Hmmmm ...

So you indicated the START of the spolier in this clip but not the END. Therefore I turned off the audio and happened to turn it on some time later and heard the very word that was the basis of the spoiler ...

It's not a film I was particularly worried about being told about but hey ... add an 'End of Real Spoiler' indication please.

Thank you.

This must be very difficult for anyone reviewing films or even books these days. On the one had you need to strike a sensitive balance between informing and ruining someone else's enjoyment. At least with the written media a "SPOILER ALERT" can be displayed before any key plot points are mentioned. This however is far from practical on an a TV or radio broadcast. It does however put me in mind of the BBC sports report on the evening news. They used to warn you to "look away now", whilst they showed the evenings football scores, as Match of the Day which followed the news.



I myself fell foul of a major plot spoiler thanks to the TV presenter Ian Lee. He ruined the Sixth Sense for me by blurting out on national TV the one major plot point. The irony was that I was due to watch the aforementioned film that very evening with friends, who like me had some how avoided this major plot twist. I felt cheated, and by his actions of saying five simple words, this film was forever ruined. At least my friends all enjoyed it.



I shall never forgive Mr Lee this indiscretion.

I agree totally. I like to write about film but always struggle with how much plot to reveal. So, if you don't want to know anything, don't read or watch reviews. However, I do think there is a difference between reviewing and criticism. A review should give me enough info so I can decide if I want to see a film. A criticism will tell me why a film is good or bad. I much prefer the latter, even if I haven't seen the film. And that's why I enjoy your criticism.

An interesting blog. I suppose it's a very fine line that critics walk between reviewing a film and giving away plot spoilers. On the one hand, you need to talk about the film in order to review it; on the other hand, if you give away the film's denouement, you'll annoy a lot of people. That said, it's interesting how many people go to see films based on true stories where the ending is already common knowledge. Titanic, for instance - not exactly a masterpiece of modern cinema, I realise - was a huge box office success, and how many were expecting a cheery ending? When deciding on a film to watch, I happen to like knowing what it'll be about and if others think it's any good. If I didn't want to know these things, I wouldn't listen to reviews.

Martin Scorsese has a big thing about the importance of story as opposed to plot. The point is that the plots get old, but the story, the arch of the characters and the effect the events have on them, is what makes a movie timeless. For instance, that's why Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid is more timeless than The Sting.

Worst spoiler of all time? The DVD cover to the original The Planet of the Apes.

On the whole, I find that most film critics do a decent job of walking the fine line between giving the potential viewer information about a film and spoiling it by revealing a critical plot twist; critics like Roger Ebert and (sparing your blushes) Mark Kermode are particularly conscientious. It doesn't always work and I'm glad, for example, that I saw 'The American' before some buffoon gave away in a review the shock that comes right at the beginning of the movie. A bigger problem, I think, is the relentless build-up that is created around some films. I enjoyed 'The King's Speech' very much recently but it had been so hyped up and publicised before it had even been released that I had become sick of reading and hearing about it before I had even seen it!

The plot point from Hereafter is in the trailer and TV spots! Not that that makes it any less of a spoiler, of course - trailers are often the worst culprits.



A propos of not much, I once watched From Dusk Till Dawn with a friend who knew nothing about it, and his reaction to the genre-lurching moment about halfway through was something to behold. But how many people managed to see From Dusk Till Dawn without knowing the twist beforehand?

What about the spoliler that this blog was about spoilers?

It is really quite easy to differentiate between necessary review and spoiling - in the Harry Potter example saying DD died is a huge spoiler, I certainly had no idea it was coming and was a huge shock when I read the book (only a matter of months before the film, all the other books I read *after* the films releases) and it would be simplicity itself to just say there was a hugely emotionally affecting ending without giving away what happens.



Titanic OTOH I agree with the whole basis of the film is based around events that 90% of people in the county has heard about.



The generally excepted rule is that wait 6 months before giving away plot points, I would say in Marks case 1 year after the DVD release is more than enough to be on the safe side.

I have stopped the video at the point that you instructed, because I have not yet seen the new Clint film.

I must regale you with a spoiler that I was subjected to from a long time ago. I don't think I'm ruining anyone's evening by mentioning there's a twist in Neil Jordan's The Crying Game - in fact it was the major part of their American marketing strategy. However, when I was randomly flicking through IMDb one night, I was on the crazy credits section of Hot Shots Part Deux (https://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0107144/crazycredits - SPOILER ALERT), and without warning screamed that one of the credits was "The secret Crying Game is..." and dutifully gave it away. Later, when I watched the film with my friends (I had already seen it at that point), it peed me off that I did not have the same level of shock at the revelatory moment.

I think of all Charlie Sheen's character faults - that one is surely the most heinous.



https://jamesmcanespy.co.uk

Never complained to a critic about a plot spoiler - once bitten twice shy and I'll just avoid them until I've seen the film - but I do remember how shocked and angry I felt the first time I read a Sight & Sound magazine film review.



No, the worst spoiler stuff for me these days are the trailers for "future presentations". They pretty much compress entire films into a minute or so. Here are three films I don't need to see because I'm certain I've already seen them: Conviction (I think she gets him released, yes I'm sure she does and they're gonna show me a tiny clip from every scene just to drum it home!), Brighton Rock (is that the climax of the film I see before me on the cliff edge? Yes, I think it could well be.) and The Eagle (How I enjoyed this Gladiator sequel. Loved it. All those plot twists up there on the screen for me to cherish.). And that's just three examples off the top of my head.

Well if you look at the movie 'The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford'. The title pretty much tells any ignorant viewer what's gonna happen, but even so, the movie was one the best movies out that year. So knowing what's going to happen doesn't always spoil a movie.



I think the problem with most complainers is that they don't want to be denied the surprise of some major plot twist, the 'I didn't see that coming' moments. The best way to remedy this problem is to just go and watch the movie and then listen or read the review.

