Lately I’ve really focused on this issue, as there are numerous professional critics who have forever grabbed fame and honor through their work, yet when it comes to writing their reviews, there tends to be an excessive amount of spoiling involved. I’ve always had the state-of-mind that the best theater experience can occur when the filmgoer doesn’t have a great deal of details surrounding the nature of the production they are about to witness. Having been a part of various different (film) test screenings, one of the great beauties about those shows is that when you walk in there’s a good chance that you don’t know much about what you’re about to be seeing. Walking in blind can be a very key quality about a theater experience, as such was the mood when I saw Phone Booth (TBA 2003), Marci X (TBA summer, 2003), and Tears of the Sun (March 7, 2003).

When you barely know anything, the experience of watching the stories unfold can be that much more enjoyable and mysterious because movie trailers and/or critic’s comments have not implemented certain possible theories into your head already. (When blind) You’re going off your own perceptions and not the brief comments you heard from a movie critic like Roger Ebert or someone credible. When moviegoers scan critical reviews, the comments stated in the print can be stuck in your head and as you watch the features play out, it’s not hard to play back those comments and interpret it for yourself. In a sense, it can be brainwashing, as it already throws your perceptions into a state-of-mind angle that wouldn’t have been there if you hadn’t read the critiques. You’re basically going off someone else’s critiquing and critiquing off them. Shouldn’t it be your critiquing and critiquing off them?

I don’t have a problem with film critics who summarize the point of the movie, analyze the acting, directing, script, etc. But when it comes down to the hardcore details in how 75% of the movie (if not more) plays out, I find that you already have a good grasp of the film without handing over the money. Many movies need to be seen anyway regardless of that for the really strong points hidden beneath the surface of it all, but when it comes to other flicks some critics are so enthused to include as much as possible.

When I define a good critic, I would say it is someone who while doesn’t explain the movie, (they) more so describe (and critique) without summarizing. We go to the movies to experience a story play out and to be surprised when certain plot elements show their face. But there are those critics who are determined to reveal some of these points in their reviews to back up their statements. When it comes to these situations, the reader is left to a scarcity of suspense, only to be allowed to exclusively evaluate the other components positioned under the surface of it all that they don’t yet know. While however grand those aspects might be, it still takes away a good suspenseful touch out of the ride.

A good example of this was my favorite film of 2001, In the Bedroom. When I walked into the drama, I did not know what it was about even though it had been out for a few months. The acting nominations and everything had my interest in curiosity, so I took a shot at the indie project. I knew some incident rocked this family involved in the story, but had no other knowledge outside of the fact that it was supposedly damn good. When the premise got rolling and the main crisis took place, it had a very deep emotional effect on me because I hadn’t read any reviews (that spoiled the fact) on the film (outside of brief quote descriptions).

This was one of those movies that probably wouldn’t have had the same impact on me if I had known the deadly secret beforehand. It was the surprise element and the "donning" factor (though I predicted the main incident a scene in advance) that really riveted my world. Having my emotional state already been rocked over by this suspense and shock factor, the rest of the movie was an intense ride even if the film is a slow-moving drama. It was intense in the ways of its filmmaking and the use of silence, acting, and directing over fast-faced techniques. It was art-house at its very finest. It is not a movie for everyone, but definitely a must-see for mature folks who admire outstanding filmmaking when it comes along.

I can honestly admit that noting the crisis’s in films can be a very easy trap to fall into when reviewing certain pictures. It’s an easy way to describe the movie and compare to others and whatnot. But I find that the best critics are those who can stray away from revealing such, and instead, glide around the path while still critiquing it. Rather than spoiling events highlighted in the plot, you can build your own suspense into the review for readers even though if you do it too much, it can be over-hyping (as I unintentionally and unfortunately did for many with Signs). I think I’ve fallen into this trap at least once in the past (plot detail), but don’t believe I’ve ever given away substantial info that would take too much away from experiencing it as it is unraveling.

The one big factor that sparked my debate on this topic (and influenced me to write this) was after browsing many of Ebert’s reviews for about thirty-to-sixty minutes. In a lot of the critic’s written critiques, he has managed to include plot detail after plot detail, leaving about 25% of the primary material to be unknown to the reader in some releases. Coming from such a universal icon as Roger Ebert, I found this sort of shocking in a way, as I would’ve thought someone of his caliber would have the decency to leave needed secrets and unknowns silent until the viewer has the chance to witness it for themselves. There are many movies out there that can still maintain a high rating if the plot is mentioned to a hefty degree (as there is still heavy substance to be interpreted beneath it all), but for others it’s like spoiling a movie so your readers don’t have to watch it.

