On Slate's Spoiler Specials, Slate critics, such as Dana Stevens and Willa Paskin, discuss new movies and TV shows in spoiler-filled detail. We dissect twist endings, plot holes, and other secrets you won't read in reviews. WARNING: This podcast contains spoilers (duh).
42 Subscribers
Podcast hosts
No host has claimed this podcast yet, if you are the host you can verify ownership by claiming this podcast
©2018 The Slate Group
Slate's Spoiler Specials
42 Subscribers
Reviews
Daniella713
2 out of 5 stars
Meh
One of you clearly didn’t see the movie Don’t Worry, Darling.
Stauffhb
3 out of 5 stars
So Many Commercials
Four commercial breaks in a 27 minute podcast? What on earth. Also why is everyone so world weary all the time? Dana Stevens hates every movie she’s ever seen and everyone uses the word “edge lord” too much
Mih_Hall
3 out of 5 stars
Hit or Miss
Sometimes this show is really enjoyable and sometimes it is highly frustrating. Oftentimes I feel like Dana didn’t pay attention to the movie and/or do her research before reviewing and just kind of throws stuff out there that isn’t factually true or is a very “unique” interpretation of what occurred. I have had to turn off several episodes out of pure frustration for lack of research/paying attention by the hosts that day. When the show is good, it can be really enjoyable, but it’s all about the right mix of people and them actually have watched the same movie I did.
De Vanna 7654
1 out of 5 stars
Something obnoxious
Update: I’m updating my previous review to add that I recently decided to listen to this podcast again because I wanted to hear a review for “Don’t Worry Darling”… and man, Dana is still a truly obnoxious host. Most of the review went okay until the very end where she asked her guest, “…don’t you agree with me that this movie isn’t very good…” or something to that affect. She says it, not as an invitation to agree, but as an assumption that they do agree, a foregone conclusion. As I wrote down below, if you want someone’s opinion on something, you don’t need to lead them or ask how much their opinion is in line with yours. Feel free to state that YOU don’t like it. But don’t lead someone to the notion that the correct answer is to agree with you, or make them have answer in a way that first untangles them from your implication that they should agree with you, before they can express what they actually think. They should have the freedom to simply start the sentence saying what they actually think. Tl;dr, different movie, same obnoxiousness. As you can see, this is a sharp pet peeve of mine; haven’t experienced it in any other instance but this podcast. Previous review: I don’t really use the word ‘obnoxious’ very often, yet it describes something I keep experiencing with this podcast. I think the host is Dana; in the past two podcast episodes I’ve listened to, “Borat Subsequent Film“ and “Promising Young Woman,” Dana often uses a lot of words to express disappointment in the films basically not being what she expected. As though the film should’ve consulted with her first somehow. I tried to not be annoyed by this and keep listening, because it seems like this podcast gives relatively thorough reasoning behind their statements, but it really boils down to the movies not going in the direction she expected or not meeting her expectations, and how the movies are lacking because of it. The directors and creative teams made the movie they wanted to make, with the message they wanted to send. For “Promising Young Woman” to not end on a hopeful enough note for Dana... for her to say that she expected a lot more humor from Borat, and that when she watched it, she sat down specifically expecting to laugh a lot and yet it didn’t make her laugh out loud... for her to then say to her co-host Sam, “so you’re on the same page as me, it wasn’t laugh out loud funny as you expected...” Her while vibe is very “my opinion is right, and I’m also leading the witness to think as I do.” Kudos to Sam for his tactful and non-placating response. I stopped the episode right as I was listening to that moment and wrote this review.
Neplusultra123
2 out of 5 stars
It’s not great, but can be good at times
I’ve listened to several of the episodes. Sometimes it seems as if the hosts didn’t really watch the same movie I did, often missing key points from the movie. However, there are other times when they do catch things that tease out some profound moments. I do have one extra note: while the hosts are quick to point out misogyny when it comes to men, they don’t always do the same with women. For instance, actresses like Tilda Swinton supported Roman Polanski (and still do, I think). There has never been a clearer case of rape and abuse of a minor than what Roman Polanski essentially admitted to. And yet, for some reason, the hosts (and others) don’t seem to have a problem with Polanski’s supporters or actors who continued to act in his films. A final note: I gave this another try. I listened to a recent review of the new Top Gun movie. There is a scene where the characters are playing football on the beach. After acknowledging that the scene had a purpose, the male host said he would have preferred if he could just watch bare chested guys and abs instead of having a scene that was improvement from the beach volleyball scene from the original. That did it for me. I’m not really sure what the point of this podcast is if not to actually review and critique movies. They don’t seem to be able to do that very well. One thing I will say is that music/ movie quotes montage in the beginning is one of my favorite parts of any podcast. Other than that, I wouldn’t waste my time.
TheBooRito
2 out of 5 stars
Dana Stevens is a bad reviewer.
I have a bone to pick with Dana Stevens because it’s like she doesn’t like any of the movies she’s reviewing and only half pays attention to them. Especially with the Marvel movies, you can tell she’s not a real fan and honestly none of the reviewers on the Marvel movies are fans. Dana also has a way of being negative towards a movie and guiding her cohost/s into trashing the movie along with her. No offense to Dana herself but these spoiler specials aren’t as fun when you can tell the host only watched the movie once and forgot most of it.
Creeperslayer123
1 out of 5 stars
Pretentious
Not a good podcast
The Dead Sams
1 out of 5 stars
Brutal.
If you need anymore reason to dislike film critics then this podcast is for you! Generally their criticism is often in information or plot they obviously just missed and didn’t bother to look into. When called out by other guests they just double down and never take a step back. Also, take a shot any time the guest Inkoo Kang says um, like or basically! :)
_ladyzsazsa_
1 out of 5 stars
Terrible
It’s like Dana doesn’t pay attention to the movie she is reviewing. The “plot holes” she discovers are her not paying attention or her inability to infer information with what she’s been given - isn’t that the whole point of being a movie critic? The Nope review made me so angry I had to turn it off. Go see it again, Dana, it’s not that difficult.
Friends with Jen
2 out of 5 stars
Host seemed dense
First time listener to catch Nope episode. It was cringe-worthy how the host missed obvious plot points and instead ridiculed the film for “plot holes”. Was she half-watching the film? I’m no cinema genius but even I knew the answers to the questions that befuddled her. I felt like maybe her co-host did but didn’t want to be rude continuously point out the mistakes. Because the host couldn’t even get the plot right, it really skimped on any decent analysis.
angrylf
1 out of 5 stars
So wrapped up in dogma it isn’t about films
Listen to the episode about Promising Young Woman - they talk about their uninteresting moral stances instead of the film! Ridiculous.
MisterNizz
2 out of 5 stars
Getting tired of the podcaster’s elitist POV
Good Lord, we get it. You’re too cool and entitled to like or objectively review popular entertainment. You look down on the audience who enjoy certain kinds of movies like Marvel films or popular genre series. I thought the “I’m clueless about comic book movies” schtick was funny and quirky at first, but as you yourself say here, you’ve been doing it for a long time now, and it’s getting tiresome. Nobody should HAVE to like anything, ever. Yet the sense of being patronizing for deigning to review popular films is noticeable now.
whit_harris
1 out of 5 stars
Poor Analysis
I couldn’t even finish listening to the doctor strange 2 episode. Neither of the reviewers paid much attention as they were already getting very obvious plot points incorrect. If you haven’t fully paid attention to a movie don’t review it.
Pleased Audible User
1 out of 5 stars
Enough!
If you hate Marvel movies so much just don’t go see them. I used to over look your disdain for those types of movies but the amount of complaining and belittling of Dr. Strange 2 just went over board. How about you just stick to properties you like or Just do better at keeping an open mind please! Even I had problems with the movie, but still enjoyed it for the most part. You on the other hand ripping it apart like it is “Sharknado” or something. I am done, will not be listening again. Have a good day.
luxpermanet
1 out of 5 stars
Horrible voices
Except for Dana and maybe two or three guests, no one should be speaking in public since they have horrible voices.
LaStregaElisa
1 out of 5 stars
Film criticism not simple-minded recaps needed
What has happened to this podcast? Why is it terrible now? What is going on with Slate podcasts in general? Are there no more editors? Don’t podcasters have to do their homework first. On that note, one of the very best Slate podcasts, How to do it, was eliminated, while all these other superficial ones remain. It’s not worth my Slate Plus membership anymore, because I have to delete all of the ones I don’t listen to anymore.
AAragonaD
1 out of 5 stars
The lost daughter pod
The hosts seem to have seen the movie once and didn’t seem to have paid attention or do research. It was hard to listen to because they kept getting plot details wrong, mispronouncing names, and making major misplaced judgements on characters that feel like projections rather than studied character analysis. Please see The Lost Daughter and don’t let this pod confuse you about the outstanding work of Elena Ferrante.
Swms1224
3 out of 5 stars
Like Like Like
I used to listen all the time but stopped because of the horrendous vocal fry valley girl reviewers. I tuned in for House of Gucci and it’s the same. Heather I think. Sorry won’t be listening again
MousseMoose
1 out of 5 stars
Shocking
The Power of the Dog podcast consists of one reviewer who does not possess the cognitive ability to understand the plot of the movie and a second reviewer who does not possess the emotional sophistication or attention span to hang with a film that really is not all that narratively or emotionally complex. Dumbfound. [You really went up to an actor in a major motion picture and asked him to explain the ending of his film? He should win the Oscar for “most polite at a party”; Pauline Kael is rolling over in her brilliant, pompous grave.]
dahardyg
2 out of 5 stars
What’s the rush
I had to check to see if I accidentally hit the wrong button- the woman reviewer talks SO fast I thought it was sped up.