I wholeheartedly agree; if you want to watch a film and don't want the plot to be revealed in any way then you should avoid all reviews and trailers and just go see the damn thing.

By watching trailers or reading/listening to reviews it's no fault but your own if the plot is spoiled for you.

Totally agree. If I really want to see a film I'll usually avoid your reviews until after I've seen it. I kinda wish I hadn't watched your initial reaction to Black Swan as the phrase 'Dario Argento on crack' perhaps hyped it up too much but that's my own fault for watching a video about Black Swan.

Indeed, I think the tension of TAOJJBTCRF is helped a greta deal by the fact that you know that Ford is going to kill James. That it is an historical fact also means there's little point in trying to obscure the outcome.



A decent story works regardless of knowing how it'll play out. Otherwise things wouldn't get re-watched. Heck, some things have more emotional punch when you know they're coming.



I'm fed-up with films that rely on a 'twist' to justify their existence.

Would mentioning that Harry Potter finally wins his battle with Voldemort at the end of DH part-deux count as a spoiler? (You mean, you can't imagine that happening in a genre-piece? Even if you've one of the few that haven't read the books yet?)



If you really don't want to know anything about a film, then avoid all film blogs and reviews (and friends) that are likely to be discussing it.



If a film relies on a genuine twist or two (e.g. Sixth Sense) how long should we agree that "we should not talk about this film" go on for?



Realistically, in my opinion, until a few weeks after a movie goes on DVD. If anyone had really wanted to see it by then, but hadn't, then it's their responsibility.



Oh and Bond will win the day at the end of the next 007 outing too. Oops!

I was kinda disappointed by sir K's spoiler of 127 hours, because not knowing the story would have made a more interesting film experience, before I only knew it was a mountain-climbing film.



It might be a genre thing. Spoiling an action film is lot harder than spoiling a thriller or a based-on-a-true-story film. What's the core of the film? Are there unspoilable films?



But yeah, a lot of trailers spoil a lot of movies really well. I saw the original True Grit not knowing anything about it and really went along, so it's this family this film's about - oh, it's this girl this film's about... The travelling your mind-set does when you grabble in anticipation is really essential. (The trailer for the remake has all the plot on it.) Sometimes even seeing the imagery in the trailer spoils the fun. On the other hand, decades of classics survive being spoiled by a slew of cine-writers...



Kubrick did it right. See the trailer for the Shining. All the marketing points are there, all the mood and brilliance, none of the spoilage.

I believe many movies indicate its major plot points simply due to their genre, codes and conventions, and the morals of the time in which he was made.



In college, before the class watched the film Double Indemnity, we were taught about the history of the Hays Code, and the codes and conventions of film noir and film at the time, so at the end when *SPOILER ALERT* Phyllis is killed, we were sort of unsurpised, as the morals of the time would not allow the criminals to get away with their crime.



More recently, when I watched Four Lions for the first time I knew it was inevitable that the sucide bombers were going to either blow themselves up or get arrested (will not say which in case of spoiling the film for people). However i felt as long as the story was funny and interesting it wouldn't matter. The real surprise of the film for me, was that I ended feeling some geniune pathos towards the charatcers.

I don't mind reviewers giving away plot to a certain point. Like you say, in order to properly review a film you need to give your audience a sense of the film before you can really start talking about it. I've written some reviews for the college paper (even got to attend some press screenings, I can safely say I envy your job even more after those) and trying to decide just how much plot to divulge can be difficult but there is simply no way you can talk about films like HP 7a and '127 Hours' without giving away plot points like the ones you mentioned. If you don't want to hear even those most basic of plot points then you certainly shouldn't be listening to reviews of it.



Trailers are far more worthy of public scorn. Don't get me wrong, I love trailers and would love to one day work in that part of the industry but modern trailers are horrific. Your 'Leap Year' review pointed out an alarmingly common trend I.E. giving away most of the plot and in the case of action movies, set pieces. In fact, one of the reasons I enjoyed 'Salt' so much was because everything from the trailer was in the first 40 minutes or so, there was still a good half an hour or more of 'virgin' footage. Something which is very rare these days indeed.

DR KERMODE or HOW I LEARNED TO STOP WORRYING ABOUT CRITICS AND LOATHED THE TRAILER.



In an age of over-marketing seemingly less complex, challenging and, arguably, interesting movies, I suspect one should be more weary of trailers than critics.



Wouldn't it be so much more refreshing to be tempted into a movie theatre with an excitable curiosity of what that stylishly enigmatic trailer had suggested -rather than having virtually pieced together the entire story from a formulaic information overload that battered you for two minutes and left you just thinking, I wonder how it ends(?)



Teaser trailers are great, so why not just leave it there. Look at the J.J Abrams teaser for his upcoming 'Super 8', that is interesting precisely because it reveals nothing. Less is definitely more. Unfortunately, with marketing now being the tail that wags the dog, less isn't going to get a look in.



Maybe they should be brave and follow the car/perfume advertising route. Random. Nobody will have the slightest clue as to what the hell the movies are about, thus everything will be a surprise. Eureka!

It's stupid that now it's gettign to point where you can't say anything about a film. For instance, out of my large group of friends, only I have seen Black Swan. Before I went to see it I was subjected to strict orders for which I was not to say anything about film, even saying whether if it's good or bad. Needless to say I was very taken a back.



I agree though, that if u don't want spoilers don't listen/read/watch reviews. Simples...

I would disagree strongly regarding the Unhappy Event at the end of Harry Potter 6. I haven't read any of the books and was thus entirely unaware of said Event until I heard it on Radio 5.



Personally, even though I put up a spoiler warning on almost every one of my blog entries I still try not to give everything away since I know what a nuisance it can be: for example the twist in the Sixth Sense was deliberately and maliciously spoiled. Similarly someone blurted out the fate of the Liam Neeson character in Star Wars Episode 1, and tried to defend it on the grounds that Star Wars fan boards had carried the news for months so it was fair game.



