Just so we’re clear: If you’re allergic to spoilers of any kind, stop reading right here. Really. Right here. Not that I think I’m including any spoilers in this item. But you never know. Maybe just mentioning the word “spoiler” is some kind of spoiler? You tell me.
Where was I? Oh, right: As you have read (in my own review), Robert Pattinson from Twilight and Emilie de Ravin from Lost play a pair of tragically star-crossed lovers in the exceeding tragic tragedy of all teen tragedies Remember Me. But what you didn’t read in my own review — although you may well have read elsewhere — is that Remember Me has a surprise ending. In fact, if you’re someone who likes to jump the gun, maybe because you’re never going to see the movie, you can easily find the facts about that ending elsewhere online, all over the place. I’m not even going to link to where you can read the details, because I don’t see the point. As I said, if you’re interested, you’ve probably found out already. The truth is out there.
Meanwhile, that truth has got me thinking about the challenge of writing responsibly, thoughtfully, and usefully about movies in an age of viral communication. It’s a cinch for anyone to spill the beans to the whole movie-going world with a push of a SEND button. And even when beans aren’t being spilled, sometimes reading anything at all about a movie before you’ve seen it dilutes the experience. (I know it does for me.) Yet how are you going to consider whether to see a movie in the first place if you don’t read about it? And how can I, as a professional critic, write meaningfully about any movie I’m analyzing without sometimes, somehow, including information you may not want to know? Sure, I can write something like, “and then stuff goes wrong,” rather than specifying the wrongness. But is even that TMI?
I’m considering these questions a lot these days as the warp speed of Internet communication irrevocably alters the quality and meaning of cultural discourse. It’s not exactly news that the role of movie criticism as part of a robust, culturally literate society is undergoing change — especially when anyone calling herself a critic, blogger, citizen journalist, muckraker, or fangirl can feel she’s breaking news by being the very first to tweet an opinion immediately after (or even more obnoxiously, during) the very first screening of one movie or another. Oooh, first! Big deal. Personally, I don’t think there’s any value at all in first-ness, or in instant analysis and competitive punditry, and certainly not in spoiling surprise endings.
But, hey, I really want to talk about the ending of Remember Me with you! The subject is really interesting! And if you can read all about it elsewhere on the Internet at this very minute, when’s the right time for me jump in?
You tell me.
I love the fact that you brought up this subject. To this day I still haven’t seen 6th Sense because someone ruined the ending for me. Despite all the technology that’s available out there, I do still like to be surprised about the twists and turns about a movie I’m going to shell out $8 to see. However, I feel that you almost have to take an active role in avoiding reading something that might spoil the ending of movie for you instead of seeking out the information. Not sure if all the speedy reviews out there are good thing or not.
When I was in the theater watching The Sixth Sense, some jerk in front of me completely ruined the surprise ending for me. “Do I need to write SPOILER right now? The movie is over 10 years old.) So the first scene we see Bruce Willis after he has been shot (the audience assuming he recovered and all is well), this a**hole in front of me leans over to his friend and says, “Now he’s actually dead right now.” Umm thanks a lot. Did this moron not realize it’s supposed to be a surprise reveal at the end of the movie? Anyway, the point is it’s a great movie and I think you should still see it.
And I agree with you about how nowadays how have to actively make sure to avoid spoilers about movies. It’s annoying. Just a few weeks ago, some dude here on EW.com spoiled the end of Shutter Island in the comments section that was discussing its box office take (Friday box office that is, meaning it was one day after the film was released in theaters). And he did not in any way give any kind of spoiler alert before he chose to ruin it for people. Do people get some kind of satisfaction out of doing that?
Another person on here in the comments section actually spoiled the ending to Shutter Island before it even came out (knowing the ending since it’s based on a book), when there was an article about moving the release date. It took away alot of my interest in seeing it. I hate that.
Doesn’t he die on 9/11? how is that a spoiler? The title gives it away.
Someone spoiled Shutter Island in the comments under Lisa’s review. Probably the same guy. I was pissed. It’s not a movie I’d been waiting to see, but it would definitely make my rental list. And yes, they do it for a cheap thrill. I don’t get why EW doesn’t ban commenters for general douchebaggery. Start with garw3.
