we make up for that loss in the immediacy of the cinematic experience with an increase in perspective.

I don't think critics should go out of their way to reveal pivotal plots twists. (And I've noticed that some do, particularly when they don't like a film) I think they should warn readers when they are going to do so, but I agree that sometimes it's necessary to reveal key details in order to explain one's assessment of the work.