I think it comes down to what an audience can reasonably expect: no-one seriously doubts that Indiana Jones will win in the end but the casual filmgoer wouldn't have suspected that Vader was actually Luke's X#X#X#X#X#X#X#. It's a matter of judgement in individual cases.

It is very rare nowadays to see a movie which hasn't had it's plot spoilt to some degree by it's trailer. As the good Dr and martian_pyramid say, the "incident" for Hereafter is in the trailer (saw it on Monday, so knew exactly what it was about).



I don't mind plot spoilers if it gives me a better understanding of the movie, but sometimes I have turned away deliberately or not read a review/comment as I want to go to the movie with fresh eyes and no knowledge, simply expectation of what is going to happen.



However, I do have to admit that the good Dr does an admirable job in describing a movie to its fullest without spoiling the story for us. In the case of Harry Potter 6, I knew quite well of "the unhappy event" well before the movie was made as I had read the book.



And of course, with HP7b, SPOILER ALERT!!! TURN AWAY NOW!!!!!





LAST WARNING!!!!





Harry Potter DOES die. But he comes back to defeat the evil Voldemort once and for all.



END OF SPOILER. So, am I to be flamed? I certainly hope so ;-D.

If spoilers were so important then we'd never watch a film twice. Bad for DVD sales.

Relative to nothing, when did blog comments get so long?

Gulliver's travels had an awesome trailer. I got to see the film for free (as I wouldn't have paid for it).

Amusing story about Happy Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Before the book was released it was common knowledge (even revealed by J K Rowling herself) that several main characters were to be killed off. I read the book in just over a day. My next door neighbour's son was just starting to read the book. It was too tempting not to give away a spoiler so i told him that Hedwig the Owl dies. His mother proceeded to ban me from the house until he had finished the book! Imagine if i'd said that DD had died?!



I completely agree with you though Dr. Kermode, a good review must give a brief outline of the plot, which, in some cases, cannot be given without giving away certain spoilers.



However, do this then create a paradox? Don't read / watch / listen to a review so as not to have the plot given away? But then don't see the movie at all as you haven't read / watched / listened to a review so you don't know if it's worth going to see?



What do people think?



P.s. Bruce Willis is dead :O

Well to be honest, despite your protestations you do give away more spoilers than any other video reviewer I have seen. I am always at the resy to pause of skip forward. I know a couple of people who have stopped watching because of this. I like your reviews enough to stick around.

Now as far as seeing films without knowing anything, it has always been hard but these days near impossible. My favourite blind walk in was seeing Silence of the Lambs without having heard a thing. Amazing.

The defense you and Mayo raise with the Dumbledore situation about it being in a bestselling book holds no weight at all as I remember your Fellowship of the Ring review. The main points you raised were: "I haven't read the books" "I don't care about elves, hobbits and dwarves", "a film should work without the book". Now you loved that trilogy. Many people have the same train of thought in regard to Harry Potter.

As for Hereafter. You mentioned the opening and never went back to it. I don't remember *spoiler warning*'s name coming up again after that.

I hate to bolster your ego anymore, but you're a 100% correct. If I don't want to know the critique or review of a film, I'll keep away from sources that may divulge information.

For instance, I went to see 'Inception' only knowing it was directed by Christopher Nolan, I didn't listen to your review (until after my viewing), read any opinions or watch a trailer, so it was completely fresh; admittedly avoiding trailers is hard to do. I won't always do this, but when I want to I take the incentive to stay away from information about the film I will do.

People can find shorter descriptions or explanations of films, but they choose to listen to you.



Soylent green is people!

I've always thought that the key element of not wilfully giving away plot spoilers is essentially about being polite - you just don't go out of your way to spoil a key element of whatever film/book/whatever it is you are talking about because, well, it's just not The Done Thing. Having said that the Letter Writing Brigade that seem to delight in calling people on the slightest hiccup are far from helping their or anyone else's cause. As always it's the fanatics that make life that little bit less fun for the rest of us.

I agree with Mark I have to say. I think that once a film has been out for a while it becomes fine to talk about everything and anything that's in it. After all, this is a radio show about the discussion of film! I personally have never had any problem with either Dr. Mayo or Dr. Kermode giving away any spoilers. In fact I don't even like that word, they give away 'details' if anything. I mean the whole thing about 'the unfortunate event' is just silly. If you didn't already know about it years after the release, then you simply have not been living on this planet, let alone a film fan! And where does this all end? Are we not allowed to say Chief Brody blew up the shark? What about Mr. Eastwood Escaping from Alcatraz OH NO I SAID IT! Come on guys, this one falls into the realms of common sense.



Olly

Solution: Make your listeners aware you're going to give away plot spoilers during the review, thereby choosing for themselves whether to get gain an insightful recommendation or go based on gut instinct.



On the whole, spoilers don't matter anyway as long as you don't reveal the major plot twist or the movie's most shocking or powerful moment. Also it doesn't count for movies which are over a year old, critics should be allowed to give away what they want about a film after a year or so and discuss it openly. Because usually the stuff you 'spoil' are the most interesting parts of a film.



You can't not discuss Psycho without talking about how 45 minutes Hitchcock breaks the traditional Hollywood rules by killing off his lead actress. I got sick of hearing about Angels & Demons on your programme because I wanted to know what the last 40 minutes of ridiculousness were so I didn't have to put myself through the pain of watching it. The annoying thing was you almost got there before some tennis correspondent told you not to! Result: I had to go see it. Outcome: Worst £7 I've ever spent, would have been funnier had I not paid for the previous 100 minutes and have you spoil it instead.