It doesn’t matter that someone spoiled Shutter Island. I wish I had read the spoiler. It would have saved me the $10 I used to buy a ticket to the most cliche movie ever. I figured out the twist in 3 minutes flat and then had to sit there through another 2 hours and 15 minutes. It was painful.
Right, Liz. Because your experience is identical to everyone else’s. Ultimately, we are all Liz clones.
Someone, maybe the same Shutter Island spoiler, just spoiled the end of Remember Me on the comments section on another page. I’m not going to see the movie anymore with crappy ending like that, but as to whether or not I’m saving my 10 bucks, I may never know.
**Possible Spoiler** Honestly, in this case, I was glad to find out the ending of Remember Me… having lived in NYC during that time period, had I gotten to that ending without “warning”, I would have been SO angry. There is enough true emotion tied to those events for myself already, and I would have felt like the filmmakers were exploiting them. However, I was TOTALLY angry when someone ruined the ending of the movie Psycho… I still hold that person a grudge.
I try to avoid the spoilers, too. However, I can’t stand when the TV spot mentions a “twist.” Even that ruins it for me.
Agree 100%
I HATE it when an ad campaign says something like “You’ll never guess the twist!”
I’ve said this before many times, but I’ll say it again – the absolute best twists are the ones that come when you didn’t even know there was a twist. (I could give you a couple of examples here, but I don’t want to be a douche.)
If you tell someone that there’s a twist at the end of a book or a movie, they’re going to spend the entire time trying to figure out what it is rather than enjoying the movie.
Not to mention “surprise” deaths. TV shows are guilty of both of those. Ironically enough, some show’s promos are so constant and bombastic, I get jaded until a real surprise sneaks up on me.
I know how Remember Me ends because I didn’t care about being spoiled so I READ the spoiler.
If you don’t want to be spoiled, then stay away from things that can spoil you.
I haven’t seen Shutter Island yet and I don’t know how it ends and that’s how it will remain until I see that movie.
I have a big mouth, so I will definitely spoil someone without a thought in my mind, especially if it’s not a movie or book that I care about.
You’re telling people to stay away from things that could ruin a spoiler for them, but then go on to say you have a “big mouth” and will spoil something without thinking about it because the subject matter isn’t something you care about. That doesn’t even make sense! If one of your friends wanted to see a movie you didn’t care about, and you opened your “big mouth” one night at dinner and ruined the surprise for her about the movie before she saw it, how did she have the chance to avoid being spoiled? I guess she should not have gone to dinner with you. It’s one thing to tell people to avoid reading movie reviews if they don’t want to be spoiled, but quite another when you admit you drop spoilers yourself on unsuspecting people just because you don’t care about the topic.
A guy I was dating gave away the ending to me (that relationship didn’t last long). But you should still see it, it’s a good movie.
I want to know where you live that a movie is only $8.00!
Austin, TX has the cheapest movie prices out of anywhere I’ve ever been. Not kidding: an adult show is $7.50 and a matinee is $6.00 at Alamo Drafthouse. Also, you can drink beer and order top notch restaurant-style food there as well.
I read the spoiler for the ending of this movie in a movie review on another site. The reviewer said that the reason he felt he had to discuss the ending was because it absolutely ruined the movie. He felt the twist made the movie exploitative in a number of ways, such as the audience’s feelings about the twist circumstances and the “cheat” it creates of the character development throughout the movie. So while I feel that spoilers are not good in reviews in general, I think if a twist makes mincemeat out of the movie as a whole, the reviewer has a right to discuss it–with appropriate “spoiler” warnings, of course.
Then there are reviewers like Kirk Honeycutt in Hollywood Reporter, who started his review with the plot twist – no spoiler alert, no apology. Reviewers need to remember that they are not writing for themselves or other reviewers – they are writing for the public.
From what I can tell, the twist at the end of Remember Me adds nothing but a gratuitous stab at depth that likely comes off as useless pretentiousness. That being said, I think the right time to discuss a twist ending is after the movie comes out. I haven’t seen Shutter Island yet, but I can’t expect people not to discuss the ending when the movie has been out for weeks.