I realize that there’s a large portion of adults who prefer to know what they are walking into if they pay a hearty $10 dollars at the ticket window (and $7.50+ worth of concession stand goodies). But I strongly feel that some critics still go too far in explaining what a movie is all about when they should really be critiquing without revealing. You can still persuade others to take the journey and get your point across without mentioning the real in-depth pointers. You just have to take on a creative angle. This is coming from someone who’s not really a reviewer to begin with, as I do it for more of a hobby, but it’s one of the aspects I’ve tended to notice as of late.

Though critic’s reviews are a large segment of my debate, movie trailers themselves can often times do too much damage in this department. Nowadays, studios are so intent on spoiling a lot of material in films that when audiences actually get to the point of occupying the theater’s seats, some of the gold has already been brought to the eyes in ads. Some criticizers actually brought this up when it came to Paramount’s thriller, Double Jeopardy. The Ashley Judd/Tommy Lee Jones thriller featured a trailer that nearly summed up the entire film with the ending pretty spelled out already. The surprising factor was that unlike a movie like Random Hearts (which looked to be much of the same situation), Jeopardy sold tickets and wound up to be a $100 million blockbuster.

One of the reasons I adore test screenings is that you usually get to see the films before the official previews are out. In other words, the material is fresh. Though some branded There’s Something About Mary as a trailer that revealed a lot of key jokes, I still thought it was one great romantic comedy and it still had me laughing even when the ads had spotlighted some moments. Though, having seen both Phone Booth itself and the preview Fox came up with (after I had seen the movie), I was pleased to see that the studio had promoted the movie to pretty solid extent. Nothing was revealed too far, and it led the appropriate amount of suspense all the way through.

Sometimes studios say more than they should for purely marketing purposes. Back when What Lies Beneath debuted, the trailer began with the ghost story and slowly transitioned into the Ford-having-an-affair angle. Many filmgoers believed this was saying too much at the time, but as I thought about it, I think I had figured out what DreamWorks wanted to do. A creepy ghost story is a very easy male-skewing factor. Guys like this stuff and with the affair element thrown in, you’ve just created an interest from the other gender, which just so happens to have the potential to bring in twice the attendance (males and females). The company had taken what could’ve been a heavy male attraction and turned it into a solid date movie with simply a trick in the marketing push. And it worked like magic at the box office.

What I sometimes don’t understand are those typically young teenagers who venture back from test screenings and post major spoiler reviews that are sent into the major film reviews fan-sites. I don’t know if it’s just me, but I find it rather pointless to be heavy on spoilers. I know it may be controversial, but in a sense I slightly view it as the teens enjoying the power by doing such even if some people don’t want to read all of it. It may give them a sense of power that they are not used to having, and a sense of control. And also, it gives them fifteen seconds of fame and attention. For anyone who’s seen Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back, the Kevin Smith comedy really nails this underground world to the penny. What I’d like to know is if someone else wrote a spoiler-heavy critique and sent it in, whether or not one of the usual teen-spoilers would enjoy reading them or not.

I guess in a sense it can be looked at in a sort of Two Towers or Matrix Reloaded angle. I know several people who are obsessed with early gossip and buzz on these two films, as they’re always gathering as much early information (of detail) as they can. But in my perspective, being such huge films, wouldn’t you rather be surprised than be expecting? An online friend of mine is constantly letting me in on buzz involving The Two Towers’ hugely long battle scene. Wouldn’t a big fan or anyone looking forward to this sequel prefer to walk in without knowing anything (or much), making the surprise element all the more grand?

On one hand, it’s like researching everything you can on The Usual Suspects before seeing it, already taking some of the suspense away with the work you did. Wouldn’t you want to figure out the secrets as the story was unfolding? Isn’t that the entire point? While off topic, for anyone who hasn’t seen that movie and loves figuring out the "truth" behind movies a la The Sixth Sense, The Others, or one of those, Usual Suspects is one of the biggest mac-daddy’s of the genre. I will never get to re-experience the feeling I got at the concluding scene of the Bryan Singer thriller in my first viewing on DVD.

In a world where audiences by the masses rely on critic’s reviews and movie trailers for dependence, I just have to ask the question of how much is too much? Studios can too easily place profit over quality, with that meaning that they’ll do what they can to attract attention even if it means including spoilers in promotions. And the opposite end of that being the quality, where companies will keep it vague and mysterious; the way I think a movie (of certain genres) should be advertised. When an audience walks into a motion picture, there’s a good chance that many of the moviegoers want to be thrilled in some aspect whether it’s a comedy, thriller, or action movie.