Are reviews now a days like wikipedia articles? seriously is like reading the freaking summary of the movie, cant they just i dont know, be good journalist and say if the movie is good or not? why do critics now a days feel like they have to write 30 paragraphs? Im pretty sure people from the hype can write much better reviews than most of this so called Journalists.
Customarily, mainstream reviews are consumer advocacy - is a movie worth spending $$ on? Of course, a simple
vote doesnt justify a professional salary.
So a review is typically padded out with a rough plot description, some quasi-technical observations on pacing, performances, etc. and/or witty commentary and putdowns of the studio system, washed-up movie stars and hack filmmakers. But in terms of a basic consumer recommendation, theres really no need to divulge spoilers.
In contrast, academic criticism (the kind you find in film journals) is in-depth analysis. And it assumes the reader has
already seen the movie - so spoilers are both expected and irrelevant.
My theory: some of the more thoughtful reviewers savor the opportunity to write about serious movies from serious filmmakers. I.e., they transition into academic critic mode. As such, they are more likely to divulge spoilers (necessarily, arguably) as part of their more scholarly examination and appraisal.
Moreover, its understood (or perhaps not
) that the reviewer-turned-critic is now grading on a curve. Meaning that the 3 stars they gave to the last Fast & Furious movie (as a mainstream consumer recommendation) cant really be compared to the 2½ star evaluation of, say, Paul Thomas Andersons latest work (which is being
critiqued by different and higher artistic standards). Of course, this sort of discrimination is invisible to RTs aggregate/binary scoring system; there, a review is either fresh or rotten.