I was disappointed in your review of RM. Opinions seem mixed elsewhere, but you seemed to go into it looking for reasons to trash it. I don’t understand EW’s attitude towards Pattinson, especially. He’s on the cover once a month but trashed inside the magazine even more often.
If the movie was as bad as you painted it, would it deserve a second column and all the hits it gets?
I feel like that’s her m.o. lately. She doesn’t trash a movie on it’s merits, she burns the metaphorical house to the ground, goes after the actors’ families, and puts a hit out on anyone who dares to like anything associated with a film. Whatever journalist standards she might once have held seem to be gone, gone, gone…
i don’t work for ew, but i can see why they cover pattinson the way they do-he sells copies. put his face on the cover, and you’re bound to get a spike in sales. the difficult thing is, he hasn’t really proven himself to be that great in actor. he’s shown some promise, but there are way more talented young actors working today. as a fan of movies, it must be tiring to have to play to this guy’s popularity when there are more deserving people out there.
It’s simple…girls will buy the magazine because his face is on it. However, all he can do is mope. He can’t act, so he’s going to get trashed for his performance.
I watched it on Monday. I have to say i was totally thrown for a loop. It may be a good thing for some people to be warned given its sensative nature. My friend is going to see it and all that i told her was that it definitely exceeded my expectations. I definitely found myself thinking about life in relation to certain happenings and the small petty things that we often get soo hung up on. It was a decent film and it make me think, which is rare in cinema these days. It was tastefully done!
I totally agree. I didn’t really plan on seeing the movie, so I went and searched for the spoiler elsewhere. I am soooo glad I know. I will avoid this movie and all of that emotional baggage.
I agree! And i HATE. spoilers.
Good thing I have read the script. So spoilers don’t really matter to me, but putting Twilight in the review five times too many is a bit annoying and unwanted.
With that out of the way, every review minus yours and a couple others had the ending outlined in it. I don’t get why critics are doing this. I get that it is hard to judge and critique the movie fully without bringing into account the epicness and importance of what happens, but still. Critics are literally … ugh I can’t even say it.
Heather, I’m seeing it this weekend and I DON’T want to know the ending, but just tell me – is it terribly sad, do I need to skip the eye makeup??
How have you avoided it? There’s some a-hole using the name Captain Asia posting it in nearly every thread on EW today.
Yeah, actually just ran across that on the ‘Betty White to host SNL’ page. COME ON, EW!!!
I’m so ticked.
I’ve read the ending. Without giving it away, it really pisses me off. I wouldn’t skip the eye makeup unless you cry very easily at movies.
I haven’t seen it but know the ending (read the script). And all I can say is that it comes off as as exploitative, disgusting and gratuitous, not “sad.”
The only good thing is, once word of the ending gets out, it could easily kill the film’s BO in a very important market. Somehow I can’t see citizens of that particular area greeting that ending with opens arms.
If you wikipedia the movie, it tells you how it ends.
There are exceptions to the rule though. When Zombieland came out when I read reviews from both critics and casual movie-goers, they all mentioned this great, awesome cameo in the film, but for some divine reason all the commentators decided collectively to NOT ruin who it and urged other people to go see it and find out for themselves. I saw the movie in November, a full month after it came out, and was completely surprised (though i had an idea when once the gang got to their house and said his name) when the actor came on screen for their cameo.
From what I’ve read, some people find the ending so offensive and exploitative that they felt the need to warn the viewers, although everything I saw had explicit spoiler stamps all over it. I haven’t come across any review that just out and out states the ending without warning, although I’m sure they’re out there.
I’ve read one that explicitly stated the ending without a spoiler alert. It was due to the location of the magazine and its readers. I think it’s more or less fair warning.
Same. I already knew the ending, but the critics’ reviews I’ve read that have mentioned it have done so to warn people about how vile and gratuitous the “twist” is, not to be malicious and “spoil” anything.
One critic even said flat-out, “I feel it’s my responsibility to warn you about this before you pay to see this movie.”