Just Good Sense
1 out of 5 stars
The movie podcast for people who hate movies
Finally deleted this one off my feed after two years of frustration with reviewers (not gonna dignify them as “critics”) who not only seem to be disappointed in every movie they see, but can’t be bothered to pay attention to those movies in order to coherently explain what they didn’t like. It’s become funny, in a sad way, to hear Stevens say for the umpteenth time that she’s totally spaced on this or that aspect of the story of any given picture. Maybe she (all of them, really) would be happier finding other things to cover at Slate. Child care, maybe, or animal news?
radiantlady
3 out of 5 stars
Lazy reviewing
Just listened to one episode on the movie Power of Dog. I was really hoping to get good insight into the twists of this movie. Disappointed that both reviewers got many parts of the movie wrong admitting that they couldn’t remember scenes and omitted many key scenes. Kinda half-baked and lazy reviewing, in my opinion. If you’re going to do a spoiler podcast review of a movie, maybe try taking some notes.
Mark from Rhinebeck
5 out of 5 stars
Excellent!
Broad array of topics including current and classics, TV and movies, intelligent, insightful, animated, and witty discussions.
Tmanda1990
2 out of 5 stars
So negative
The hosts are always so negative about the movies they review. I’m not claiming any of these are the films of our generation but the constant tearing down of the films gets old really fast.
Del2017
1 out of 5 stars
Saying Stupid a lot is not Film Criticism
I suppose it doesn’t matter since I have unsubscribed and will not be coming back. But all I think about is how too many people (podcasting, YouTube, TikTok) believe they can pull off intelligent commentary with humor & sarcasm. Being reductive, saying “That’s Dumb” A LOT and replacing snarky insults where actual thoughts about plot should be is like listening to some self important college freshman who read one book on film theory. The worst part is the episode was about a movie that’s completely bananas with an odd plot so I showed up because I expected criticism and discussion. What I got was lazy and unfunny. Truly just a turn off so I turned it off.
GayRetard666999
1 out of 5 stars
Shallow, horrible analysis
Allegra Frank and Nitish Pahwa are terrible at this! Listening to them is like listening to two junior high kids try and recall a movie without any insight or interest in its thematic ideas. No attempt at subtext or symbolism. Just, this happened… and then this happened… and it was dumb. What absolutely useless and mindless commentary. They are incredibly shallow and inarticulate. Find better critics!
BAlisonMarie
1 out of 5 stars
Meh...
Boring. There are too many good podcasts to choose from to waste time listening to this.
El of Oz
2 out of 5 stars
The hipster friends you gladly left behind
First of all people need to chill with the whole “Inkoo uses the word like too much!” criticism. Plenty of people do and it doesn’t alter the quality of their inputs. That being said the quality of the inputs on this show can be severely lacking. I was surprised that they reviewed The Witcher after having only seen 1 or 2 episodes. How on earth can you know anything about a show after having seen so little of it? And yet they were so confident in their criticisms. This is a recurring theme. I also find that the main criticism of many, many films and shows is that something is too “stylized” or “twee”. I can understand that being a valid criticism when that is all a film or show has to offer but if a well written and well acted film/show is heavily stylized I don’t think it needs to be remarked on constantly. I also don’t think it’s a valid enough criticism to deem a film to be “good” or “bad”. In all honesty some of the regulars on this show remind me of my overly hipster friends in high school who were so above everything that it made them insufferable. I found it particularly rude that in your Uncut Gems episode Willa repeatedly referred to the gem mine as being in “Africa” despite the fact that other hosts and guests referred to it as Ethiopia and it was obvious in the film that it was Ethiopia. This is a form of erasure. If I was talking about a coal mine in England but I kept referring to it as Europe that wouldn’t do much to paint a picture, would it? Not to mention Willa’s treatment of Nichole during the Bridgerton episode. I think Willa needs to examine some ingrained biases.
cray0617
1 out of 5 stars
Like like like
All they say is like and it’s like like jus say like instead of like making like sense like it’s terrible don’t like bother like
paola.esp
5 out of 5 stars
Thoughtful and smart conversations
Love this podcast. I’m probably in the minority of people who don’t care about getting movies spoiled and I love listening to these spoiler conversations prior to watching the actual films. It helps me view and understand films in a new way.
Jaykidd13
1 out of 5 stars
Horrible
They minimized/excused a rape because a woman committed it. Embarrassing
angrymuffin9442
5 out of 5 stars
Great Episode
Your Promising Young Woman episode was great. I have been listening to a lot of podcasts about it, and yours has been my favorite. I listened to an episode about that movie by The Cinema Guys and they basically said that the rapist was probably just as traumatized as the victim. So maybe we don't let CIS white dudes talk anymore.
Tea-Flow
2 out of 5 stars
White Woman Talks Over Black Woman
Why even bother bringing a black guest host to discuss Bridgerton if the white host is just gonna talk over her the entire time? Willa, the white host, rambled on so much in this episode and even when she’d remember she wasn’t alone, she’d interrupt Nichole, the black guest host, before she could even finish answering. Nichole, the one who has read the books, criticizes the adaptation and Willa stills seems to share more thoughts on it than Nichole. And the worst part is when Nichole, a WOC who has a very different perspective on representation in TV from a white woman, expresses some criticism with the way the shows’ black characters are portrayed, and Willa pushes back and justifies the show choices repeatedly. I felt awful for Nichole and I hope Slate treats her better than this going forward.
mohavisoul
4 out of 5 stars
Fantastic Tenet Examination
Thoughtful discussion of Tenet; professional production with thoughtful insights from Both hosts; pleasant sounded voices, too
Maymey
1 out of 5 stars
So “like “ANNOYING!
I tried to listen to the episode about Parasite, but it was so annoying hearing “like” constantly. I’m sure in Inkoo Kant is a fine writer, but as a podcaster she’s unlistenable. Not everyone should do everything. Stick to writing. Speaking is not your thing.
RFM11238
5 out of 5 stars
Smart, engaging
I’m a relatively new listener, but I’ve been loving this Podcast. Smart people having interesting conversation. I appreciate having women’s perspective as well, since most of the movie Podcasts I listen to our hosted by men. Love it! I definitely recommend.
yourwinona
1 out of 5 stars
Needs more perspective
Would have loved this show, and the format, however, it has become too tiresome to listen to such narrow viewpoints. I appreciate that the show invites “different perspectives” into the films/shows however, rarely do the insights go deep enough, especially when it comes to speaking about race. When people of color go on to the show to point this perspective out, it is never discussed or recognized, instead challenged as if it was an artistic “choice” to be “race blind”, like this show. It’s just tiring!
mlc9317
5 out of 5 stars
My favorite film podcast
Great work guys! Wish you would revisit more classics!
concernedcitizen2049
1 out of 5 stars
Nits will be picked
Their review of doctor sleep made little sense. They thought it was weird to have a scene of Danny and his mom at the end. Not sure why that would be weird? That was an often repeated criticism. It’s weird how this is in the movie. However no explanation as to why it would be weird was offered. It’s weird how that was the depth of their analysis. Very subpar art criticism. Roger ebert these guys are not.
maxbatt
4 out of 5 stars
Ads are way too loud
Love you guys but your ads come across as around 200% louder than the actual programming. We play podcasts on our Sonos so the podcast is a no-go due to us needing to desperately rush back and turn down the volume when the ads start, at risk of getting in trouble w the neighbors.
Nicolefth
5 out of 5 stars
Don’t mistake this for a review
This is not a review. It’s a group of friends gabbing about the movie that just came out, and explaining to you what happened. When the explanation is not perfect is generally because the movie was confusing (or boring), when the discourse isn’t perfect it’s because they’re just gabbing. It’s fun to hear different voices, different passions and different perspectives. Come back soon please!
James_jazzy
1 out of 5 stars
Turned me off
I listened to 20 minutes and gave up. Some speakers use the word “like” in nearly every other sentence, and just generally talk too much. I came to this by way of Slate’s Culture Gabfest, which is much more articulate and insightful.
3vilStarlight
1 out of 5 stars
Sloooow down
I found it interesting but so hard to listen to - you tall waaaay too fast and say like as like idk like every other like word like . I kept having to check if my audio was at 1 1/2 times the speed
Chilebean.123.
4 out of 5 stars
Good but...
Why does Rebecca sound so out of breath during this episode?
Quebber
1 out of 5 stars
Vocal Fry Fest
One host will describe a scene in more time than the scene takes. Partly because she decorates every phrase with “like”. Another needs to find some synonyms for “extremely” since he uses the word extremely often in extremely repetitive ways. How the primary host can stand the gravel in their throats is a mystery I would like spoiled so I don’t need to wait for the end of this annoying podcast. And the worst part is their insipid summaries.
Kristen Mary Fitzpatrick
3 out of 5 stars
Spoiling too much!
Stop spoiling movies/books not in the title of the episode! You spoiled Sharp Objects in the Little Woman episode!! You could have edited that out.
Alaskacie
3 out of 5 stars
Reasonable as long as Inkoo Kang not included
She’s the one who says “like” every third word. Without her, it’s pretty good. Revisits movies and adds info, observations and insights that are enjoyable. Take a discount, however, for the upspeak, where they phrase sentences as questions. And also, somewhat hilariously, when they cannot remember things because they’ve seen the movie so long ago and then use faulty memory to replay details incorrectly.
Ava Knits
5 out of 5 stars
Love this podcast!
“Portrait of a Lady on Fire” episode...so much mansplaining.
Brandyalexander
5 out of 5 stars
Has perfect episodes
5 stars because when it is good... It's perfect! This is when Dana is in them and usually with only one other person. A nice back and forth with her soothing voice breaking down a movie i am too scared to see is all I want! The ""Us" episode is a perfect example.
Presleeeee89098
1 out of 5 stars
Maddening
I wanted to LIKE this podcast and I probably would if it wasn’t for the 1 host who says LIKE like a thousand times. Omg! Maybe she is a great journalist but podcasting or public speaking is not her thing, please take her off.
