|
Reviews
May 4, 2018 18:13:32 GMT
via mobile
Post by sgev1977 on May 4, 2018 18:13:32 GMT
I don't think the Radio Times reviewer is very good but most professional film critics don't care for spoilers. And IMHO they shouldn't. If you want to do a good work reviewing a work you should be free to talk about it.
People right now are obsessed with being surprised by the plot and I respect that but I sincerely don't understand it. Maybe for certain films but not for this. I think even the cast and crew is freely talking about the themes and scenes in the series.
|
|
|
Post by miriel68 on May 4, 2018 18:35:00 GMT
There is still a substantial difference between the review written after the episode has aired and before it has aired, IMO. It's quite ok to write an analysis of the episode "the day after", so the viewer may compare their own impressions with those of the critic. But do you think it would be right for the reviewers to write about the Child in Time before it aired and say casually "ah, of course the fact that the little girl has never been found is so hearbreaking"?
|
|
|
Reviews
May 4, 2018 18:42:24 GMT
via mobile
Post by sgev1977 on May 4, 2018 18:42:24 GMT
TBH I don't think The Child in Time was about finding the girl.
I read a lot of reviews with detailed description of the plot and scenes so I sincerely don't understand the obsession with spoilers.
|
|
|
Reviews
May 4, 2018 18:57:29 GMT
via mobile
Post by roverpup on May 4, 2018 18:57:29 GMT
TBH I don't think The Child in Time was about finding the girl. I read a lot of reviews with detailed description of the plot and scenes so I sincerely don't understand the obsession with spoilers. Me either sgev. I think with certain movies (like with The Crying Game or the new Avengers film) spoilers should be avoided in reviews but I don't think Patrick Melrose is one of those movies. My point about comparing PM to something like Hamlet or RIII was to show that knowing the entire plot (and themes) doesn't necessarily spoil anything when the major element is in seeing the interpretations of actor within the context of the story. My opinion is that I think PM is a film the falls into the later category. Even if I hadn't read the books I don't think I would be going to it to see what happens in the end. I really want to see HOW this particular character goes on his journey. :-))
|
|
|
Post by onebluestocking on May 4, 2018 19:06:15 GMT
It's not like it is a Surprise Twist! kind of movie, so I see no trouble with spoilers. However IMO it's a lazy way to write, sometimes this type of review reads more like a synopsis.
Have the critics still only seen the first 2 episodes? It must be hard to review only half of a series.
|
|
|
Reviews
May 4, 2018 20:16:21 GMT
via mobile
Post by sgev1977 on May 4, 2018 20:16:21 GMT
It's not like it is a Surprise Twist! kind of movie, so I see no trouble with spoilers. However IMO it's a lazy way to write, sometimes this type of review reads more like a synopsis. Have the critics still only seen the first 2 episodes? It must be hard to review only half of a series. Agreed with reviews that read like synopsis. They aren't good! It seems to me that most people have watched just two episodes but the woman who wrote the NYT article clearly watched three. She explicitly described a Steadicam shot in the third one! The same with the woman who works for the editorial, Picador. In the case of three formal reviews, it seems to me thst The Telegraph and THR writers watched the first two but the Radio Times author just one.
|
|
|
Post by miriel68 on May 5, 2018 7:57:28 GMT
TBH I don't think The Child in Time was about finding the girl. I read a lot of reviews with detailed description of the plot and scenes so I sincerely don't understand the obsession with spoilers. Of course it wasn't. But understanding that it is not about finding the girl is something that the viewer should find out on their own, IMO. It is embedded in the narrative and a way to link with the characters, because this is also their journey: from desperation and clinging to the hope that the miracle is possible to the acceptance that even with this unimaginable tragedy they have to find a way to live and move on. I watched the film with my daughter who hasn't read the book and when he realized - just like Benedict after this heartwrenching scene at school - that the girl would never be found, she was devastated and it made her re-evaluate the meaning of the whole movie. Of course, you can watch the film knowing the whole plot and just enjoy the performances - like in RIII where the point is in fact he-will-he-portray-the-monster-comparing-to-all-other-actors - but it is somehow a less immersive and emotional experience, IMO. I went to see IG having seen far too many clips from the film and it spoilt my experience, to a point - I wasn't able to appreciate fully the development of the character, because I already knew how it would be portrayed. And yes, I knew quite a few things and watched the other movie with Jacoby BEFORE I went to see it. Just to be clear, I am not talking about not saying anything about the theme or the plot. But you can do it in an intelligent way, without simply writing kind of the synopsis of the film/ episode: just as I like to enjoy the performances I do like to enjoy (and discover) in which way the themes from the book have been transferred on the screen, what narrative structure has been chosen on so on. I think it is perfectly all right if the people enjoy reading everything they can about the movie / series before seeing it, for example reading the script. However, my objection to the radiotimes was that it ambushed the readers, whether they wanted to know "too much" or not.
|
|
|
Post by queenzod on May 5, 2018 8:16:42 GMT
We need to resurrect Roger Ebert. He knew how to write a review.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on May 5, 2018 12:07:33 GMT
TBH I never liked Ebert style! A few times he just talked about personal stuff and I though: “wow, I don’t care. I just want to know about the movie!!!” Ironically the documentary about his life ( more “personal stuff”) shows how wonderful human being he was! I think a lot of specialized publications as Film Comment and Cahiers du Cinema wrote long essays with very detailed stuff. Sight and Sound used to write the complete synopsis of new releases movies before a short review. I would think the fear for spoilers is something very new. But someone like Hitchcock, as the people from the Avengers, worried bout them and did everything possible to ensure people didn’t know a lot before entering the theatre. It’s crazy how Anthony Lane was “attacked” because he wrote a little too much in The New Yorker about the Avengers. Even Michel Phillips was “criticized” (harassed?) on Twitter because he dared to said the ending was bleak. You never know what people considers spoiler! He actually wrote an interesting column about spoilers: www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/movies/ct-mov-movie-spoilers-avengers-0427-story.htmlI saw how he was villified by fans but it seems he really worried about not to offend them (although the review was negative. Maybe that’s why fans were rude with him using the spoilers as excuse!). Anyway I sincerely don’t care for spoilers. I can enjoy something even if I know surprising plot twists. After all the first thing I did after The Avengers was to read the complete summary. I still haven’t watched it but I was tired of all that secrecy!
|
|
|
Post by mllemass on May 5, 2018 13:35:01 GMT
I think that some movies (like The Sixth Sense) are spoiled if you know what happens before you watch them, but others aren't. I really don't see any reason to give away the plot in movie reviews or even book reviews. It even bothers me if they say "Wait til you see what happens at the end!".
|
|