In terms of Zombieland, it did seem like most critics really wanted to keep a secret who the cameo was…but I found out anyway somehow, and I don’t think it ruined anything. The joke wasn’t who the cameo was, but what happened with that person, you know? I guess my point is that sometimes a spoiler really can, well, spoil, some of the effect of a movie, but I also think that sometimes people go way overboard with it.
You’re not kidding about the giveaway. I’m not going to see the movie anyway, so I went and looked — and BOOM, the Hollywood Reporter (the review at IMDB that gives the first few lines), gives away the goods in the FIRST LINE. Reading Todd McCarthy’s review (which references it only obliquely, although he also says the twist is fairly obvious) demonstrates what Variety has lost. (Your review does a good job of not bringing the issue up as well — I thank you for that.)
I noticed a review that stated the year the movie was set in, right in the first paragraph, which combined with any knowledge about where the story takes place, would obviously spoil everything.
In general I don’t like to know the ending of things. But that said, I figure if I really wanted to know the end I would read nothing about the book/movie and then see/read it the first day it’s out. I figure if I read a review and the review reveals something for me, it’s really more my fault.
In a sidebar about this topic, I do love it when people get really worked up about spoilers for movies of books. I remember an interview with Ian McCuellen when he was out promoting the second LotR movie and he mentioned that Gandalf came back in the movie. The interview jumped in with “oo, spoiler!” and Ian just looked at him and basically said that the book had been out for more than 70 years. It’s not really a spoiler at that point.
Lol… I’m Sure McKellen gave the interviewer his patented “You dumb, queen” look. Hahaha. I love when people complain about spoilers to movies that are based on books…
On Slate.com, they have a spoiler podcast, which reviews recent movies but includes spoiler details. I love to listen to them after I’ve seen the movie, because it’s so infrequent when when we get to hear movie critics’ opinions on all parts of a movie. Lisa, I’d be interested to hear what you and Owen think about the entirety of a movie. Or hear your thoughts on endings of movies, without you having to write cryptically as to avoid spoilers. As long as the columns were labeled properly, people could decide for themselves whether they wanted to be ‘spoiled’.
*Slow clap*
As long as journalists like yourself maintain a level of integrity, the rest of us can enjoy plot twists. I personally don’t want to hear every spoiler before I go see the movie and actively avoid conversation about a film that I’m really interested in.
That said, you should definitely feel free to post while warning those that don’t want to know, NOT TO READ. Who could be mad about that?
Generally, I agreed that spoiling the ending of a movie is not the best idea. But this is a case that deals with a very traumatizing event. Maybe it should be shown with a warning at the beginning or something. I mean, it is a great movie ending, but again, Hollywood is exploiting something that it doesn’t feel close to b/c it didn’t happen immediately to them. This is still very fresh in the minds and hearts of those that experienced it and to be “surprised” by that kind of ending is wrong. That is not a good surprise. I just feel like people NEED to know before they go in there. I told my a few of my girlfriends that are survivors b/c this is the kind of movie they would see and I knew that this ending would have them in multiple therapy sessions for weeks. And to use this as a movie stunt is disrespectful to the victims as well.
But who is to say what will impact people? Yes, an ending like this movie has will impact a great number of people and I don’t disagree at all that Hollywood is exploiting here. But people don’t all have the same traumatizing experience. I had a very close friend hang himself 7 years ago and things like the death of Dale in Big Love are still incredibly hard for me to watch. I had no warning that was going to happen. If I had known ahead of time, I might have had time to prepare myself rather than being treated to a few colorful nightmares because I watched one of my favorite shows.
Wow, so sorry. I can only imagine how things like that would affect you, and how this movie could catch some off guard and be very upsetting for those close to the subject matter. I personally do not see ‘war’ movies because it hits too close to home.
I’d planned to see it not even knowing about it. I appreciate your perspectives related to this and wonder whether it’s exploitative or not.
I completely agree. There are spoilers and then there are fair warnings. I would have a deep physical reaction to this surprise ending and am grateful to know to avoid this film like the plague. Completely tasteless.