Lacrosse MD
1 out of 5 stars
Sound Moronic. It’s “like”...Painfulllll
One woman giggles and says “like” 3-4 times per sentence! And she and the guy have that vocal fryyyyyy where they drag out the last letterrrrr. Come on. You’re supposed sound as if you’re educated journalists. Had to stop listening.
maplesc621
3 out of 5 stars
Too many “likes”
I’m looking for a good film podcast with spoilers and found this one. Unfortunately, I read the reviews and the use of “like”. Now I can’t concentrate on anything but the word “like”. Just work on presentation skills and this podcast would be top notch.
Andy233233
1 out of 5 stars
Please remove the woman with the lisp!
I have zero issue with her lisp, I do have issue with a grown woman saying “LIKE” every three words. She sounds as if she’s in 4th grade. Makes this unlistenable.
Linamayella
5 out of 5 stars
Call Me By Your Name
I was looking back for your review of Call Me By Your Name and so disappointed not to find it. That movie is one of my favorites and would love to listen to you review it.
LacrosseMominCT
3 out of 5 stars
How many times can you say “like”?
Kang’s use of “like” 47 TIMES (I stopped counting at some point) is beyond distracting - it makes the episodes unlistenable. Terrible! Please - stop!
sternj
5 out of 5 stars
Brilliant
Worth it for Dana Stevens. Brilliant.
Tim Buck Too
5 out of 5 stars
Cats
I don’t know why, but I’ve really wanted to experience Cats without having to watch it. I can stomach almost everything about it, but have a hard time trapped listening to music I hate. So, I’ve listened to several podcasts discussing this movie. THIS was the episode that finally scratched that itch. The tone, thoroughness, fairness, pacing, descriptiveness... I just like these people. They’re down to Earth and smart. Now I can move on with my life never having seen Cats in any format but knowing enough about it to understand why it’s important to some fans and where it fits in Broadway history. Thank you 🙏🏼📽🐈
Adams529
2 out of 5 stars
Please stop making Dana review marvel movies
Dana seems to LOATHE superhero movies, which is...fine. I loathe sports movies. But I’m not a film critic and her dismissive treatment of these (often not terrible) films gets old very quickly. I enjoy her reviews generally, but ye GODS stop making her do hero movies.
objects de trouvee
1 out of 5 stars
Complete lack of knowledge of film language
Sadly only cares to listen to each other’s lack of the rules of cinema. Disappointed.
Ally8033
3 out of 5 stars
Missing the point
I listen to and will continue to listen to this podcast because I do like most of the hosts. I do agree with other reviews that this podcast tends to miss the point, or underlying theme of a movie on occasion; however, that seems to only be the case when specific hosts are on the show. I’ll admit, it mostly happens when Inkoo is a co-host. It has nothing to do with her overuse of the word like. Fellow millennium woman here who like speaks the same way. It is instead Inkoo’s narrow mindedness, and her need to insert herself into every movie in an uninteresting and pointless way that distracts the other hosts. Not to be rude, but I think the comments speak for themselves on Inkoo’s presence on this podcast. It sounds like I’m not the only one who deletes episodes that she’s a co-host of.
mlinenweber
1 out of 5 stars
Disappointingly bad
Totally inane. Difficult to listen re: voices and comments. Host and guests cannot recall actual facts from the movies, let alone impart meaning or importance. Their position is one of narrow self-centeredness, which does not lead to a valuable critical examination of art.
pah2105
5 out of 5 stars
Ignore the bad reviews
They pertain to a guest contributor who’s rarely there. That’s not how a show should be judged. Most episodes are hosted by Dana Stevens and Dan Kois, who are a great team.
juan in a trillion
5 out of 5 stars
Bow down to Kang the Conqueror you dorks
Inkoo Kang was the inspiration for the Angelo Bruno character in the Irishman and you losers should bow down.
strummermax
1 out of 5 stars
Inkoo Kang is insufferably annoying.
With her grating vocal fry and constant peppering of "like" into her meandering and poorly informed utterances (they really don't rise to the level of sentences), Inkoo Kang makes unlistenable any episode she appears in.
AK0008
2 out of 5 stars
The voices
Just too unbearable to listen to for more than a few minutes.
AW624
2 out of 5 stars
Oof
Had to stop 15 minutes into the Parasite episode for all the reasons state below (a particular host) and I think I'm officially done with this podcast after dipping into it over the past few years when there's a movie I want to hear more about. They're constantly get details wrong or miss the point.
CTC1181
1 out of 5 stars
Like, Stop Saying Like.
Like Thanks. Like they like talk like valley girls. Like.
NinaFromChic@g0
3 out of 5 stars
So much potential!
Some episodes are excellent; I enjoy the insights into film and TV. That said, I absolutely can’t stand the excessive use of “like” by some hosts. I had to turn off the episode on Last Christmas because it was too distracting and irritating.
nunca1923
1 out of 5 stars
It cannot be said enough
Please read the reviews and curb the use of “like.” You are turning off listeners.
LL2328
5 out of 5 stars
What gives will all the negative reviews!?
The rating for this podcast are crazy to me! I find this podcast super entertaining, especially for movies I’ve already seen. I find the hosts to be thoughtful and funny. I don’t listen to every episode but it’s definitely in my top 5.
Nikkster627
2 out of 5 stars
Woof
Millennial woman here, who speaks like the hosts of this show. Their manner of speaking isn’t my problem. It’s that these are people, who get paid to watch and write about movies, who over the course of their conversation miss the point EVERY TIME. I just stopped the Last Christmas episode, which is not a great movie like they said, but they’re discussing the lack of ghost logic in a Christmas movie that isn’t even really about the ghost. Just one example of nitpicking over small details that ultimately have no consequence in the movie itself. The analysis isn’t nuanced, smart, or put-together. Just ramblings of people who should know better who sound like they’re reacting to a movie for the first time. If I wanted to listen to that, I would just ask more of my friends about it. Ugh.
3924823094uokwjr
2 out of 5 stars
Less than ten
I gave up eight minutes into the episode on "Parasite" because one of the guests could not go three words without a "like." Too distracting! Having recently watched the film, I was excited to listen to others' reviews, but I guess Slate's won't be one of them.
Travis in MN
2 out of 5 stars
An insufferable amount of “like”
I truly want to enjoy this show, but sometimes the stubborn refusal of certain guests to speak English without deploying the word “like” five times per sentence becomes, like, unbearable and, like, shouldn’t, like, be how a media professional, like, talks?
Fiona Lee Oliver
1 out of 5 stars
PLEASE READ YOUR REVIEWS SLATE!!!
This used to be my favorite podcast. I’m so excited when I see a new review pop up but....oh my goodness. The use of LIKE in literally any review coming from Kang is unbearable. I get it, she’s sweet, she had insight, heck I want hear her review of movies too but her verbal tick is SO DISTRACTING. This is 3 times now that I’ve LIKE stopped the podcast and LIKE stopped listening. It was LIKE impossible to focus on what everyone was LIKE saying because all I could hear was LIKE. If tons of people are going to the trouble of leaving reviews maybe you should pay attention to it? It takes a lot of effort to right a review. How annoyed and angry do you think people must be to go to the trouble of writing a review of this podcast and specifically mentioning one person??! I’m sorry but after the 3rd podcast- Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, Parasite and Last Christmas it’s starting to feel like either Slate is ignoring its listeners and Kang just doesn’t care to make some improvements.
TheSwickster
2 out of 5 stars
Please stop saying “like”
I just turned off the the Last Christmas podcast. “like” is said every other word. I normally don’t have a problem with that. Heck, I say “like” too much myself, but I’m not hosting a podcast! It became very insufferable and I had to turn it off. I think everyone is very smart and i love their commentary, but you can tell the hosts that are more seasoned (like Dana, Willa, and Dan) and others that need more experience and vocal training (like Inkoo and Heather).
samajax
1 out of 5 stars
Hard time listening
Maybe it’s a Get off my lawn/generational kind of thing, but Ms. Kang’s incessant use of the word “like” as a space filler was too much. I’ve actually had to skip segments when she’s been a guest on the Culture Gabfest, and completely stop episodes of the spoiler special. She brings a lot of woke baggage, but it’s her conversational crutches that make me cringe. Slate, this is a podcast. I don’t expect BBC dulcet tones, but geesh. I came back to try again. Really wanted to hear about Parasite. Once again, had to turn it off. Why do you let someone who says “like” for seemingly every other word do a podcast? Haven’t you read any of the reviews. People are turning your podcast off mid listen. Does that not tell you anything. Until Ms Kang takes some public speaking classes, there are a lot of folks who won’t be tuning in.
Matt O'Hern
2 out of 5 stars
Lame commentary
The host of this podcast made several inaccuracies statements that revealed how little she knew about the franchise and the particular installment she was critiquing
MartaJane
3 out of 5 stars
Get some media training
Inkoo uses the word “like” every second word. It is unbearable. I think she has insights and knowledge but she is rendered inarticulate and the show is rendered unlistenable. A couple of hours media training is a minimal investment that she could benefit enormously from and Slate would bring back a lost listener.
McKennaNels
1 out of 5 stars
Did you even watch the movie?
The hosts made so many errors in discussing the movie they supposedly just watched, I had to turn it off. It was just frustrating and annoying.
Spider Cents
1 out of 5 stars
Not as smart as they think they are
Annoyingly condescending hosts, especially for how much of the movie they missed. Also, here’s a hint, your white privileged life experience isn’t most of the world’s. It’s kind of honestly gross how much joy they seem to take in ripping into movies. Sadly, this toxic way of consuming art is taking over criticism.
DavidC in SF
1 out of 5 stars
Unlistenable
Some people just shouldn’t do podcasts, and I’m afraid Inkoo Kang is one of them. The vocal fry combined with the incessant “likes” - not to mention the lack of anything particularly insightful or interesting to say- makes listening to her a grueling ordeal.
Toxic Listener
2 out of 5 stars
Do all the hosts watch the whole movie?
Do all the hosts watch the whole movie being discussed? I listened to “Joker” and one of the hosts sounded like he was just making stuff up, he revised two major plot points that would have been very hard to miss. At least watch the whole movie is your going to talk about the whole thing....
