Critics and Spoilers

It appears that a well known Australian critic has gone out of his way to include a major spoiler (in the first line) of his review of Scre4m. Namely, the identity of the killer. Given that a strong component of the Scream franchise is the “whoddunit” aspect this would seem to be bloody-minded and disrespectful of both the film-makers and the intended audience. The critic clearly didn’t like the film but is that any excuse to ruin it for others by revealing such a major twist? No, absolutely not.

Social media has already started stirring with the early swell of a backlash and it’s interesting that many leading the charge are local film critics. I’m not surprised. Such an egregious review has the potential to besmirch their reputation by association.

So what is the responsibility of a film reviewer? Who ultimately are they accountable to? What damage can such a revelation cause a film or is something like Scre4m “critic proof”? What if it was an Australian film?

I know there is a stream of thought that says film critics are the natural enemy of the film-maker. But on listening to a sudden plethora of podcasts by professional film reviewers, my impression is that most are conscientious in their approach and considerate of the audience in regard to things like plot spoilers.

I was listening to a local podcast today where spoiler alerts were being given for films 30-40 years old! Okay, that may be extreme but it indicated an acknowledgement of a certain responsibility to the listener, a courtesy I am sure is extended in other media formats.

I may not always agree with critics’ thoughts on a film but I can at least acknowledge a well argued opinion. Deliberately spoiling a film, however, is inexcusable.

Do you pay any attention to film reviews? Does it influence your decision on what to see? What do you think of the inclusion of spoilers in reviews?

Avatar - I See (Through) You

I braved megaplex cinema hell on Tuesday to watch the most hyped film of the year ... and came away underwhelmed. Then I was overwhelmed (and perplexed) by the adulation for this movie by my learned film-making colleagues. Simply stated, I was bored for most of the running time of Avatar. No dramatic tension, no characters I had emotional buy-in for, no thrills or surprises. No matter how dazzling the technology, it can never replace the joy of a story well told.

My (tongue-in-cheek) review:

"Welcome to Pandora! Where exposition and bad dialogue thrive. Okay, yes, the technology was impressive though some of the creature designs were improbable at best (a beastie that evolved bullet proof armour in the shape of a hammer-head solely for the purpose of defeating: Iron Man, Imperial Walkers and souped up, 'Aliens' style power loaders = evolutionary genius!) and it was curious to see that helicopters now require two main rotors in the future while the humble wheelchair remains the pinnacle of paraplegic transportation.

The story makes no sense. The Company (obviously tired of trying to weaponise Aliens) goes to great expense to infiltrate the natives due to its fear of arrows. Giovanni Ribisi playing Paul Reiser playing Burke playing Parker wants to impregnate Sigourney Weaver with an Ali- ... oh, hang on ... no, he wants to obtain the unobtainium which is, um, unobtainable due to the dudes with arrows and big ears living in Rivendell ... I mean Treehome.

The cunning plan is to create Avatars that are identical to the natives in all respects ... except they wear pants and Marine tunics. Ken Watanabe (or was it Zoe Saldana?) then teaches Sam Worthington's avatar to be a samurai. This goes on for what seems like three hours with no stakes, no conflict and therefore little interest. Yawn.

Finally, the evil military dude sees the drawback of diplomacy (after a brief stint at Copenhagen no doubt) and decides some man-made global warming is in order.

The Ewoks are then rallied by Sam to defeat The Empire and bring peace to the Galaxy in a preposterous battle sequence that feels interminable.

I had no emotional buy-in with any character and for most of its length I was just bored. Technology cannot replace a story well told no matter how dazzling it may be."