Although accidentally finding out about spoilers can be irritating, it won't necessarily ruin a film. Psycho, Seven, There Will Be Blood and Don't Look Back are all films that had endings I knew about before watching and my appreciation of these great films didn't feel diminished in any way.



A good film doesn't need to rely on a surprising finale to fulfil my enjoyment of it, it's just another aspect to take into consideration.

I'm glad I saw Toy Story 3 before looking at the review in Sight and Sound, otherwise I wouldn't have been so emotionally affected by the scene where they all hold hands (the potentially unhappy event, so to speak).



One film whose ending I did not see coming was when I first saw "Saw" on DVD, my only question at the time being how would Jigsaw have been in the sequels (and then I found out).

I know you don't wear t-shirts, but maybe you can convince Simon to wear this one during the next show!



https://www.threadless.com/product/844/Spoilt

At least The Good Doctor doesn't act like John Carey on The Review Show. That guy just tramples on through like a massive elephant before anyone can stop him.

The problem is with written reviews where to write 'spoiler alert!' in the middle of the article will ruin the flow for both reader and writer. In spoken reviews, such as yours, it is far easier to have spoilers mentioned and so it isn't a problem.



My main issue is with spoilers on websites, however; usually they are poorly done which causes great annoyance.

OK, this is how it is. I like Mark Kermode's reviews and blogs. I TRUST his judgement.



I know he won't screw it up when reviewing a movie (well at least on purpose). That's why I watch his work. Because of TRUST. If he reveals a part of the plot in a review it's because he has to to explain the film. Simple as that.



As for the person who complained about 127 hours, read a freaking newspaper - it was headline news the world over!



Now, when can we start talking about The Dark Tower?

I remember queueing around the block at the Odeon Leciester Square to see "Empire Strikes Back", and having NO IDEA what I was going to find out, due to the complete absence of any advance information because there were simply no channels to do so.

Those days are long gone - no more surprises unless you close your eyes and ears to everything.

Damn straight Mark! Don't read, watch or listen to reviews if you're afraid of spoilers. Jeez do people really lack common sense?

The Exorcist isn’t about a medical problem? Well thanks for spoiling that surprise for me!

I knew, despite warning about the spoiler, someone would still find a way to complain about it. #1 - You didn't let me down, great job!



Personally, if I don't want to know anything about a film, I don't read anything about it before seeing it. Did so with Catfish and it made it worthwhile.



This is why I like ratings out of 5 or 10 or whatever you want to rate them out of because it gives a quick guide to the quality of the film without revealing anything.

hes a girl, shes a bloke, its a sledge, hes a ghost..... i think if its in the trailer thats ok to talk about, if the producers or director thinks its ok to put it in an advert then it is by deffinition not a spoiler, or that the makers of the film don't think its important enough to keep secret. Anyway as has already been mentioned there are many films that have their whole plot in the trailer (leapy ear, any jennifer aniston film ect.)



Oh and by the way the tsunami is in the trailer of Hereafter!

When I met Dr K at a book signing, the one thing I could think of to say in that awkward, what do you talk about while they're scribbling on your copy moment, was to thank him for NOT spoiling the wonderful Dean Spanley, a charming but very slight movie very dependent on the pleasure of discovery of its unfolding scenario which thus could easily have been spoiled. His review had given nothing away but had described just enough to make me seek it out in the millisecond that it was in the theatres.



It is often a tricky thing to paint a picture of what a film is like whilst skirting around what are key details within the film. I think some of them think their goal is the same as a school book report and fall to summarizing the plot. Unfortunately there are critics who even now are entirely insensitive to the issue and don't even try to avoid overdescribing a movie. Of course this leads to all critics being tarred with the same brush.



In the 90's Leslie Felperin on BBC GLR seemed to start her reviews with spoilers (in one instance describing a scene in detail which "turns out to be a dream" which revelation was clearly meant for the audience to discover themselves, on another occasion listing unexpected things that happen in Lynch's Lost Highway, and classically starting her review of Van Sant's Psycho remake with "in case you don't know what happens in the original..."). So I did turn off from all critics for nearly a decade until a friend suggested the Kermode + Mayo podcast, which I've found pretty reasonable.



Although I am annoyed that Dr K keeps giving away that a film is in 3D. I like to be surprised when they hand me the glasses.

Wise and sympathetic mentors dying mid-way through a story leaving a hero to struggle with the nascent powers is so common that it's almost characteristic of the heroic quest (Star Wars, Harry Potter, LOTR). It should come as no surprise to people familiar with this narrative form.



Neither should it be a shock when the mentor returns in some way.



Or when an orphaned character has a revelation about who their mother or father is part-way through a film.



Given many people are driven to complain about spoilers, I guess that means many people aren't familiar with these, and other common genre conventions used in an attempt to build drama. That can only be a good thing, because otherwise films may become more of a tick-box watching experience, than an emotional one.



Perhaps that's where some reviewers and film fanatics can go astray? Familiarity with film analysis and having a vocabulary informed by seeing hundreds of films increasingly removes them from seeing the film as though unfamiliar with the mechanics of story-making. Spoilers and twists appear less important because they are more familiar.



I know many friends of mine that make computer games experience them very differently to people like me that just play them. Also many friends of mine who write, experience books very differently. On the plus side - they have very interesting opinions about these things that I love to hear specifically because they don't see it my way.



As the good doctor says - if I don't want to know their views, potential spoilers and all - I don't have to ask.



On an unrelated note; Titanic is not a film about a ship sinking. That is part of the setting. No spoilers there IMO.

Why seek out a review KNOWING there's a chance the reviewer will divulge more than you'd like? And should you stumble upon one, stop watching / reading IMMEDIATELY if you want to preserve your ignorance.



As for family / friends perhaps letting something slip, well, that's our lookout.

#23 - Qui-Gon Jinn's death in Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace was leaked by the May '99 release of the film's soundtrack, wasn't it? The penultimate track entitled 'Qui-Gon's Funeral' being the guilty party...