TheFordFactory
1 out of 5 stars
Please no more Inkoo. Like, really. Like, no more.
Oh. My. Lord. Trying desperately to listen to the Parasite review but I had to shut it off 10 min in due to the fact that I was running the risk of throwing my listening device into the street. I’m sorry Inkoo. You seem really nice. Maybe it’s better to read your review rather that hear you speak on a podcast. Like, you have a tick. And like it’s like a very annoying tick. Like you speak and like every time you like, open your like,5 mouth and like speak, like your verbal “like” ticks take over and it’s like UNLISTENABLE. Sorry. Again, you seem nice. I’m only referring to the like annoying, like, “like”’ticks. Like it’s like really, really not cool. Like, I was, like, looking forward to this like, review and like, I HAD TO TURN IT OFF. Like, not cool. Like, Inkoo, can you like, work on this?
Oldigespj
1 out of 5 stars
Did they actually watch Joker?
One of the guests critiques Joker harshly while not remember most of the plot! (Spoilers!) he claims Joker intervenes on the subway(not true) that the jokers mom died from a stroke (not true) and mixes up the chronology of the death of Jokers “girlfriend” (claims shes killed after the clown coworker) also claims the clown coworker was shot(he was bludgeoned) and that the short clown tried to sneak away when Joker clearly let him go. First, and last time listening.
redhed_sop
3 out of 5 stars
Ouch
The “vocal fry” of one of the hosts was so distracting that I had to switch off after ten minutes and move on. Too bad.
Dr.. Shrimp Puerto Rico
1 out of 5 stars
Garbage
Only made it through 20 minutes before I was blasted with liberal non sense about Chicago not being dangerous. Horrible review on the Joker. The dudes sound like they’ve never been in a fight and the lady sounds like she be wearing one of those pink hats at a rally. Won’t download again.
JimboFett35
1 out of 5 stars
Very superficial
I bet these hosts were those kinds of kids in school that disliked stuff that was popular to be cool. They go based off of stuff the read online and let that dictate the way they feel about movies.
Smarter than these idiots
1 out of 5 stars
Terrible hosts
It seems as though these hosts don’t even watch the movies they review. Completely dull and boring people.
Chupo's Dad
1 out of 5 stars
How glib can we be?
Pretentious hosts and reviews. It seems like they are desperate to let the listener know how cosmopolitan and “woke” they are.
arodjoker1
1 out of 5 stars
You need to watch the movie twice
Your guys team needs to watch movies 2 times or write notes because you guys forget a lot of how scenes went on. I tried again with you guys with joker and I can’t you guys forgot how scenes happen and it ticks me off. Please write some notes or watch your movies twice before you do the podcast I will simply just move on to another podcast that is accurate on the movie.
Raelyn2992
2 out of 5 stars
Very limited analysis
These hosts are really missing the point on so much of what they are discussing. The analysis is of the plot and characters is so superficial, I’m not sure what the point would be to listen to these hosts’ opinions if they are not going to do their homework and think deeply about the content.
Stevicus0077
1 out of 5 stars
Made it 20 minutes through
If you’re not going to do any research and just kinda, LIKE, wing it, and LIKE, be critical of the handling of the Manson girl murders but LIKE, not even do the tiniest bit of research then LIKE, I don’t feel bad giving you one star based on, LIKE, 20 minutes of one episode.
Cliff Da1ton
1 out of 5 stars
Great Movie Bad Review (Once Upon...)
Speech impediment girl ruined the show and just wanted to here herself talk
Diverum7890
1 out of 5 stars
Painful Episode
“The Once Upon a Time . . . In Hollywood” episode was akin to a large can of dog food being thrown into my face. Kang’s millennial, vocal fry and her incessant use of “like” and “basically” every five words was a horrible distraction—was she in “Mean Girls”? Kang’s angst over the sad fate of the Manson girls may have been the most insipid thing I have read or heard this month, and that is saying something these days. Stevens’s lack of knowledge of the Tate/Labianca killings was annoying because her ignorance was the basis of some her critiques—No, the Labiancas were not neighbors of Sharon Tate. Felt sorry for the third host, who thankfully was able to recognize the fun in the film and the poetic justice of the ending.
bsc321
5 out of 5 stars
Dana Stevens is great
I also like Kang. She’s funny.
mrhappy0121
1 out of 5 stars
I have given this show three chances!
My latest was once upon a time in Hollywood you could not purposefully draw up a diagram of 3 more dislikable hosts literally word they say I disagree with and at 27 mins in Im done.
aliga75
2 out of 5 stars
I liked 2/3
Two of the hosts were great, Kang was awful. I am positive that any movie she likes would be a terrible, joyless, man-bashing bore. Nothing but assumed misogyny, skewed perceptions, and more “likes” than necessary. “Once upon a time in Hollywood” will be my only listen of this podcast.
Cherrywick
1 out of 5 stars
Vocal Fry
Is an affectation
Slapsterlovestuff
1 out of 5 stars
Pretty piss poor
I enjoy variety of movie related podcasts, and I was turned on to this one by a friend. Unfortunately, there’s not a lot here. Listening to the Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, I was struck by one of the guests poor speaking voice and consistent lack of insight and strange mistakes (such as calling a drive-in movie theater a “drive thru”). The host herself seems knowledgeable but here again is lack of insight or any real basic research. There’s a lot of “I feel but I don’t know”. Saying a movie does something amoral with a facet of history is a strong and potentially very interesting statement. But to not back it up with some serious thought and introspection on that is simply not interesting. At one point, she professes bafflement that Tarantino ties the Tate/LaBianca murders to the fall of Studio Hollywood demonstrates a basic lack of understanding of the era, as those two events, and also including the closing of the Hippie Era, were perceived as culturally intertwined and some basic research would have made that clear. (In fact, You Must Remember Manson, Long worth’s excellent mini series, makes that point over and over.) All in all, for the two episodes I’ve heard, I don’t think it’s worth your time.
Williampalmer77840
2 out of 5 stars
For a non-nuanced lens on the movie world, look no farther
If you are really interested in (honestly sometimes entertaining) reviews that cannot divorce movie making and storytelling from an extreme leftist and pretentious point of view, this is the show for you. They are completely incapable of walking into a movie without 7 tons of patriarchal baggage on their back. If a movie dare to present a male or centrist/right-wing point of view, they will point out 17 different ways in which it’s wrong for having done so and how it’s existence is what is wrong with society. Other than their extraordinarily clear, extreme political point of view, several of the hosts start from a position of disliking popular or populist things. I’m not one to shy away from intellectual language, but somehow they make a trait that I would consider endearing in most people, seem almost insufferable because it they’re coming from a position of disgust so often and using their intellects as weapons. That’s the very essence of punching down. Lastly, there is a level of distain/disinterest that they seem to have while viewing most movies. They cannot be bothered to remember even some of the most basic details about movies that they have just seen. Even more important than that, they REGULARLY miss the predominant point that the filmmakers are trying to get across. This is almost never something very subtle either, it’s something that is picked up on by almost every other reviewer, almost all the time. So to sum up, this podcast is about 10% intro and ads. (Acceptable but not enjoyable) 60-80% (depending on the episode) reasonable discussion on movies from a left-wing viewpoint. (generally pretty enjoyable) 0-20% (depending on the episode) angry, disdainful, ill-informed, or crazily biased content parroting ideas that are driving our country apart. Any remainder is generally filler. There is not a chance that they have read any of these reviews, or if they have, then they don’t care because they have not changed. But if you are reading this, and you are OK with the phrase “let’s punch Nazis” being applied to anybody you disagree with, this show will absolutely represent your worldview and you should think about your life choices and then become an avid listener. If you are a reasonable person, then read this review, listen to a few episodes, and perhaps this somewhat extreme review will give you the insight to realize that you are about to enter an abusive relationship if you become a regular listener like myself. The parts of it that are good, keep me coming back, but I am disgusted and frankly disappointed by things that they say every single week.
HeidroFan
2 out of 5 stars
Yeesh
Tends to be pretentious, poorly researched and joyless.
hiyesokay
3 out of 5 stars
Mixed Bag
I have enjoyed some episodes, however, the hosts have the wettest sounding mouths I have ever heard. Just tried to listen to the most recent episode and, like others before it, could not get past the constant smacking sounds. I was cringing the whole time and just had to turn it off.
bikingemily
1 out of 5 stars
Maybe they should take notes?
2 stars for providing usually fun & lively conversations. However I find 2 things disappointing. 1- It baffles me how frequently the podcasters forget details or plot points of the movie. And 2- this podcast leans way closer to just a verbal synopsis of the movie rather than critical review. No exception is made on either of these points when Dana Stevens is on. I would hope a movie critic would elevate it to a different level but unfortunately that’s not the case. I think Slate can do better.
cat jor
3 out of 5 stars
Ad stream for Slate Plus
For a podcast that updates only rarely, there are too many times it’s just a teaser for their paid content. Just drop the feed if there isn’t going to be free content.
LDP1963
4 out of 5 stars
Needs more Dana Stevens
I love Dana Stevens’ writing and her work on Slate’s podcasts, and I enjoy listening to some of the other Spoiler Special panelists but, unfortunately, I just listened to the “Late Night” episode and my drinking game was to do a shot every time Inkoo Kang said “like,” and now I’m dead of alcohol poisoning.
Cinenut
1 out of 5 stars
Vocal fry, "like," up-speaking have driven me away!
I see that I'm not the only person who is tormented hearing these sounds coming through my headphones. I have noted the names of the three women who did the "Fleabag" episode so that I can make sure never to listen to them on any podcast again. I made an exception for the live "Culture Gabfest" that featured Ms. Kang—I've never missed one of their shows—but her incessant "likes" and vocal fry ruined the episode for me.
