Subscriber Fred Adair responded to yesterday’s write-up of “Diane” by pointing out that “It's a fine line to walk between describing enough plot to faithfully review vs giving 'spoilers' that make readers feel like they've seen it already. You went over the line on this one Ty, IMHO.” Fair enough, and I’ll answer that it’s always a delicate balance for a critic between giving away too much and wanting to discuss things like performances, direction, themes, all of which require divulging *some* amount of story. My general rule of thumb is: Anything in the first third of a movie is set-up and can be discussed, anything in the middle third is development and should be considered on a case-by-case basis, and anything in the last third is resolution and should be avoided. Exceptions abound in all three instances, of course, and whatever I do, it’ll be too much info for someone!
But I’m curious: What’s the line of spoilerage for you when reading reviews or other coverage of a movie or TV show? And how does one keep one’s innocence in a tell-all media world? Feedback and examples/horror stories invited, thanks.
I find that all reviews and all trailers give too much away. All I'm looking for is whether a reviewer whom I respect and typically agree with (Hello, Mr Burr) likes it or loves it or hates it. I want nothing more than to go discover everything else the film has to offer on my own, which is what the reviewer got to do.
As someone who shoves his fingers in his ears and clamps his eyes shut during all movie trailers, I'm as spoiler-averse as they come. Consequently, I'll rarely read a review ahead of time; I can usually tell if it's a movie I want to see or not. BUT! In the case of something like this -- a movie I'd never heard of and probably wouldn't normally see -- I'll typically skim the first few paragraphs, see if it's of interest, then check the score/rating. If I end up seeing it, then I'll come back and read the review in full.
If I’m already planning to see a film, I’ll look for the first and last paragraph of a review, but hold off on the rest until I’ve seen it. I’m often reading reviews on the subway ride home. As for spoiler content, I reluctantly think anything that’s in the trailer or the first 20 minutes is fair game, although I hate seeing a scene in the last 20 minutes and realizing I’ve already seen it in the trailer! Usually movies that give away the climax, followed by “6 months earlier” for the rest of the story, aren’t very good (I’m looking at you, Last Voyage of the Demeter). But I’d rather have a reviewer note that the trailer-spoiler exists, than repeat it.
I agree with Ty on his one-third analysis. I'm a theater critic in New York City and am regularly faced with a decision of how much to reveal about a show. I just reviewed a show where I talked about some key points in the opening that are played out in the course of the show. I wrote about how those key points played out in general terms without detailing specifics. I carefully avoided revealing the climatic events in the last parts of the play that payed-off the key points from the opening. It is a balancing act; sometimes it's just a review, and sometimes it's a critique.
I tend to follow those rules of thumb, but I've also started questioning them a lot more as I recognize that there are so many people doing newspaper-style film reviews whose purpose is to recommend/warn and that I seldom actually use those to decide what to watch nowadays (as i get older, I become more omnivorous and have bigger lists of people's work to catch and avoid). When I blog or post on Letterboxd, I want to talk about what's interesting, even in a bad movie, and what struck me as off, even in a good movie, and in a lot of cases that involves talking about the ending.
(I don't often succeed, inevitably producing a lot of six-paragraph essays saying "this element was pretty good and this one was kind of disappointing", in part because there are a lot of movies in the middle of the bell curve and not particularly special and in part because I've never honed my craft like it was my job, but the ones where I can say "you may think it's good or bad but this bit was INTERESTING" are the ones where I feel I've actually contributed something.)
Anyway, I've sort of come around to thinking that if you're going to go through the effort of writing up your thoughts on a movie to start/continue discussing it, you might as well talk about the whole movie, so long as you make it clear that's what you're doing.