The trailer for Four Lions really spoilt it for me because.....



SPOILER ALERT!







....it shows them all in fancy dress down at the London Marathon - thus the scenes where the film tries to create the 'will they/won't they get to London' tension, fail completely because we already know that they will. It also spoils the comedy reveal of their costumes.



I don't know many people went to see Four Lions without having seen the trailer first, but I'm betting it was a minority.

My worst spoiler though is in the Third Man.....





SPOILER ALERT!!!!!















They put Orson Welles's name in the opening credits, so you know he's going to appear at some point, which kind of spoils the 'Harry's Alive' reveal. So easily avoidable too (unless it was something contractual).



Still doesn't stop it from being one of my top five favourite films though.

@33 - Oliver McGuirk



The thing about the Unhappy Event was that it wasn't years after release, it was the week the actual film came out. Whether it was years after the release of the book is immaterial - many people hadn't read the books and had no intention of ever reading the books. And the makers of TV's Poirot and Marple don't blurt out the name of the murderer in the promotional bumf even though they've been in the books for decades.



@49 - Matth Stil:



Indeed: John Williams is notorious for this - Track 13 on his soundtrack CD of Presumed Innocent is "######'s Confession" (with the character name rather than #####), which gives the whole thing away. He's not alone - the track names on the CD for The Sixth Sense do include That Plot Twist.



------



Just a thought - and this goes for reviewers, bloggers and trailer editors: how would it be if detailed material was only given away from the first half of the film? Reviews could still suggest that the ending was weak or abrupt without saying why. You can say the movie is predictable. but at least let us have a go at predicting it.

Cinema trailers reveal too much, and remember it's hard to avoid seeing these if you are already in the theatre waiting to watch a new film! I recently enjoyed The King's Speech but have been totally put off going to see Brighton Rock, The Boxer and a couple of other upcoming releases because I feel like I've already seen the big moments in each of these and can predict the outcomes. Of course I might be wrong, but it makes me lose my initial interest. Trailers need to be MUCH cleverer.

For me, the enjoyment I get from a film is always from the cinematic experience itself; the cinematography, the performances, the direction, the dialogue. I can't really think of a time when prior knowledge about any particular incident or plot point within a film has caused me disappointment when I actually watched it. On the flip side of this, it's sometimes beneficial to be aware of certain plot points as it can help in avoiding films with awful "ooh, you'll never see it coming!" twists shoved in for the sake of it.



If you're really determined not to know anything about a film before you watch it, just don't read/listen to/watch any reviews. Asking a critic to talk about a film without revealing anything that happens in it is like telling a boxer to fight with one hand tied behind his back. Certain things need to be discussed to make a review worthwhile. Note that this does not mean the entire plot has to be discussed at length.

The worst spoiler I recall was seeing the trailer to last years Unstoppable, I sat in the cinema for 5 minutes and it was like I had got a buy one get one free movie ticket. I really do wonder who went to see the movie after seeing that trailer!

As someone who really, really, really, *really* hates spoilers, I think Dr. Kermode does an excellent job of telling "just enough". As you say, it's a decision that the reviewer has to make, and is probably one of the most important things spoiler-shy people like me look at when looking for a reviewer in whom to place our trust.



I _have_ had occasion to have stuff spoiled by Dr. Mayo, who I guess is focusing on the interview and not as adroit at skimming around the topic as an experienced reviewer like Dr. Kermode. Or perhaps he just does it to tease: remember Dr. Mayo and Jason Isaacs (hello!) prodding Dr. Kermode to reveal the climax of "Hachi: A Dog's Tale"?



But, yes: I do avoid listening to any movies I know I'm going to see as soon as they come out. I knew nothing about Inception going in - not the dreaming, not the chases, and I got a pleasant surprise when Ellen Page suddenly walked in. That's the joy of podcasts: I get to "hold" on movie reviews until I've had a chance to make up my mind :).



Oh, and in reply to comment #53: here's a fantastic list of trailers - movie and otherwise - which have been very good at spoiling their own product: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TrailersAlwaysSpoil

There are different levels of review and criticism. Ranging from Empire’s 4 star ratings that appear on the posters to in depth discussions of minor plot points in blogs such as Den of Geek etc. (Look any film up on Wikipedia and you get a plot synopsis too.)



I guess mainstream audiences looking for a good movie to see at the weekend just want a general recommend; the more hard core cineaste or genre fan is more used to point by point discussion and dissection.



In many ways it’s a pity reviewers don’t return to give a more in-depth review 6 months after the initial release; criticism after all means more than just giving a film the thumbs-up or thumbs-down. (e.g. The big twist in 6th Sense, how effective was it? I guessed it well before the big reveal towards the end.)



Take Inception as an another example; the meaning of its ending? Can this not be discussed now just in case someone hasn’t seen the film? For how long does this go on for?



In many ways film lags behind how the broadsheets review new fiction novels; in those the reviewers often does reveal plot points, discuss their plausibility etc; it’s a truer form of criticism; and readers don’t appear to object.



If people object to Mark giving too much away then look for a more ‘dumbed down’ form of review from a tabloid or an Empire star rating. For those with more than a passing interest in film I prefer some greater bite from a review.



Some films Mark should come back to some time later for a more in depth discussion of them. But not talking about a film because someone hasn’t seen it yet is a form of censorship I’d prefer we didn’t exercise.

alright Dr. K



i find you to be very sensitive to spoilers, so no complaints there



but your mate Simon Mayo is a disgrace! there seems to be something lodged in his brain that makes him incapable of refraining from giving away spoilers.