TexasMommmy
1 out of 5 stars
Unbearable vocal fry
I rarely write reviews, especially for podcasts, but this was so grating and unbearable that I felt compelled to share. The vocal fry and vocal tones are awful and it makes this the absolute worst to listen to. It’s cringey and while I know vocal fry is a personal pet peeve I can’t imagine other people actually enjoying this when there are so many better options out there. Avoid.
natandmart
1 out of 5 stars
Vocal fry makes listening too painful
I love the subject and was excited to try. Slate + is a bummer ( even if a rationally understandable need) but the VOCAL FRY is excruciating. Please, dear people, listen to your own podcasts and then hire a vocal coach. I believe it is a solvable problem. Until then, bye bye.
Xxdythra
1 out of 5 stars
Not worth it
Will unfollow. They constantly get basic facts wrong. They want us to pay for slate plus to hear full episodes. Not worth it guys. The premise is good, the hosts are unprepared and not as funny as they think they are.
esdkbtdvh
2 out of 5 stars
Not great but I want to like it
I really enjoy their choices for review, but it’s pretty frustrating when no one can seem to remember basic details from the movies or shows they are discussing. Perhaps having an outline or more structure would help. I really want to like the show, but the lack of clarity of the details is distracting.
makeupmaven
1 out of 5 stars
Nope
The vocal fry, especially Inkoo Kang’s, is unbearable. Details and plot points are missed or entirely misunderstood. Slate should replace the contributors with more professional people or cancel this podcast entirely.
Qgjkudehddfjvff
1 out of 5 stars
GoT coverage is trash
This review is for the Game of Thrones Coverage. I listen to a great GoT podcast but this game up in my feed under the Slate Culture Gabfest, which I enjoy, so I listened to a bit. It’s trash. In the part I listened to, all three hosts admitted that they couldn’t remember anything about two characters’ previous storylines. Then why are you doing a podcast about it?? I also disagreed with most of their takes throughout. They just didn’t seem to care all that much about anything, and they skipped entire scenes in their recap because they thought they were “boring.”
disgruntedsubscriber
2 out of 5 stars
“Like”
I see others are bothered by the use of “like”. Some reviewers are good, but the “like” users drive me over the top. I start counting how many times it’s used and can’t keep up. How does a person with this speaking ability get on air??
Missy2278
1 out of 5 stars
Why do these people watch movies??
I enjoy film, of all kinds. I enjoy the big budget superhero to foreign Indy films and everything in between. I don’t mind critique and discussion about problems. What I can’t stand is people who discuss movies with such an air of superiority and focusing on any possible pet peeve they personally have that’s irrelevant in the wider scope of the film. That’s this podcast. I listen to a lot of review podcasts and this will not be one I’ll ever bother with in the future.
Sam.Hanks
5 out of 5 stars
Dana Lives.
+Willa et al carry on the legacy Go all the way back and enjoy some of the early episodes. Some shows hit the ground running, and this podcast doesn't waste a minute
Ba Da Ben
5 out of 5 stars
Thoughtful critical perspectives
The show is for people who like listening to arts critics, but are curious as to their informal thoughts beyond the page. The discussions are fun to hear and aren't attempting to cast final verdicts on the material as much as open up whatever production they're looking at to a casual back and forth. What I like is it avoids the geek love braying on many recap shows, while also not attempting to be anything more than an exploration of the (usually fictional) world they were presented.
eanderso
1 out of 5 stars
Hyper-critical and hypocritical
The reviewers are hyper-critical of challenging films where the directors are stretching like “Hereditary” or “Annihilation” but rave about films like “Mamma Mia: Here We Go Again.” Ultimately, whether you can listen to this podcast depends upon your tolerance level for that kind of hypocritical nonsense from film reviews.
Ana Selavy
5 out of 5 stars
A Pleasure (Film Spoilers Only)
This is like a book club but for movies, it is a pleasure. I enjoy the richness of the conversation, Dana Stevens and the other Slate editors summarize the plot events in a way that I would normally expect from print rather than real time dialogue. Very rich yet succinct descriptions and summaries, the English major in you will swoon. At the same time I’m no movie aficionado (I’m in medical school!) and none of the dialogue is too ‘artsy’ or inaccessible for a casual movie watcher. I will say that for the Black Swan spoiler it would be nice to have had a counterpoint, with 2 people who didn’t care for the movie the resulting discussion was less interesting...and on the other end of it the Grand Budapest spoiler with 4(!) people was a little overwhelming. 2-3 people seems to be the sweet spot. Dana Stevens should do some TV spoilers as well since the quality of the TV spoilers is unfortunately quite poor (more like a collection of random comments and hot takes, not engaging in any way unfortunately) and it’s a shame because there are some amazing TV series out there!! (Handmaid’s Tale, Westworld, GOT..) Dan Kois and Forest Whitaker would be great to improve the quality of the TV spoilers as well. It would be great to spoil older movies as well!!
brian the guy you love
3 out of 5 stars
It’s fine
This podcast is well produced and listenable enough but often feels like stuffy uptight critics picking films there’s no feasible chance they’ll enjoy. As someone who enjoys genre films this is super frustrating. My guess is that if they were reviewing high brow dramas or foreign films they’d enjoy themselves more, but they’re oftentimes reviewing Star Wars or horror films and as a listener it can be frustrating.
KJack741
5 out of 5 stars
Gold Standard
I hope that I love life, and movies, as much as Dana Stevens or Roger Ebert 10 years from now.
MSAX123
1 out of 5 stars
Ignorant
The hosts purport to dissect the movie/tv show in question but instead of interesting dialogue it typically revolves around some form of “i don’t know, did you understand that?” Or “ I forgot that point, and the character’s name”. Yeeesh. Not insightful. It’s a great concept and slate has some outstanding stuff. And it’s just a pop culture piffle of a podcast but it should be fun. Instead its simply lazy which robs it if it’s enjoyment.
Jimajam30
3 out of 5 stars
Do they watch these movies?
The show is UNEVEN. Sometimes it’s very boring and obnoxiously pretentious but sometimes it’s fun, funny, and intelligent. Also, how is Dana Stevens a well renowned critic? She never seems to know anything about the movies or the actors, and is constantly missing or forgetting HUGE PLOT POINTS. Maybe she should stick to reviewing art movies nobody wants to see? She apparently has so much disdain for popular movies/shows, that even though she hosts a podcast, she doesn’t bother to pay attention them. It can really ruin otherwise good episodes. Like, take some notes or something, lady.
SuperMercado Comics
2 out of 5 stars
Ummmmm
It's a Spoiler Special, youspend too much time recounting the movie beat for beat as if you're describing it to someone who hasn't seen it.
painter1949
1 out of 5 stars
Silly girls who need to mature
Listen to the Handmaids Tale and was appalled to hear minutes of silly giggles opening show. This was followed by lack of memory on episodes and misinformation. First of all the skin to skin contact with a failure to thrive baby is important and there have been studies. Do your research if you are uneducated. This was also NOT about failure to do an abortion other than the fact you all conveniently forgot: she fell out of her window on purpose. There is no way to do it otherwise. But when mentally strong she wanted her baby and had a relationship with Nik whom she sought out and their relationship obviously grew greatly. These gals also forgot the underground blew up the building with many commanders..duh isn’t this an underground with people fighting back? Also there is a large group getting people out and they are highlighted almost every episode. I will stop now. You get the idea. They forget the the basics. By the June and Nik had lots of good sex the first season and so she didn’t want to get rid of the baby. Please get rid of these gals. They are incompetent.
davmav01
1 out of 5 stars
Handmaid's Tale episode was appallingly bad
I was disappointed in the second season of the Handmaid's Tale , and eager to get a Slate-y critical take on it. But this episode was shockingly, horribly lame. Every point they made was vacuous and shallow. They were far more interested in how the series made them "feel" as a [fill in the race-gender-sexual-identity-politics category here] than in any kind of disinterested critical analysis of any aspect of the show. Two of them were so mush-mouthed that it was hard to understand them ... though maybe that was for the best. If you're looking for examples of millennial responses to popular culture that suggest that the stereotypes are true, this will suit your purposes. Just because you have access to all that audio equipment doesn't mean you have anything interesting to say, kids.
meowhouse
1 out of 5 stars
Slate can do better
One of the three panelists who discussed season 2 of “The Handmaid’s Tale” seems to think that her identity as a lesbian pre-qualifies her to provide unique and necessary perspective on a show that is a genuine cultural fire alarm, yet she takes an automatic position against the showrunner because of his identity as a male. It’s hypocritical and ironic, since his material went way over her head. Among the idiotic points the hosts tried to get across: “Season 2 didn’t hew to the source material” (Atwood’s book was written a generation ago, and the series is set in the present day. People say “What the actual *uck” a lot in Trump’s America); “The story is too focused on June and her glum face [paraphrase] when they could have done more of an ensemble” (the source material is June’s POV). Also: “How do these characters find joy in Gilead?” (er, Gilead is a bummer and then you die). When I tune to Slate, I expect well-informed, insightful and smart discussion, not wandering, incoherent, uncentered smack because it’s cool to be contrarian. And seriously, I counted 837 utterances of the word “like” as filler (I didn’t actually count - there may have been more).
jonfromouterspace
2 out of 5 stars
Phoning It In
Unfortunately, the hosts don't seem to enjoy movies or television. They especially don't enjoy putting effort into fully understanding the programs that they review. Perhaps they should try covering things they actually like instead.
R.u.ckug
2 out of 5 stars
Analysis falls flat at times
They just miss a lot of the significance/meaning of scenes and elements of movies and their analysis can be so I guess basic? Uninformed? Bland? Sometimes just reading Reddit comments analyzing the movies are more insightful and interesting. Maybe they should think about researching more about what the directors/fan theories and explanations are
Me me me me its me
5 out of 5 stars
Smart and fun
Dana and co. give wonderful analyses. I recommend!
vstrife
5 out of 5 stars
Best way to follow up a movie
Dana is my fav film critic, so this podcast is like a gift if I’ve seen the movie.