To divide a movie into thirds seems an odd approach to preventing plot-spoilage. For this viewer, the first third is often the critical time for engagement-- diluted if I already know too much. Here is where I may meet characters / actions whose nuances are meant to peak curiosity -- essential for sticking with the movie at all. Perhaps sometimes the film critic gets so carried away with the pleasures of his/her own excessive depth analysis as to leech out possibility for viewer discovery. I.e. Abstruse, marvelous Pauline Kael. (BTW looking forward to Diane anyway, as with most of your suggestions.)
I hate any kind of spoiler. Here is what I would say -- upfront the reviewer could give an overall rating (as most do) then sub-ratings for acting, script, directing, pace, etc. Then list a couple of movies along the lines of "if you liked these, you'll like this". Or a pithy "For XXX fans only (horror, love story, etc) or "see it only for the action scenes; plot is weak".
Then a couple of non-spoiler paragraphs about what worked/did not work, followed by a "read no further if you hate spoilers" warning. They say whatever you like. I'd stop reading at the warning.
Your Rule of Threes makes a lot of sense to me. In general if I want to see a movie etc. I might skim the review to see if it's worth it before seeing it.
But spoilers abound everywhere, of course. Young Frankenstein was ruined for me by my friends who saw it before me. They told every single joke except the very last one, and we were young teens and I'm not sure they got it. Growing up in my crazy house, I got it, and I thought it was hilarious — and hilarious that they didn't appear to have gotten it.
My first true spoiler was reading in the Globe magazine, "Who doesn't know by now that Darth Vader is Luke's father?" Err, that would be me. It was a year after Empire Strikes Back was released, though, so I couldn't really complain and I knew it. I was annoyed at the Logan Roy reveal the morning after Succession dropped, for sure. I like that NPR's Pop Culture Happy Hour will have a general conversation first and then release another episode with spoilers.
But my general rule of thumb is, if I don't want to know something, if I really want to go fresh into a book or a movie or a TV show, or even music, I can't read about it or listen to anything beforehand. It works, mostly, but then again I don't see a lot.
Less is more- but a writer helps me get hooked into the material and take a chance on a film. I read critical articles to enjoy the writer’s (your) wit and ability to “stand in” for me…Wouldn’t be grand to (like a book club) have a introduction- then a follow up discussion afterward. That is what this flexible platform can do. Ha! I have never joined a book club!
In the 40 years I have been reading reviews, I have been mad at a critic only once for giving away too much.
In reading about A Star is Born in The NY Times, the reviewer informed us Bradley Cooper’s character dies. The ending was ruined. Ty never has spoiled a movie for me. And I have read all his reviews since his Globe days.
So my answer is, Ty, you do it the right way.
Crossing the line is telling us a main character will die in a climactic scene.
What a great question/discussion! I love your writing/reviews Ty which is why I followed you here; going to the movies is way too expensive to waste money on crap or my time on stuff I won't enjoy. Even now that we watch so much at home I enjoy your entertaining overview. Tell us what's good about it, tell us why it's stupid, and don't tell us who done it. Thanks for all the time and money you've saved me! :-)
By current standards, I am almost absurdly spoiler-relaxed. There are a few movies where I do like to go in cold (Nope, Decision to Leave, Parasite are recent standout examples) but mostly I am perfectly happy to walk into a film knowing all about its plot. I some cases where I’m particularly excited about a film, I’ll read lots about it beforehand and that helps me get more excited about the film (Crimes of the Future, Tár to some extent worked like this for me.) I realize this is unusual but I generally care more about style than plot.
Most info doesn't phase me...even a good description is NOT like seeing the film...I mean, in things that are really suspenseful, you don't want to that Anthony Perkins dressed up as his mother until you're hit with it...you spoilers for Diane won't spoil it for me.
I won't watch trailers, as I will either leave the theater or read emails until the trailers are over--Hollywood gives away way too much for my liking. Similarly, I won't read reviews if I intend to see the movie until after I have seen it. Then I will go to a site like IMDB or RT and read a bunch. This is how I found the estimable Mr. Burr and have been reading him ever since!