I don’t know how to say this delicately, so I’m just going to say it outright. This is my opinion, feel free to disagree. The majority of the audience that will see this movie will be teenagers and pre-teens. They were very young when the events in this movie happened. When I was little, my parents didn’t let me watch footage of the Challenger explosion, and since this is a much, much bigger issue, I doubt the majority of current 13-14 year olds have had the same horrific experience as everyone else on that day (excluding those personally affected, of course.) As a result, some may confuse the ending as “deep” and “moving”, rather than exploitative. And it’s not the audience’s fault. It’s the ADULT screenwriters, directors, and producers who greenlighted that ending, knowing full well that it would a) garner a reaction, and b) may be seen as “sad” rather than tasteless schlock.
^This.
I was young but still in high school when this event occurred. And knowing this ending (which, based on the script, is not the natural progression of the story, it’s a sucker punch) makes me feel revolted.
Disagree. When I was at the theater over the weekend adults overshadowed teens by a large margin. I was surprised. As one of those adults I was worried the tweeners would come in and ruin it and I was happy to see them as the minority in the audience. They were also respectful and didn’t lose their mind screaming during the Eclipse preview. BTW – I didn’t find ending exploitative – it added to the experience IMO. This movie has stayed with me for days. However, endings should NOT be spoiled by reviewers. I had figured out what was going to happen (it’s not that difficult given the time line) but I would have been angry if someone told me beforehand.
I think it’s fine to post an article as long as you clearly state that there are spoilers and make sure the title’s article isn’t revealing in any way.
The ending of Scream was spoiled for me way back when it came out on video (I was too young to see it in theatres), and it still became my favourite movie for a few years. I don’t want to have an ending spoiled for me if I’m planning on seeing the movie, but it hasn’t stopped me from enjoying movies whose endings I already know. That being said, when the last Harry Potter book came out I tried to avoid reading anything or talking to anyone to make sure I didn’t find out what happened.
yeah, I literally did not speak to anyone for 24 hours while I read HP7… turned off my phone, internet, everything.
Ha, me too!
Maggie is spot on. Endings can be spoiled, surprises can be spoiled but I can still enjoy the movie. Besides, I’m way too old and have seen it all anyway.
i was never going to see Remember Me so it doesn’t matter either way. however i am glad that i read about the spoiler b/c if i didn’t know and then somehow saw the movie on cable or whatever someday, i would probably get really really angry due to its exploitative nature. so now i know that if it ever comes on, i should immediately change the channel. also…rpatz: terrible.
But are they exploiting the subject matter, or visiting a moment in our history and tying a romantic storyline to it (ie Titanic, Pearl Harbor, etc)?
That’s a good question. I think that because this is something that happened in “our time” that people are taking it a lot more personally.
Exploiting it. Surprise ending without warning unrelated to the rest of the film does not sensitivity make.
I haven’t seen a movie, but really, Courtney? EVERY tragedy is a “surprise” that is unrelated to the rest of your life. That’s what makes it tragic.
I’m pretty sure no one got on the Titanic with the thought that “This’ll be the last trip I ever take, better brace myself.”
But they knew it was about Titantic, right? Because they told people this movie is about Titantic. The big fat different in this is that they USE the events of 9/11 as a surprise, gotcha ending. “Surprise, you know that thing you’ve been deeply traumatized by, that made it so you couldn’t sleep right for years, well here you go.” Those who lived that experience DO NOT need a surprise gotcha ending to understanding the depth of that day NOR appreciate being hoodwinked into seeing a movie that is about 9/11 without it actually saying so. There should be art about 9/11 because we need to explore what the world was like during that time. People should know, however, what they are about to see and can make up their minds from there. It’s exploitive to say the least to keep it as a surprise.
I don’t think you can legitimately compare your two examples with the reaction this particular ending’s subject matter is going to inspire in people. The Titanic sank and Pearl Harbor was attacked many many years ago, so these events have taken on a much dryer, more historical context over the years. Also, people literally worldwide did not actually SEE these events unfold before their eyes. There were eyewitness accounts, of course, but nowhere in history is there such extensive video and photo documentation of such a world-altering event. Our collective reaction to a surprise twist involving these events is likely to be much more visceral, because so many of us WATCHED it happen.