6fanbeth
1 out of 5 stars
Unlistenable
I can accept that in almost every episode, the hosts can be expected to get several basic facts wrong. I can accept that we often don’t agree. I can accept that Dana keeps insisting on discussing Marvel movies despite her clear contempt for the franchise. But I draw the line at having to listen to hosts who don’t know how to speak. The vocal fry on some of these people literally hurts my ears. The Annihilation episode in particular felt less like a conversation and more like an endurance test. I can’t take it anymore. I’m out.
Lsmdjcisnd
1 out of 5 stars
Don’t waste your time
Overall this podcast is just terrible. Listened to one episode and that was one too many.
MK on LI
1 out of 5 stars
Like, who decides, like, who's on the panel?
Aisha Harris is the only reason for listening to this podcast. Can nobody else hear Inkoo say "like" ad nauseum? And the vocal fry affect makes her unlistenable. So many dead spots in the conversations, and no chemistry between the panelists. Come on, Slate - you can do better than this.
DanielleRenee210
1 out of 5 stars
13 Reasons
I could not even listen to this further than the first 10mins. The inaccuracy of what reporting what happened and how, namely Zach Dempsey’s story from the first season, was just too much!! Please hire people with contracts requiring them to watch both seasons in preparation for any kind of review podcast, otherwise they end up making your podcast looks stupid! They referred to Clay as “a bland white boy/man” and like the character or not, it is just a horrible description of anyone... Especially, one of the main players who (in both seasons) is well fleshed out character wise, probably at least twice most of the others. This was seriously disappointing! I was really looking for a great place to hear good/or bad reviews about the show from season 1 to 2 and see if people agreed or disagreed with me or needed:had info. I felt I was missing!!
in the colorado wilds
1 out of 5 stars
Ocean’s 8
While all the commentators had insightful comments, one inserted “like” to the point of “like” total annoyance. I couldn’t “like” listen anymore.
BoBo Leaves a Review
1 out of 5 stars
Waste of time
I normally don’t write reviews on here, but this podcast is absolute trash. I listened to the 13 Reasons Why episode and as a fan of the show, I understand many are not, BUT if you’re going to do a review on something whether you enjoy it or not, YOU NEED TO ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT YOURE TALKING ABOUT! A lot of this review was like they read a summary online and did a review. Next time actually watch the show and make valid points. This just seemed lazy. Also simply saying “there are too many characters” to actually remember anything that happened in the show is not an excuse.
modephus
1 out of 5 stars
Used to be a fan
There was a time when there were some good opinions by people who knew something about movies. Now it seems to be a bunch of not-very-bright 20-somethings blathering. There were some good moments in Ready Player One talk. Got two minutes into Solo and turned it off. Gooid idea, now pretty much in ruins.
Homanclature
4 out of 5 stars
I’ll listen to just about anyone talk about movies
And the people on this podcast are usually pretty good. However, I am much less concerned with the discussion that occurs nearly every episode about how to watch a movie through the lens of the trump era. My God.
starswimmer135
2 out of 5 stars
Infinity War
Just listened to the infinity war podcast and I must say if you’re going to review a marvel movie please have some background knowledge about the MCU. One of the critics hadn’t even seen civil war or Dr. strange and just mainly complained about character development. These characters have been developed over 18 movies! This one was primarily about Thanos’ development. Thy made some interesting points but a lot of the confusion would have been cleared up by having knowledge from the last 10 years
EndlessMike03
1 out of 5 stars
Um, uh
Probably about 400+ ums and uhs in a one hour podcast. Lots of “you knows” too. Being a decent writer doesn’t make a good podcaster. Work on crutch words. Also, the content wasn’t good.
uscbob
1 out of 5 stars
It’s a movie
Couldn’t wait to hear discussion about Ready Player One after just seeing it and enjoying the story and commentary on today’s society, and listened to this podcast for the first time. It will also be my last time. Instead of an analysis, it ends up being a discussion about how two of the reviewers (one of whom fell asleep during the movie) were offended that the movie wasn’t made “for them”. They over-analyze the intent of the movie instead of discussing the artistic merits, the obvious analogy to today’s internet, and the story itself.
Distraught Lackey
1 out of 5 stars
Is it an axe?
It’s a hammer. Smart guy. Did y’all watch the movie though?
Hemevubal
1 out of 5 stars
Smug, Dismissive, Alienating, Hateful
I thought I would give them a chance after giving them up two months ago. The "Ready Player One Review was obvisously not the one to come back to. Or perhaps it was. Original decison not to continue listening was oviously the right one. Undoubtedly well put together but more about tearing things down rather than anything else. Spielberg's movie is simplistic but has some truths one of which is true fans know haters and should avoid them.
Vicious Truffle
2 out of 5 stars
Snooty much?
This is a movie podcast that movie critics might listen to as part of their homework. It is not fun. It is not entertaining. These people don’t seem to enjoy movies but they do seem to enjoy listening to the sound of their own voices.
DRLee13
1 out of 5 stars
Much to “Like”
I listened to the Isle of Dogs episode as well as several others. The IOD episode is emblematic of them all with regard to the poor quality of language usage. Inkoo Kang, in particular, comes across as a precocious youngster because of her ruinous habit of interjecting “like” into each uttered sentence, often more than once. Almost all of the commentators on this podcast interject words of equivocation, usually “like”, to some extent. What happened to Americans born since 1985? How did this degradation of the spoken language occur? Whither shall it go?
$$qwerty
1 out of 5 stars
Yuck
Yawn
Jelliefishie
1 out of 5 stars
Disappointing Observations
I was excited to listen to this podcast because I never seem to have enough people to dissect movies with. But I found myself constantly pausing this because either the host or one of the other speakers was just misremembering details of the movie and then criticizing the movie for it. Or poking at things that have no consequence on the overall film viewing experience. I tried to carry on but after several more moments where I had to pause this thing, I gave up. This was frustrating to listen to, not interesting. I suggest the hosts watch the movie twice and take notes during the second viewing before you record a podcast discussing a film.
Awhittre
1 out of 5 stars
Content?
I subscribed when weekly serial spoiler episodes were coming out. I enjoyed listening to the opinions of the staff. Now content is very sporadic and today’s episode is about 50 Shades. I don’t think this movie really needs reviewed, it has an audience that will see it without your opinions. There have been tons of other movies I would have loved to have heard about but it’s been weeks since tour last episode and weeks before that for the previous. Go back to being consistent and then you can review crappy movies because you did a good one the week before.
Gloriaissilent
4 out of 5 stars
The movie reviews are the best
Thank you so much for bringing back the movie reviews! Love it! Love Dana Stevens! The best!
Bruised Ear
4 out of 5 stars
Love Dana Stevens
Love Dana Stevens, but the guests are varied. Dan Kois and John Swansburg and June Thomas. But Jonathan Fischer is terrible. Every other word is "UM" and he sounds unprepared to speak about the movie he's reviewing. Please prepare or find someone else.
LukeXM
1 out of 5 stars
Poorly informed
Really uninformed commentary throughout. But what did it for me is the criticism that in Justice League, Cyborg said "Booyah". I think they were utterly unaware that booyah is Cyborg's signature catchphrase. Among other critiques that didn't make any sense, I would not recommend this podcast.
Ankurp23
1 out of 5 stars
Waste of time.
Movie reviews done by ppl who have no idea about source content.
lennyo21477
1 out of 5 stars
Justice League
What movie did you watch? How do you folks do this for a living? Bad review.
Hamhead615
1 out of 5 stars
Eh
They don't seem to pay attention and then talk over plot points inaccurately
Not sharp enough
3 out of 5 stars
Is this your day job?
I listened to the recent reboot of this podcast. The first few were okay, but I had not seen the movies prior to. I did see Thor Ragnarok before listening to the podcast and there were some big flaws. If it was my job to review movies and discuss media, I would like to be much more accurate. I am a casual viewer of the Marvel movies and these reviewers missed multiple facts about the universe and thus sounded like hacks. Examples: Vision could pick up THor's hammer. It was a running joke in Age of Ultron. Loki was a villian in 3 prior movies. Ant-Man, Civil War, and Spiderman both had a great blend of comedy and action (far better than Thor.) I loved Hunt for the Wilder People and great respect for the director, but Raganrok was uneven and not that funny.
Sebastian's Dad
2 out of 5 stars
Tough listen
I tried listening to the review for Thor:Ragnarok. The guy giving the movie recap gave me a headache. He sounded like a middle school kid trying to give a book report. “Uh” and “Um” every 2-3 words. He claims to be the go to Marvel reporter, but he can’t name characters, names of locations or other Marvel landmarks. I’m willing to try this pod again but this for me was a rough start.
TX333
2 out of 5 stars
This is a pretentious and uninformed production
I question if Dana understands any movie that she reviews. A third of the time the guest reviewer saves the show with a nuanced understanding. Two thirds of the time it dispenses ill conceived points of view from self-described sophisticates.
rabi0sa
5 out of 5 stars
Fave new film podcast
I don’t like reading about a movie before I see it, preferring to engage with it afterwards, so this is essentially my dream podcast. Love host Dana Harris. All I had to do was listen to their spoiler episode on Blade Runner 2049 to be sold.
DominoDC
5 out of 5 stars
So glad it's back!
I missed this podcast, it's just what a movie fan needs. Love Dana Stevens and the guest speakers tend to be enjoyable, too. Please keep it rolling again.
Ballaballawalla
5 out of 5 stars
A really fun show!
A fun, light discussion on movies, tv and some (or 1) podcast. Nice to hear a general conversation with points I hadn't rhought of but not over critical and picking every piece apart.
ProfMLS
5 out of 5 stars
Not the same
I used to love this podcast...when it was all about movies. Then they started recapping the Serial podcast and from there they started spoiling tv shows. It's not the same and I stopped listening. When they return to doing what the podcast title says (movies) maybe I'll return.