Interesting discussion, especially the distinction between setup, development, and resolution. As to me, I'm one of those people who believe any movie worth watching once is worth watching a dozen times. A great film usually survives spoilers.
I like to know as little as possible before I see a movie. Your recommendation for Riders of Justice was just enough to intrigue me (and the film was so good I chose to subscribe to your watch list. I’ll read everything I can on a film after I’ve seen it. Most definitely don’t tell me a film is “twisty.”
I think your thirds theory is a good rule of thumb. When I'm summarizing a synopsis to try to convince my wife to watch something I usually stick to the setup, usually just short of what a typical description would be. I like to leave as much as possible to be discovered. I don't know the technical terms, but there's usually a catalyst - something that moves the plot from the setup into the meat of the film. I usually like to stop just short of that, so it's a surprise when it happens. This means I'm not actually saying what the film's about, but it's enough since I only have to convince my wife to sit there and endure it, as opposed to a movie trailer that has to give away a little more to get people out to the theater. This has always been a thing for me. In the nineties I worked at a video store, and if the descriptions on the back of the boxes gave away too much I'd cover them with a sticky note and write my own.
A recent horror story - last weekend we watched Robert Altman's 'The Player' from 1992 on the Criterion Channel (***spoiler alert*** to anyone who hasn't seen it, obviously). I think it's more fun to let it turn dark unexpectedly, so I told her it was a scathing indictment of the movie industry, with Tim Robbins playing a morally questionable Hollywood big shot. That's an unusually sparse description - normally one would at least add that he begins receiving ominous postcards, but leave out what happens when he meets the culprit. But I was horrified to see the summary on screen (and I made my wife close her eyes so she couldn't see) as it says he "gets away with murder!" Talk about giving away the ending, that's in the last five minutes!
While I don’t read reviews in order to find out how the movie ends. I do want to know enough about the plot to sense the direction and style of the storyline. Similar to book reviews, a full discussion of the auteur, cinematography and those acting in it is welcomed. It usually enhances my viewing, and appreciation for nuances and techniques that I may otherwise have missed.
If the review detracts from the film, I will avoid the reviewer. Which is why I subscribe to Ty Burr… a solid track record and a reliable film critic.
I've gotten quite good at reading reviews for texture and for skipping plot. There are sometimes great surprises in the set up. I remember seeing "Ruby Sparks" having no idea what it was about, and I was just as surprised as the protagonist when a special visitor appeared in his home. Every reviewer, however, had no choice but to mention who that visitor was because it becomes the basis for the story. So my ideal review structures paragraphs so its easy to tell if its discussing plot (I want to know as little as possible) or texture (so I can know if it's my kind of film). Sometimes I'll ask my wife if she wants to see a film with me. She say, "What's it about?" and I'll say, "I have no clue, but it's supposed to be really good."
Some unintended give-aways:
I don't want to know if the ending is bleak or happy because that undermines the suspense.
I don't want to know if there's a big surprise ending because I start to look for the cues and often know the surprise.
However, sometimes an opinion is built on what a movie turns out to be. "Fatal Attraction" is insufferable because it essentially undermines its female characters in the finale. This is worthy of discussion, but after appropriate warnings.
The truth is, I only read reviews word for word after I've seen a movie, and if I'm reading the review I'm also looking for the experience of that film goer to help me parse a film that's challenged me in some way. So I'm all for a reviewer going to town with an alert. In fact, it might be fun if there were the occasional Ty Burr Afterword--short essays to read after we've seen a film, where you can be more film critic than film reviewer. Then you could go to town, and we'd all be happy to spend the evening with you.
In general, no matter what I read in a movie review, I don't find it detracts from my pleasure in viewing the movie. Yet, I'm often irritated at the amount of plot a New York Times Book Review reveals. Im often reading for hours just to cover the plot points revealed in the review. Whether book or movie, I've always felt that the best review should equate to what in business is the "elevator pitch." In other words, you have 30 seconds to convince me that this book/movie will be worth my time.