He's particularly bad when he's told not to give away a specific spoiler, he'll actually go right out of his way and blurt it out, not once but repeatedly! even you have had to step in and control him!



please pass on this info



also, a few of my friends, including myself, have stopped reading philip french because he gives away everything. it's a pity cause i really respect his views and they're quite illuminating. but he has ruined too many films for me that i decided he's just not worth the trouble



ps.



i haven't seen you this angry in a while!

Well put Mark, couldn't have said it better myself.



Saw the trailer for 'The Fighter' with Wahlberg/Bale, and it basically summarised the whole plot; so much so I don't think I need to go and see it - no review has ever had this effect on me.



Isn't the 'film critic' part of the whole marketing process for films? If it is such a problem you'd have been out of a job a long time ago. Movie goers love to do digging around for info on the film before they see it, hence the emergence of viral marketing eg. Cloverfield, Super 8. A mate of mine comprehensively reads the 'Plot' section of a films Wikipedia page before going to see it, although it would ruin it for me, it goes to show different people want different amounts of info. For people who want no info - don't read film reviews!



Also, why is that Claudia Winkleman person doing the film show on the BBC? Surely you'd be slightly more qualified, she knows nothing I swear! And she likes Let Me In!

Peter Bradshaw gave a review of a foreign language film in The Guardian recently where he didn't even include any details about the film - he just used flowery language to show how clever he thinks he is. If you want someone to see a film, at least tell them briefly what it's about.

I somewhat agree with you here, Mark.



I think it's completely reasonable for critics to give away some plots points during a review. In fact, I find reviews that actually discuss a film infinitely more interesting than reviews that have to dance around every detail in the film. That being said, I do have a problem with "incidental" spoilers that would ruin other films in the course of a review for a different film.



For example, a review of Audition would be next to impossible to deliver without at least hinting at the darker aspects that occur later in the film. I think listeners should expect this. However, if you were to give away the same plot spoilers for Audition during a review of Sex and the City (I'd like to see that transition...), the listener has every right to be upset.

I understand the frustration.

Now you have spoiled Hereafter for me Mark!!!



All those warnings makes me wanna watch the vodcast more!!!!!





:P

A warning to anyone who is yet to watch Toy Story III. Avoid the Oscar nominations podcast.



You have been warned!

Dr. K, there is a big difference between giving away plot and giving away the ending of a movie. The Vanishing is your primary crime. You gave away the ENDING of the film in your review of Buried which I found incredibly annoying as I heard you mention it before and wanted to track it down. Pleases stop giving away the endings of movies, I don't mind plot discussion.

In relation to your argument, A History of Violence is a classic example. I read Roger Ebert's review of Eastern Promises and in it he discussed how many critics had divulged too much of the plot of the former movie. The joy of that movie is not knowing where the story is going. Incidently, your review of it was great as you were aware of the plot discussions that could ruin it for a future audience, and kept it buttoned down to the essential what-you-need-to-know aspects.

Do you not agree that the less you know about the movie, the more enjoyable it can be?

Completely off topic but I just felt like I had to get this out in the air: review Zeitgeist: Moving Forward! If that film doesn't change your life forever, nothing will.

Spoilers and plot descriptions are always going to be tough: How do you get someone interested in your story without giving away key plot points? Case in point: Twilight. Technically, you don't discover the nature of R-Patz true being until a third of the way into the film, however it's printed on the dust jacket of the book!



You either do one of three things:



1) Never see films (nothing to spoil in that case!)

2) See every film completely on spec and resolutely avoid all film publicity and criticism (thus risking seeing absolute clunkers on a regular basis)

3) Accept the fact that, in order to make informed choices about your film consumption, you may lose an element of dramatic novelty and surprise.

Yes, I was gutted when I saw The Passion because I hadn't read the book. But I knew they were going to crucify that Jesus bloke because it was all over the trailers...

As a freelance critic I have found that there is ultra-thin line between describing the plot and giving away too much. Generally speaking, or at least for myself, I don't read, listen to, or watch reviews of a film until I have already seen it. For me reviews are not to let me know what to see and not see,I can do that on my own based on my taste/persuasions and interests. Reviews are critical feedback to filmakers, commenting on what worked and what didn't. They are show people a professional perspective on the art of film making. My two cents.



Also, is it weird that I consider Cronenberg's The Fly a romantic comedy of sorts?

Here's an interesting David Lynch quote I remembered. I'm not trying to make any kind of point with this or anything. I just thought it was interesting.



"I like to go into a theater, see those curtains open, feel the lights going down and go into a world and have an experience knowing as little as I possibly can except my friend said "You gotta see this film". And I think we owe it to an audience to let them experience a thing for themselves. Maybe you people could give them some incentive to go. Like "You're not going to believe this" you know "It's a beautiful experience" it's "this and this" but let them have the rest of it themselves."

@Videoclerk



Well, apart from the extended scenes of bodily mutation, the gore, that lovely dream sequence, the 50s style pseudo-science and one of the most tragic horror movie endings ever (is that a spoiler? I hope not), I guess it just might be!



Joking aside, I see where you're coming from. I think it's the sharp script that does it. That and the very prescence of Jeff Goldblum who is innately comedic in everything he does.

If its a film I really want to see I'll only read the two sentence summary at the end and look at the star rating. If its a film I'm not too bothered about I'll read the entire thing, but these days a lot of the plot is mostly given away by the trailers which, due to my cineworld card, I end up seeing quite a few times. I do my best to look away and cover my ears though. I hate Spoilers.

dear mark,

your in between a rock and a hard place.dont worry, you dont give away a fraction of any trailer ive ever seen, so crack on!!

@ Full Metal Jackson



Totally agree. I honestly don't mind being told key plot points or the twist, because those sorts of revelations come out of context and so don't make sense until I've seen the film.



If anything I've found that knowing the twist in some films allows me to make a more educated judgement about how well they are constructed, and thereby how well the twist works. For example, I saw the ending of the 1970s version of Invasion of the Body-Snatchers way before I saw the whole film, and even knowing what was going to happen it was absolutely terrifying. But it was better knowing what was going to happen, because when it did I felt it fitted much more, if that makes any sense.