Literary Fan
5 out of 5 stars
Anything with Dana Stevens is a winner
I see so few movies and watch so little TV that i use my time hiking to listen to this podcast and sort out the films and shows that I MUST see. I can tell by the way in which Dana discusses the characters, plot, production, direction, history, and other details whether the case-in-point will be up my alley. And, if so, I see it. if not, I have enough under my belt to sound not too ignorant in a shallow conversation with others. Dana is a brilliant critic and a kid woman, based on her reviews, at least.
8348438e39
2 out of 5 stars
Whatever happened to movies?
I miss their spoiler reviews of movies- it’s turned into obsessive compulsive dissection of podcasts and serial television, week after week. If you’re not into Downton abbey or “Serial” you’re out of luck. Bring back movie spoilers!
Seattlecindy
4 out of 5 stars
Like the content but not the voice
I like the concept and usually the execution. But recently I cannot tolerate Katy Waldman's voice. Is it the dreaded "vocal fry"? Not sure but I wanted her to stop and take a deep breath so badly I couldn't keep listening. I'll try again because I do like the content.
soonerbrat
3 out of 5 stars
Not a fan of the female's voice
Her voice is too gravelly.
Mayscild
2 out of 5 stars
Deliberately Ignoring The Message?
A core theme of episode 4 of Serial season 2 was how one of our soldiers suffered the consequences of America's mishandling of Abu Ghraib and Bagram. It is astonishing that Slate's podcast doesn't even touch on the subject. The constant reminders Bowe had to endure about these scandals are made repeatedly in Serial. Why does the Slate team choose to ignore this and instead waste time repeating over and over that they aren’t getting the point of Serial 2? Maybe they need to listen to episode 4 again, until they get it. I won’t go out of my way to listen to the Slate crew again soon.
StowShow81
1 out of 5 stars
Sub par
If you feel like listening to the most annoying lady in your work place summarize movies download any of the Stevens reviews. Gave up on that after 3 listens...the guests are fine. Get a new host.
concreteprincess
5 out of 5 stars
Great
I love this, just wish they did it more often!
LiaDA702
3 out of 5 stars
Please no more vocal fry
Can you have the podcast without the woman with the vocal fry? It sounds really awful and it makes me want to turn the volume down or switch podcasts altogether. It's a shame because I love the content and commentary.
Mangosplums
5 out of 5 stars
Mangosplums
Love this podcast! Wish they would do way more! I especially like when there’s 3 people in the discussion. I also wish they’d review more arthouse and high brow movies and fewer blockbusters. Dana DOES love movies, she just doesn’t have patience for mass produced crap (neither do I), so why are so many of the episodes covering the mass produced crap?
Cristi Hendry
5 out of 5 stars
First rate
Great movie discussions. This podcast has saved me a lot of money on movie tix.
Abcmonet
5 out of 5 stars
Love!
I look forward to these and can't get enough of them.
Veronica Camelbile
1 out of 5 stars
Lack of Imagination, Lack of Diversity
The participants most often are in lockstep with one another regarding opinions and I very often disagree with them. That's okay and even healthy (not the white bread pasty lack of flavor, that's terrible) but that almost everything is bad according to these paper thin deep guys and gals. Paper mâché chatterboxes with nary a fresh idea in the troop. Ay, me. Sad (and NOT in a good way).
BoomerTomi
2 out of 5 stars
no longer about movies
I used to enjoy this podcast, but over the past few months it’s focussed on Serial and now Downton Abbey, neither of which I have any interest in. I wish it would return to talking about film — even when they covered a film I hadn’t intended to see, it was worthwhile (and I even watched some movies I had not intended to see based on their podcast).
Jon Sandruck
1 out of 5 stars
Get back to movies.
After spending a ridiculous amount of time exclusively covering Serial, they've now turned to only talking about Downton Abbey. Too bad. This used to be a really good show.
jonseals
3 out of 5 stars
It’s the "We Hate Everything” Podcast
I enjoy hearing conversations about films, television, and podcasts. I used to listen to this podcast quite a bit when it first started but I eventually went away because of all of the negativity. I recently came back but I don’t know how long I’ll stay. Here’s a perfect example. In the Breaking Bad finale episode, one of the reviewers actually said, “Bryan Cranston just doesn’t understand the character of Walt.” Really? The actor who played the character so brilliantly for five seasons doesn’t understand Walt but some snooty critic does? Get over yourselves!
Nobody1783
2 out of 5 stars
Host barely remembers the films
Great concept, but is it just me or does the host barely seem to remember the plot of some of the films. She often misremembers major plot points and jokes that she saw some movies over a month ago. Woman this is your job take it seriously
Charleyxu
1 out of 5 stars
Pay attention when you watch movies
Listened to 2 episodes Grand Budapest Hotel and Snowpiercer. First I was astonished by the host’s whole “Gustave H represents Wes Anderson himself and the hotel was his movie” concept, but 3 guests made fair points so I kept at it Then in Snowpiercer the hosts were constantly incorrectly “spoil” any possible detail of the movie, which was just irritating, man, to spoil a film at least please pay attention when you watch it, stop blabbering for christ sake
Malden Pride
4 out of 5 stars
Excellent
Love the Spoiler Specials podcast! I have one minor note re: sound quality in the first "Serial" podcast. The fuzziness/crackling (? not sure what the right term is) of one of the hosts' microphones (Katie, I think) was very, very distracting. I enjoyed her commentary, but had to turn the volume way down when she was speaking because the distortion hurt my ears. Otherwise the episode was enjoyable and I'm looking forward to hearing more!
chutneylix
4 out of 5 stars
Overall a good podcast
I really enjoy listening to Dana Stevens on the Culture Gabfest but don't usually read her film reviews as they are too short for my taste. I tend to like the overanalyzation of film nerd website reviews better. BUT the podcast does for me what her reviews don't. For the most part. It really depends on the guest she brings on so its not always consistent. Still I download every episode. I may not listen to it for awhile since I wait to watch the films first. But I always enjoy the discussion and wish they were longer in a lot of cases. And last note, I don't always agree with the reviewers views but thats really why I follow film criticism....to hear all the different perspectives and interpretations.
Quill Ward
1 out of 5 stars
Wow. Way too long.
Never thought anyone could rob me of the joy I get from consuming pop culture. I'm pretty sure that long-windedness & enjoying the sound of one's own voice are requirements of any job at Slate.
Koizoom
1 out of 5 stars
Writing reviews comes with a great deal of responsibility.
These people clearly are not paying attention to the things they are watching. They consistently misunderstand plot functions, misrepresent facts and they misinform listeners with their irresponsible opinions. /unsubscribe.
young4552
5 out of 5 stars
Best
I wish these came out every single day.
bemoore24
3 out of 5 stars
Slate's Spoiler Special - 12 Years A Slave
One thing about this review bugged me -- and it's a small thing. Aisha (I'm sorry if I'm spelling that wrong) kept using the term "Black Slave" and I couldn't understand why she would make that distinction.
deadmarv78
1 out of 5 stars
Not for me
Boring and hipsterish, the host seems to talk down about things she doesn't understand.
LoveisintheStars
2 out of 5 stars
No joy
This is not a podcast for people who enjoy movies. Most of the time Dana and her guest will ignore crucial plot points clearly lined out in the film in order to strengthen their dislike of the film. I've never heard her give a positive review and she doesn't seem to enjoy movies. I don't know why she was given the podcast if she doesn't at least find a little joy in going to the theater. Is every movie she reviews perfect? Heck no. But there's a difference between pointing out a few weak things and smugly dumping all over a film. This isn't a bad podcast. The host and guest host usually provide some insight to the movie being reviewed. But fair warning, they take their title of "critic" seriously. Even when they like a movie, they find 10 things to gripe about. Apparently they can't just enjoy themselves at the theater anymore.
Rise From The Ash
5 out of 5 stars
Finally A Good Spoiler Podcast
This is a fantastic show. it's great to watch a movie and finally get to hear what everyone else thinks of different plot twists and endings's of films after you see them. All of the critics are very smart and Dana is a very good host. The each spoiler podcast really dissects every aspect of each film the cover its fantastic. Subscribe !!!!!!!
kas357
4 out of 5 stars
It's great!
I think Dana is really insightful, and I love that she usually gets an expert co-host to help with genres in which she is less interested. However I agree with others that they're too negative at times.
Alykaramazov
1 out of 5 stars
You can't hate everything
I gave it four episodes, but hating everything is not a sign of good taste.
apt342
5 out of 5 stars
Spoilers
Love this podcast. I'm not a movie person so I often just listen to this podcast in lieu of attending the movie. It helps me understand the media coverage and social media chatter about the movie without having to fork out the $14.50. I could own the movie in a couple of months at that price! Keep up the great work Dana and team.
jonahofthesea
3 out of 5 stars
That's Fine
I like the idea of Dana (the host) having different co-hosts with specific knowledge on the film. I like that Dana has a lot of traditional film knowledge. 20-30 minutes is a good length. Of all the Slate podcasts (I listen to quite a few) this one has the most technical problems, but, hey, whatcha gonna do? My big gripe is that Dana is so dismissive of entire film catagories. You get the feeling that she doesn't care at all about sci-fi, superhero, action, or horror films but she is reviewing them because it will get clicks or downloads. Her opinion of artsy, upperclass films is insightful. Her opinion of everything else is often a big miss.
LucyPitCorgi
3 out of 5 stars
Oz Review
Agreed with most of your comments about Oz. However, was surprised that no one realized the China Girl represented the girl in the wheelchair from the black and white part of the movie. She wasn't just a random character Oz met along the way.
Lisa Eckstein
4 out of 5 stars
spoil me!
I like to listen to people critiquing and picking apart a movie I've already seen, and this is exactly what the Slate Spoiler Special provides. Fun conversations about recent big releases, both good and bad.
hootenanny1
3 out of 5 stars
Splat
It's unfortunate that a movie critic like Dana Stevens dislikes movies so much.it's difficult to think of a more negative critic. Movies are a wonderful insight into the human condition, they are fantasies, they induce emotions unlike any other art forms, they are an escape from our routines. But no movie needs to be all of those things to be time well spent.