I skip every review if I can - I would skim a headline in the hope that the headline writer would not stoop to killing a plot prematurely. I'm old school in every way about a film - I want to experience it as the protagonist (s) would. Recently watched three film noirs this way: Green for Danger, Crossfire, and On Dangerous Ground and enjoyed not knowing how each would be resolved. Yes, I knew something about Robert Ryan's character (or lack thereof) in Crossfire, but what I had heard only drew me to the watch the film.
I'm the same way with books - never want to know details ahead of the characters therein.
Ty, I'm honored you perceived the constructive spirit of my comment and took it as a springboard for such an interesting discussion. I'll give the detail behind my reading of the Diane review as my further contribution.
I know from both study and practice of moviemaking in my earlier years that the art form allows for careful planning on many levels - not just plot, but character, theme etc - so as to unspool things in a way that creates the viewer experience you want. Every detail matters - scenes, cuts, books on a character's bookshelf, songs on the jukebox, patterns of language - and you hope viewers notice them all as they make sense of what you're showing them.
When a re-viewer gives away telling details, it robs me as a first-time viewer of the opportunity to appreciate important elements of the filmmaker's intent. I didn't want to know that Diana later asks Brian to leave her be, or to have you point out the small details of the heroine's life the filmmaker shows us - now I'll be having your experience of 'Diane' vs mine.
I get it that as a writer, details are how you prove your points - hence my observation that it's a fine line to walk. I'd have been okay having you just point me to a telling scene at a local roadhouse, because I trust you as a reviewer. When you tell me she drinks herself into looking her sorrow in the eye, punches up oldies as penance, and that the Dylan song never sounded so mocking, it's like fingernails on a chalkboard. It undermines my experience of the scene to have read that in advance.
I want to bring my innocence to the movie and let the filmmaker tell me about life. I read you to get a sense in advance of what kind of experience it will be. I've read your work from the earliest Globe years. Our sensibilities are closely aligned; you have nothing to prove to me.
I like the way you provide context and give shading to your appreciation. If you liked it, tell me why so I get to know you better, but I know that if you liked it, I probably will to.
Hi.
As the filmmaker, I think the description of DIANE was just fine. It's not really a plot-driven movie.
Kent Jones
I find that all reviews and all trailers give too much away. All I'm looking for is whether a reviewer whom I respect and typically agree with (Hello, Mr Burr) likes it or loves it or hates it. I want nothing more than to go discover everything else the film has to offer on my own, which is what the reviewer got to do.
As someone who shoves his fingers in his ears and clamps his eyes shut during all movie trailers, I'm as spoiler-averse as they come. Consequently, I'll rarely read a review ahead of time; I can usually tell if it's a movie I want to see or not. BUT! In the case of something like this -- a movie I'd never heard of and probably wouldn't normally see -- I'll typically skim the first few paragraphs, see if it's of interest, then check the score/rating. If I end up seeing it, then I'll come back and read the review in full.
Just me? 😂
If I’m already planning to see a film, I’ll look for the first and last paragraph of a review, but hold off on the rest until I’ve seen it. I’m often reading reviews on the subway ride home. As for spoiler content, I reluctantly think anything that’s in the trailer or the first 20 minutes is fair game, although I hate seeing a scene in the last 20 minutes and realizing I’ve already seen it in the trailer! Usually movies that give away the climax, followed by “6 months earlier” for the rest of the story, aren’t very good (I’m looking at you, Last Voyage of the Demeter). But I’d rather have a reviewer note that the trailer-spoiler exists, than repeat it.
I agree with Ty on his one-third analysis. I'm a theater critic in New York City and am regularly faced with a decision of how much to reveal about a show. I just reviewed a show where I talked about some key points in the opening that are played out in the course of the show. I wrote about how those key points played out in general terms without detailing specifics. I carefully avoided revealing the climatic events in the last parts of the play that payed-off the key points from the opening. It is a balancing act; sometimes it's just a review, and sometimes it's a critique.