Based on the script, exploiting it. There is absolutely nothing leading up to that ending that makes it a natural progression, and no artistic value in including it whatsoever. It’s included for shock and that’s it.
The fact that a lot of poor people, many of whom are probably personally affected by this event, will walk into this film completely unaware of the ending, is borderline sick.
Jury’s still out for me, but here’s my question for you guys – and to be clear, I’m not meaning this in an argumentative way, not at all…
HOW is this exploitative, exactly? In order to exploit this, they’d have to be taking advantage of the event in an effort to reap profits or somehow benefit them. HOW do they benefit from the event in question?
Ambient, if after reading all of these comments and all of the stuff all over the internet, you still don’t get how this is exploitative, then go see the movie. This particular round of indignation obviously doesn’t register with you. That’s fine.
Beside that, you answer your own question. They are taking advantage of an emotional reserve for the event to shock the audience and reap profits by doing so. For some people, this is a deeply emotional event that still resonates very much and the shock of this kind of film making would be very disturbing.
You’re right, it doesn’t register with me. To shock the audience, the audience would need to be unaware of the ending. That audience already paid for their seats. How would the shock draw an unwitting audience in?
And please don’t act like I’m somehow insensitive to the event at hand. I’m not. I just don’t see how including that event creates profit, it seems more to be just part of the storyline. I think the question is whether it’s too soon for such a thing.
You are, again, missing the point. There should be art made about 9/11. They should explore what the world was like before, during, and after. It is important. But it was ALWAYS be too soon to use it as a manipulative plot twist. If the movie is about 9/11, it should say so up front. Using it as an ending surprise is just gross.
If you don’t get why the shock is tasteless, then you are too far removed from the event to understand. Try to take the completely worst, more unimaginable thing in your life that still completely takes your breath away and is an unspeakable grief, and try to understand this indignation by comparing it to that. Otherwise Courtney is right, just go see the movie.
I wouldn’t mind 9/11 being used in a movie where it wasn’t a surprise. What bothers me about this is that 9/11 is used as a random “gotcha” secret twist ending. Pattinson’s character could have died at the end of the script in a number of different ways – mugging, shooting, hit-and-run, suicide…these things happen all of the time. Instead, the writers decided to use the terrorist attack.
It’s too soon. Even if it wasn’t, I would still think it was schlocky sensationalism. For instance, say Pattinson and De Ravin’s love story took place in Ohio in the ’70s…and the ending he dies in the Kent State massacre. It would still be completely random sensationalism disjointed from the plot. It just wouldn’t cause such a strong reaction.
Thank you, Betsy, for explaining why 9/11 isn’t appropriate as a “twist” ending, though it is certainly an appropriate subject for art. I was a junior in high school on 9/11 in a suburb of NYC and most of my classmates had parents who worked in the financial district. We were all watching live as the Towers collapsed and you could hear screams from students whose parents worked in the buildings. I watched as my friends and classmates cried hysterically, collapsed, and sometimes fainted from grief and worry, unsure if a parent was alive and unable to get in contact with them. For me, those events are, as Betsy put it, an “unspeakable grief” but I went to college in the midwest and realize that for the vast majority of Americans it is a far more abstract tragedy. I saw the Greengrass film United 93 and I was emotionally drained and shaking at the end of it, even though I was obviously prepared for what would happen; overall, I found the experience cathartic. However, if I went and saw this movie with friends (assuming the title referred to death by cancer or something that affects me on a less personal level), totally unprepared for the experience, I would have been furious and truly, scarily shocked. Normally, I’m a fan of film critics saying as little as possible about potential spoilers and twists. In this case, I really think it is something of a duty to warn people about it.
I have the same reaction as you Alexia for the same reasons. I was a junior in high school in a suburb of NYC and every time I think of 9/11 or read about it or see art based on it I can remember the blood curdling screams of students and even a well loved teacher as we all watched the towers fall down without knowing if their parents or siblings got out of the building. There is a VERY CLEAR DIFFERENCE between killing a character at the very end by getting hit by a car, or being mugged as opposed to being killed in a terrorist attack.