I know that may not be true for every film, but that's just my personal experience.

Bravo, Bravo, Bravo. Point well made. [standing and applauding].

I discovered only this week that Dumbledore dies. Read the first 2 books and saw the first 3 movies then got busy. Death is no prohibitor these days to a character returning in a film, anyway. Especially one about magic. Maybe its more astounding if he dies and is *not* conjured back to life/ghost/apparition etc.

The spoiler you mention of Hereafter is given away in the trailer. So that's kind of a dud. But what I get more annoyed about is when classic films are given away to people in younger generations yet to see it.



I live in Australia, and the local newspaper once ran a few articles on great films (they were only aroung a paragraph long) in which it gave away the ending to Chinatown. Luckily, I had seen the film. But I thought what about people who are younger than me who want to see it. I think that is one of the greatest twists of all time, and I felt like complaining to the newspaper. I mean there's so much going on in that film, and so much to write about, that if you're going to write only a paragraph, you certainly don't need to write about the ending.



- Plot Spoiler Alert -



And the person who mentioned Orson Welles in The Third Man, that reminds of Se7en. Because I mean the fact that Kevin Spacey is in it, is so written about now, that is has kind of lost all effect. And whenever I see images of Se7en, it's pretty much always the image of Brad Pitt about to shoot him. None the less, giving all the twists and turns in these three movies does not stop them from being great.

Dr K



I think you should do a video blog on the greatest and worst trailers for this sort of thing though.

@TeamEdwyn,



Definitely agree with you here. I feel like sometimes critics overlook the fact that some listeners/readers have never seen some of the famous classic films they mention in their reviews. I wonder the percentage of new viewers to films like Psycho, Chinatown, and Citizen Kane already know the endings...



It seems like a lot younger viewers get interested in classic films through some sort of critical discussions about them, which often revolve around their endings. It's kind of a weird cycle.

I can't beleive the number of people suggesting don't read/watch reviews if you don't want to be spoiled... surely that is the whole point of reviews, to give you guidence of what the syle of the film is and how good it is which any good reviewer should be able to do without giving away honking great spoilers?

@chris hill - man, i so want to talk about the Dark Tower, but the one person i know who really cares hasn't finished it yet, and my partner thinks he might want to read it in the distant future so i'm not allowed to say anything at all about it.



and i still don't know what happens in the sixth sense, although i would like to as i cannae be bothered to watch it.

@Rakshawolf.... Re Dark Tower... Now that's one spoiler you really don't want to reveal.



As for the sixth sense here's a nice little link from "Scrubs" which gives it away: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xi6fowSFFS8



Remember, we all follow the beam!

I read the reviews and the plots in Sight and Sound. My husband and just about everybody else thinks I'm bonkers, but I just find that I enjoy the films more because I watch them in a different way. I'm not sure I would have fully understood what was going on in Black Swan when I saw it if I hasn't be aware of certain points in the plot. I don't always agree with the reviews and sometimes the summaries are somewhat loose so there is always a massive gap between the summary and review and my experience of a film. I think it stems from when I was studying literature when I was at college, those brodies notes were indespensible when dealing with Shakespeare and I know I got a lot more out of the plays I saw knowing what was going on and who was who. That said, I did see Alien the week it came out, I'd seen the review on Film 79 but nothing Barry Norman said prepared me for the shock of John Hurt's belly exploding and the mayhem that followed.

Well, I was one of the people that didn't know about Dumbledore. I've never read the Harry Potter books, and when I first heard Dr. K's review of the film, that was when I learnt the news.



To be fair though, I had absolutely no intention of watching the film, and didn't really care for any of the Harry Potter films at all, but still .. shame on you for ruining the surprise for me ;)

The boat sinks.



I was reading a discussion forum which listed all the spoilers people could think of in amusing ways which lead me to watch Pandorum because it sounded interesting! As case of reverse spoilerism?



TV programs are the worse for spoilers because they are shown in America months before being shown here, and then I refuse to get satalite so I wait further months for the DVDs. So surely its my fault if I listen to/read discussions?

I will reveal spoilers in this comment. You are warned.



As stated before, trailers have spoilt my enjoyment more than reviews. And I say this as someone who makes 20 minute plus videos breaking down the plots of bad movies in detail. My style is established, so you know that if you wanted to see it, you should probably avoid the video. The most I've been spoilt by a trailer ever is a trailer for Affliction, which spoils the climatic moment where Nolte kills Coburn and burns the body. Almost ruined the entire film - that particular trailer is not on the net, but it's included on the DVD.



The only time I've been spoiled is reading a review for The Bourne Supremacy, where a crucial plot event early in movie (Marie's death) was spoiled. I think a good way to see what would be really egregious to spoil would be to see what they DIDN'T show in the trailer - Bourne Supremacy leaves out this plot point, so the audience wouldn't know. Likewise, the trailer for 127 Hours doesn't show the climatic moment. Although I think you should probably watch the trailers after the films...

Actually, while I'm at it: I completely forgot Surrogates, where the final scene was in EVERY single trailer and TV ad. Shocking stuff.

Mark,



I was able to perform a social experiment this weekend !

I took my good lady wife to see 127 hours - she had not an idea about the film except that some geezer gets trapped in a crevice.

I actually think she had the best veiwing experience of the entire cinema.



Cheers.

Hi Mark,



Could you please spoil the end of Benjamin Sniddlegrass and The Cauldron of Penguins? It's such tripe I only made it halfway through.

Here's another reason not to care about spoilers too much. Everything is a remake!



https://vimeo.com/19447662

First of all, I'm not a grammar fascist Mark, really I'm not, but you can't "give away a plot spoiler". You can "give away the plot" or your review can "contain a spoiler"/"contain spoilers". These are your options.