I tend to follow those rules of thumb, but I've also started questioning them a lot more as I recognize that there are so many people doing newspaper-style film reviews whose purpose is to recommend/warn and that I seldom actually use those to decide what to watch nowadays (as i get older, I become more omnivorous and have bigger lists of people's work to catch and avoid). When I blog or post on Letterboxd, I want to talk about what's interesting, even in a bad movie, and what struck me as off, even in a good movie, and in a lot of cases that involves talking about the ending.
(I don't often succeed, inevitably producing a lot of six-paragraph essays saying "this element was pretty good and this one was kind of disappointing", in part because there are a lot of movies in the middle of the bell curve and not particularly special and in part because I've never honed my craft like it was my job, but the ones where I can say "you may think it's good or bad but this bit was INTERESTING" are the ones where I feel I've actually contributed something.)
Anyway, I've sort of come around to thinking that if you're going to go through the effort of writing up your thoughts on a movie to start/continue discussing it, you might as well talk about the whole movie, so long as you make it clear that's what you're doing.
To divide a movie into thirds seems an odd approach to preventing plot-spoilage. For this viewer, the first third is often the critical time for engagement-- diluted if I already know too much. Here is where I may meet characters / actions whose nuances are meant to peak curiosity -- essential for sticking with the movie at all. Perhaps sometimes the film critic gets so carried away with the pleasures of his/her own excessive depth analysis as to leech out possibility for viewer discovery. I.e. Abstruse, marvelous Pauline Kael. (BTW looking forward to Diane anyway, as with most of your suggestions.)
I hate any kind of spoiler. Here is what I would say -- upfront the reviewer could give an overall rating (as most do) then sub-ratings for acting, script, directing, pace, etc. Then list a couple of movies along the lines of "if you liked these, you'll like this". Or a pithy "For XXX fans only (horror, love story, etc) or "see it only for the action scenes; plot is weak".
Then a couple of non-spoiler paragraphs about what worked/did not work, followed by a "read no further if you hate spoilers" warning. They say whatever you like. I'd stop reading at the warning.
Your Rule of Threes makes a lot of sense to me. In general if I want to see a movie etc. I might skim the review to see if it's worth it before seeing it.
But spoilers abound everywhere, of course. Young Frankenstein was ruined for me by my friends who saw it before me. They told every single joke except the very last one, and we were young teens and I'm not sure they got it. Growing up in my crazy house, I got it, and I thought it was hilarious — and hilarious that they didn't appear to have gotten it.
My first true spoiler was reading in the Globe magazine, "Who doesn't know by now that Darth Vader is Luke's father?" Err, that would be me. It was a year after Empire Strikes Back was released, though, so I couldn't really complain and I knew it. I was annoyed at the Logan Roy reveal the morning after Succession dropped, for sure. I like that NPR's Pop Culture Happy Hour will have a general conversation first and then release another episode with spoilers.
But my general rule of thumb is, if I don't want to know something, if I really want to go fresh into a book or a movie or a TV show, or even music, I can't read about it or listen to anything beforehand. It works, mostly, but then again I don't see a lot.
Less is more- but a writer helps me get hooked into the material and take a chance on a film. I read critical articles to enjoy the writer’s (your) wit and ability to “stand in” for me…Wouldn’t be grand to (like a book club) have a introduction- then a follow up discussion afterward. That is what this flexible platform can do. Ha! I have never joined a book club!
In the 40 years I have been reading reviews, I have been mad at a critic only once for giving away too much.
In reading about A Star is Born in The NY Times, the reviewer informed us Bradley Cooper’s character dies. The ending was ruined. Ty never has spoiled a movie for me. And I have read all his reviews since his Globe days.
So my answer is, Ty, you do it the right way.
Crossing the line is telling us a main character will die in a climactic scene.
