RyoHazuki

Whats with the spoilers in the review of Cursed unrated edition?

rooter

probably trying to spoil it so you dont waste your cash on a shitty movie

Matthew Chmiel

The review does nothing to spoil the film which the advertising hasn't already done.

auto

Great. For people who haven't read the spoilers in the review, you've added a bunch of spoilers to this thread. Well done.

Adam Tyner

Spoilers added.

Matthew Chmiel

In all honesty, it's a review for an extended cut of a film on DVD pretty much targeted at those who saw the film in theaters. Yes, I was one of the lucky few who paid money to see Cursed in theaters four months ago. If Scott didn't go into specifics in what was added to this unrated cut, he'd get bitched at for not going into detail why the new version of the film is an improvement or disaprovement of the version released to theaters. However, since Scott did go into specifics (especially mentioning who and how they bite it in this edit), he's still getting bitched at.

And no need to thread crap, but I was one of the few people on this forum who gave Cursed a semi-decent review when it was released to theaters. I mentioned in a thread on Movie Talk while that the film is terrible to the nth degree, it's a film that one can have fun with just by watching and laughing at it's awfulness. The film brings nothing new to the genre and it's pretty much pedestrian. The film is bland and the death scenes are not innovative. Spoiling a film like Cursed is pretty much spoiling a film like From Justin to Kelly. The average movie goer will not care. They know how the film is going to play out, they know how it's going to end, they're paying money to see the film in theaters or renting the DVD to see death scene after death scene (which Cursed lacks as a lot of the deaths, even in this Unrated cut, are off screen or tame).

Scott Weinberg

Thanks for the back-up, Matt, and you're right. But the other fellas also have a legitimate complaint.

The simple truth is this: I had the review done. Finished. But Matt IMed me to ask about the "extra unrated" stuff, which made me realize that I hadn't really mentioned that material in the review. And since most people reading an "unrated" review generally want to know about the new footage, I felt it was important to go back and add that one paragraph.

So I added it without actively realizing that it was spoiler-ish material. If I'd written that paragraph as part of the initial review process, I would have remembered to post a warning. Since I added the section late, I forgot about the spoiler alert.

So I'll go add one now.

Rival11

For what it's worth, I found nothing wrong with the review and would acutally be a little pissed if you didn't mention what was added/left out (see the new American Psycho review it's another good example).

Now, I'm not saying Ryo is wrong at all. It has to be a hard thing to try and please both sides here; those who want the details and those who don't.

RyoHazuki

So if I hadn't seen the film in theaters, I would probably buy the theatrical cut? The film made $19 million at the box office. I doubt many people who read the review had seen the film.

Scott, I know you weren't trying to spoil anything. You're a good reviewer and I respect you but I just thought that the spoilers should have been marked. Thanks for changing it.

auto

Actually, it's easy to please both sides. Simply add warnings to the paragraphs that contain spoilers. He added those. Everybody's happy.

Rival11

Very true but you know how it goes, even without spoilers many would argure that they are in there and vice versa. Yes, I know it sounds weird but I've seen it several times already and no I don't remember which reviews exactly