(I've got to stop watching QI.)



In 1997 I heard a radio review of Titanic in which the reviewer (a moron on Capital FM) asked if Leonardo DiCaprio would ever do a film where his character didn't die. That is an example of an unforgivable spoiler. Sometimes reviewers just like to show off that they've all seen something we haven't. *sing song voice* I know something you don't know.



Generally I don't read/listen to reviews BEFORE I see a film. I read them after so I don't care if they contain spoilers. It's like an extension of discussing the film with your mates in the pub, but with professionals. It's very enjoyable to read/listen to intelligent discussion about a film I've recently seen. Or to hear others rant about how rubbish it was.



It is interesting that a professional critics would complain when criticism is levelled at him. Don't dish it if you can't take it.

Thank you Mark!



As an inspiring professional film critic, I started a blog last year for some of my reviews and I'm always thinking about how much of a film should I describe. I usually write a brief synopsis like IMDB does which for me seems reasonable but I've still had letters and e-mails from people complaining that I've exposed too much.



I find it deeply annoying and tedious, so I'm glad you've stepped up and addressed it! Here's my blog so you can see just how much I 'give away':



https://haydonsmoviehouse.blogspot.com/

@chris hill - went to your profile to find out if the bbc will let you PM folk, since i thought the Dark Tower was off topic, but i see from your previous comments that a film is finally in the making - i shiver with antici-pation. i recommend going round twice with the books, starting the second time with the newly revised Gunslinger, the differences are minor but enough to add to the deja-vu-iness of the experience. i also note that you seem pretty well balanced, always nice :) and proving that the art one ingests is a pointer to one's personality.



will check out the scrubs link, ta! (or should i say, thankee-sai)



may you have long days and pleasant nights.



i'm easy to find on fb, btw

I agree with you Mark. It would be like if you got critisied for saying in Titanic the ship sinks.

Keep doing what your doing. You can do no wrong.

Hi Dr K



I understand your frustrations but why is this whole thing of reviewing a film treated like rocket science? Surely a review should include a general outline of a film, i.e. what's it about, and basically is it any good, i.e. the script, the acting, etc.



It's okay to talk about the arm cutting sequence when reviewing 127 Hours for the same reason it's okay to talk about the fact that Titanic sinks. Talking about what happens at the beginning of the new Clint Eastwood film is also fine because the film is based around the aftermath of this event. But surely divulging the death of DD isn't necessary in reviewing HP 6. Is it?

Never mind critics revealing spoilers; what about Trailers?!



Modern trailers are getting pretty obtuse in their depictions of plotlines. A recent example of this would be the Iron Man trailer. Most of that trailer is simply paraphrasing the first half of the film; he gets captured, he builds Iron Man MK1, he escapes in Iron Man MK1, he builds Iron Man Mk 2, Jeff Bridges becomes evil. Therefore, when I sat down to watch the film in the cinema I found the first 30 minutes fairly redundant because I knew exactly what was going to happen and how he was going to escape.



It seems to be mainly comic book movies that do this. Both the trailers for The Green Lantern and Thor look like they are commiting the same crime (although I think I'm going to be avoiding these films this summer. They look aweful).



This is in contrast to a trailer like Black Swan, which I thought was a brilliant trailer. It gave away very little plot but completely cpatured the feel and mood of the film.



So I say this to distributors (as if any of them read this blog); use trailers to whet out appetites and get us excited. Don't use them to expose large chunks of plot and story.



P.S: I don't think I've ever read/listened to a review by Dr K that has revealed too much to be regarded as a spoiler. Dumbledores death is as common knowledge in the Western world as Romeo and Juliet's. If you didn't know about it, chances are you're not the target audience for a Harry Potter film.

The trailer for Hereafter even shows the tsunami. It's out of context, but it still partially gives away something which is supposed to be a shocking part of the film.



Most 'full-length' trailers, the kind you see before a film at the cinema usually show the entire plot; Charlie St. Cloud being a recent example.

I don't think the tsunami is a really important plot point of Hereafter. You could replace the event with any other traumatic event and the story would work virtually the same. It is the actual sequence which is impressive and knowing that it is going to happen doesn't detract from appreciating the scene. A bit like when the Titanic starts to sink, you know it's going to happen but the special effects are still very impressive and really the only laudable part of that film.



In the film Alive, you pretty much have to know that it starts with a plane crash even before you buy your ticket. And so, at the start of Alive... there's a plane crash. It's another impressive sequence and can be enjoyed despite the fact that you knew it was going to happen, and that you knew that quite a few of the passengers were going to survive.



I wonder if any adult on the planet could have gone to see United 93 without knowing how that was going to play out. Unfortunately, during the critical moment some people decided to come in very late to the screening I was at and were very disruptive in finding seats. That ruined the film for me and a lot of other people more than any spoiler could have.

For me, plot twists are all well but they need to be well executed. 2 films that show this effectively are The Usual Suspects (piling twist upon twist) and Memento (make the story so confusing that the audience concentrates on the story before realising its gone off in a different direction!). This means that reviewers have other stuff to talk about instead of revealing plot points.



this is also why I have moved most of my viewing to World cinema, as I have had very little reviewwed exposure and, as such, have enjoyed films such as Intacto, Ichi the Killer, Martyrs and pretty much anything by Michael Haneke, all with wonderful stories and plots.



This does remind me of the Crying Game/Oscar dilemma too, but i don't want to give away too much...

i think this sums up the whole debate.. in 5 seconds

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FR1aGWOOH0s

This reminds me of Steve Martin's opening speech at the Oscars a few years ago, which I paraphrase here:



"Audiences complain that the trailer gives away too much of the movie. For instance, last year I saw the trailer for "Dude, Where's My Car?"...and it ruined it for me! But then, it could have been my fault as I had read the book."