What a great question/discussion! I love your writing/reviews Ty which is why I followed you here; going to the movies is way too expensive to waste money on crap or my time on stuff I won't enjoy. Even now that we watch so much at home I enjoy your entertaining overview. Tell us what's good about it, tell us why it's stupid, and don't tell us who done it. Thanks for all the time and money you've saved me! :-)
By current standards, I am almost absurdly spoiler-relaxed. There are a few movies where I do like to go in cold (Nope, Decision to Leave, Parasite are recent standout examples) but mostly I am perfectly happy to walk into a film knowing all about its plot. I some cases where I’m particularly excited about a film, I’ll read lots about it beforehand and that helps me get more excited about the film (Crimes of the Future, Tár to some extent worked like this for me.) I realize this is unusual but I generally care more about style than plot.
Most info doesn't phase me...even a good description is NOT like seeing the film...I mean, in things that are really suspenseful, you don't want to that Anthony Perkins dressed up as his mother until you're hit with it...you spoilers for Diane won't spoil it for me.
I won't watch trailers, as I will either leave the theater or read emails until the trailers are over--Hollywood gives away way too much for my liking. Similarly, I won't read reviews if I intend to see the movie until after I have seen it. Then I will go to a site like IMDB or RT and read a bunch. This is how I found the estimable Mr. Burr and have been reading him ever since!
If I know I want to see a movie, I'm not going to read a review until after, to compare my notes with a critic I respect.
If I'm reading to decide if a film will be worth seeing, I don't really care about spoilers.
It terms of keeping one's innocence--that's why I like film festivals--you get to be the buzz, rather than be influenced by it.
Interesting discussion, especially the distinction between setup, development, and resolution. As to me, I'm one of those people who believe any movie worth watching once is worth watching a dozen times. A great film usually survives spoilers.
I like to know as little as possible before I see a movie. Your recommendation for Riders of Justice was just enough to intrigue me (and the film was so good I chose to subscribe to your watch list. I’ll read everything I can on a film after I’ve seen it. Most definitely don’t tell me a film is “twisty.”
I think your thirds theory is a good rule of thumb. When I'm summarizing a synopsis to try to convince my wife to watch something I usually stick to the setup, usually just short of what a typical description would be. I like to leave as much as possible to be discovered. I don't know the technical terms, but there's usually a catalyst - something that moves the plot from the setup into the meat of the film. I usually like to stop just short of that, so it's a surprise when it happens. This means I'm not actually saying what the film's about, but it's enough since I only have to convince my wife to sit there and endure it, as opposed to a movie trailer that has to give away a little more to get people out to the theater. This has always been a thing for me. In the nineties I worked at a video store, and if the descriptions on the back of the boxes gave away too much I'd cover them with a sticky note and write my own.
A recent horror story - last weekend we watched Robert Altman's 'The Player' from 1992 on the Criterion Channel (***spoiler alert*** to anyone who hasn't seen it, obviously). I think it's more fun to let it turn dark unexpectedly, so I told her it was a scathing indictment of the movie industry, with Tim Robbins playing a morally questionable Hollywood big shot. That's an unusually sparse description - normally one would at least add that he begins receiving ominous postcards, but leave out what happens when he meets the culprit. But I was horrified to see the summary on screen (and I made my wife close her eyes so she couldn't see) as it says he "gets away with murder!" Talk about giving away the ending, that's in the last five minutes!
While I don’t read reviews in order to find out how the movie ends. I do want to know enough about the plot to sense the direction and style of the storyline. Similar to book reviews, a full discussion of the auteur, cinematography and those acting in it is welcomed. It usually enhances my viewing, and appreciation for nuances and techniques that I may otherwise have missed.
If the review detracts from the film, I will avoid the reviewer. Which is why I subscribe to Ty Burr… a solid track record and a reliable film critic.
Ty, ever think about having a reader write a review once in a while?
I've gotten quite good at reading reviews for texture and for skipping plot. There are sometimes great surprises in the set up. I remember seeing "Ruby Sparks" having no idea what it was about, and I was just as surprised as the protagonist when a special visitor appeared in his home. Every reviewer, however, had no choice but to mention who that visitor was because it becomes the basis for the story. So my ideal review structures paragraphs so its easy to tell if its discussing plot (I want to know as little as possible) or texture (so I can know if it's my kind of film). Sometimes I'll ask my wife if she wants to see a film with me. She say, "What's it about?" and I'll say, "I have no clue, but it's supposed to be really good."
Some unintended give-aways:
I don't want to know if the ending is bleak or happy because that undermines the suspense.
I don't want to know if there's a big surprise ending because I start to look for the cues and often know the surprise.
However, sometimes an opinion is built on what a movie turns out to be. "Fatal Attraction" is insufferable because it essentially undermines its female characters in the finale. This is worthy of discussion, but after appropriate warnings.
The truth is, I only read reviews word for word after I've seen a movie, and if I'm reading the review I'm also looking for the experience of that film goer to help me parse a film that's challenged me in some way. So I'm all for a reviewer going to town with an alert. In fact, it might be fun if there were the occasional Ty Burr Afterword--short essays to read after we've seen a film, where you can be more film critic than film reviewer. Then you could go to town, and we'd all be happy to spend the evening with you.
In general, no matter what I read in a movie review, I don't find it detracts from my pleasure in viewing the movie. Yet, I'm often irritated at the amount of plot a New York Times Book Review reveals. Im often reading for hours just to cover the plot points revealed in the review. Whether book or movie, I've always felt that the best review should equate to what in business is the "elevator pitch." In other words, you have 30 seconds to convince me that this book/movie will be worth my time.
I skip every review if I can - I would skim a headline in the hope that the headline writer would not stoop to killing a plot prematurely. I'm old school in every way about a film - I want to experience it as the protagonist (s) would. Recently watched three film noirs this way: Green for Danger, Crossfire, and On Dangerous Ground and enjoyed not knowing how each would be resolved. Yes, I knew something about Robert Ryan's character (or lack thereof) in Crossfire, but what I had heard only drew me to the watch the film.
I'm the same way with books - never want to know details ahead of the characters therein.
Ty, I'm honored you perceived the constructive spirit of my comment and took it as a springboard for such an interesting discussion. I'll give the detail behind my reading of the Diane review as my further contribution.
I know from both study and practice of moviemaking in my earlier years that the art form allows for careful planning on many levels - not just plot, but character, theme etc - so as to unspool things in a way that creates the viewer experience you want. Every detail matters - scenes, cuts, books on a character's bookshelf, songs on the jukebox, patterns of language - and you hope viewers notice them all as they make sense of what you're showing them.
When a re-viewer gives away telling details, it robs me as a first-time viewer of the opportunity to appreciate important elements of the filmmaker's intent. I didn't want to know that Diana later asks Brian to leave her be, or to have you point out the small details of the heroine's life the filmmaker shows us - now I'll be having your experience of 'Diane' vs mine.
I get it that as a writer, details are how you prove your points - hence my observation that it's a fine line to walk. I'd have been okay having you just point me to a telling scene at a local roadhouse, because I trust you as a reviewer. When you tell me she drinks herself into looking her sorrow in the eye, punches up oldies as penance, and that the Dylan song never sounded so mocking, it's like fingernails on a chalkboard. It undermines my experience of the scene to have read that in advance.
I want to bring my innocence to the movie and let the filmmaker tell me about life. I read you to get a sense in advance of what kind of experience it will be. I've read your work from the earliest Globe years. Our sensibilities are closely aligned; you have nothing to prove to me.
I like the way you provide context and give shading to your appreciation. If you liked it, tell me why so I get to know you better, but I know that if you liked it, I probably will to.
Hope that's helpful!