Egaloc
4 out of 5 stars
Great Podcast. Terrible Editing.
I've listened to this podcast since its inception, and Dana Stevens is a great host. There's always great banter, and a generally lively atmosphere. It's worth a listen. What has been lacking in the past six months is the editing portion. The weekly shows are all expertly produced, coherent, and move along at a rapid clip, but in the Spoiler Special, a lot of cracks show. Verbal slips make it into the final release that were obviously meant to be removed in postproduction. Conversation threads trail off. The previous producer didn't let this in, and it's disappointing that the current one does.
Indyca
2 out of 5 stars
Dana is a great host.
She speaks clearly, introduces her guests, and remembers the names of the films. As a critic, she's average. Her real failure is as a journalist. She is unable to record what is presented and report it accurately. Often her recollection is stunningly dissimilar to the film. Not on points open to interpretation. Not on questions of style. Basic plot points. So do listen if you enjoy saying, "what?!" "what?!" aloud.
Mpb1267
2 out of 5 stars
Details matter
I will second many other commenters on two points that motivate my fairly negative review. Dana Stevens frequently criticizes some aspect of a film because she doesn't understand something that was quite clear. I am not talking obscure details. Major plot points create confusion. Also, the show is just too smug. I really enjoy other slate podcasts. Filmspotting is a superior alternative.
tbrianb
3 out of 5 stars
Excellent idea, subpar execution
I've been listening to these podcasts for years. I only listen to the ones for movies I've seen. I've never liked Stevens as a film critic, as I think she's far too negative in that she never seems to enjoy any movie she sees. However, the biggest issue I have is that for a "spoiler" podcast, the hosts often omit crucial facts or get them wrong. (I could mention specific examples, but by definition, I'd be spoiling movies. The one that prompted me to write this review was "Rise of the Planet of the Apes", in which they criticized a couple of things that they wouldn't have if they'd just paid attention.) One would think that people tuning in to this podcast would be detail-oriented; it would be nice if the announcers were the same.
Movie_Going
5 out of 5 stars
Just what is needed
Their is a gaining popular thought that the world's obession with spoilers is ruining film criticism. Well that is taken care of in this podcast. The podcast really works because of the lack of boundaries. A lot of films can't be talked about if you have someone deathly afraid of learning anything. I have to admit that Stevens is not someone I find my self sharing opinions with often, I guess we just want different things from film. At the same time she is a critic I respect and she always brings up valid points even if I disagree with them. My only mark on the podcast is when on of the guests says spoiler alert or something like that. That is very much spoken by the title of the podcast so if people are listening who have not seen the film that is their bad not yours.
Who? Who?
5 out of 5 stars
Cool
Cool
un profit
3 out of 5 stars
Wasssup?
Where are the new shows? I love this podcast.
Canavansbackyard
4 out of 5 stars
Above average; well worth a listen
I just recently started listening to this podcast and have been slowly making my way through the episodes. Things I like about the podcast: Dana Stevens. She's warm, intelligent, and funny; her conversational tone is remarkably free of pretension, but she still manages to talk about the films in ways that are both smart and perceptive. I like the basic idea of the podcast -- that is, it's nice to at least occasionally here a review in which the reviewer doesn't feel it necessary to tiptoe around the facts of the film. Things I don't like: While I am a fan of Stevens, her partners have ranged from pretty good to not so good. I wonder whether it might be possible to build a better chemistry if the show adopted a regular co-host. The show tends to review big "box office" films at the expense of smaller, indy movies; it might be nice if they could broaden their focus a bit. I'm not sure, for example, that we need anyone to tell us that INVICTUS is a crappy movie.
TheRadPad
1 out of 5 stars
Horrible judgements
Biased commentary with negative speculations that are supported by false details of the film. A critic should have the facts straight before questioning a writer's integrity.
Pherfer
5 out of 5 stars
A Women's Voice
Great and insightful comments. A female point of view!!!!
lamotteskiddalyboomboom
1 out of 5 stars
Find another review if you want real movie advice
After listening to 20 of these podcasts I am deleting the Spoiler from my queue. Comprised of a short format that does not really discuss the movies in any depth it not what I am looking for. The reviews are shallow with little useful content. If these reviewers were here on the west coast they would be valley girl air heads. There are much meatier casts on the menu that give great insight on these films. In the majority of the Spoiler casts the reviewers complained that they did not really get the plot or intent of the movie. They could not, for instance, understand Pirates of the Caribbean 2 or the Prestige. Any film that was comic book, fantasy, or sic fi was incomprehensible to Ms Stevens. Perhaps, as a New York urbanite, she should be reviewing indie films or more reality based features. The Slate Spoiler is a big waste of my time and so I will say adios and find something better. I am very disappointed since the other Slate casts I have audited are really good.
Listening while folding laundry
5 out of 5 stars
Currently backlogging
Love this podcast! Naturally, most criticism has to be spoiler-free, so it's nice that there's a place that sheds that sometimes annoying limitation.
mralandy
5 out of 5 stars
A Quality Film Podcast
While many reviews may attack this podcast by pointing to what it should be, taken as what it is, it is a quality podcast that, for this listener, served as a gateway into a better appreciation for film and the screenwriting process. The day Dana stops making these podcasts will be a sad day indeed.
pepperm1
5 out of 5 stars
More please
I love listening to the spoilers... More, please!!!!
imalwaysright
1 out of 5 stars
Is it the movie's failure ... or yours?
I have listened to most of these podcasts and have always found Dana Stevens to be an engaging and interesting host--while still wondering what the point of spoiling a movie is when most listeners of this podcast have likely seen the movie and would be better suited by more analysis of scenes not mentioned in other reviews rather than mere spoiling. As I tell my college writing students all the time--critique, do not simply summarize the plot! However, after Stevens' discussion of Tinker Tailor and Haywire, I'm really starting to question the usefulness of a podcast that is determined to spoil and reveal key plot details when Stevens clearly doesn't even have a cursory understanding of the plots of many films. The latest entry, which had Stevens and her co-host bumbling through a misinformed summary of Haywire's B-grade, simplistic plotting, was particularly insufferable. So, let me get this straight: After Soderbergh shows the broach in the corpse's hand, then shows a flashback to Mallory wearing the broach, and then has McGregor's character discuss putting the broach in the corpse's hand to frame Mallory...this was STILL a detail that slipped Ms. Stevens' attention. Trust me. I'm not one to argue for the logic in Haywire--it plays like a young boy's sexual fantasies come to life. But this new trend of critics clearly not paying attention to movies, and then acting smug about how incomprehensible a film is rather than simply admitting that they are the ones who failed to follow it is starting to grow tiresome. Here's my suggestion: if you're being paid to simply watch movies (a job most of us would gladly do), why not enjoy your privileged job and pay close attention to the movie playing in front of your face rather than spending time thinking of smug things to say on your podcast, or making faces at your boyfriend during the film as Ms. Stevens admitted in her Tinker Tailer podcast. I think you might find that movies are a little easier to follow and "spoil" when you actually watch them!
Tofuman222
5 out of 5 stars
Perfect way to enjoy movies you've already seen
Witty and informative and fun. You can learn much about movies and pop culture.
TheMatrix
1 out of 5 stars
Some reviews not there
Knight and Day has 30 sec of review? The files are corrupt. At least some reviews have the movie title as file names, that's good.
TheMatrix
4 out of 5 stars
Some reviews not there
Knight and Day has 30 sec of review? The files are corrupt. At least some reviews have the movie title as file names, that's good.
OPPinoy
4 out of 5 stars
Need More Entries
Reviews have been slipping. It's ok to have a discussion about unintelligent movies such as "Salt", but where is the discussion about masterpieces such as "Inception". I realize that a film such as "Inception" will require more effort, but I think the intelligence of Slate is what sets it apart from the hundreds of other movie review podcasts.
Charlie__V
4 out of 5 stars
Good podcast
This is an awesome resource for serious moviegoers.
Frankphotos
3 out of 5 stars
Dana Stevens is far from being a femnist
The films discussions are generally interesting but there is one special area that shows their weakness... "Chick flicks". Dana Stevens liked Twilight-Eclipse and in the same sentence called herself a feminist – this must have set the movement back to the 1950s. It not that she has to worry about her “imagined” 13 year old daughter will fall in love with a vampire – its that this imagined daughter will think she is suppose to “love” a boyfriend literally to death. It wouldn’t be so bad if she invited a co-commentary with an opposing view but for the last several chick-flick, she invite someone who just parrots back Dana’s views and also gets lost in the unrealistic romance of the story and neither of them question what terrible role models these films represent to a modern girl or woman.
Kevinq5139
5 out of 5 stars
Best movie review podcast out there
Slates Spoiler podcast is a delight. For someone like myself without time to check out too many movies the no holds barred reviews are great. If I plan to see a film I wait on the review then share my reactions after i've seen it. If not it's great to hear about a film without the interesting stuff held back. A must for even a casual film fan.
tsfogg
1 out of 5 stars
No thanks!
These aren't people who enjoy movies. These are people who enjoy eviscerating movies. They sound like ex-film students who weren't able to crack it in Hollywood and who are now taking it out on everything that lights up the silver screen.
mdaphi
5 out of 5 stars
One of my favorites
I'm really enjoying these podcasts. Dana and her guests are wonderfully articulate and yet use accessible, everyday language; no one is trying to come across as intelligentsia. I find myself laughing and nodding along with their discussions. The "spoiler" aspect of the podcasts is very refreshing to me as well. I get tired of reading trepidatious reviews that carefully tiptoe around the plot points of a movie. Dana has a pleasant speaking voice, too. Looking forward to more!
mkatelr
4 out of 5 stars
Fun, informative
I don't mind finding out the ending of a film before I watch it; a lot of times, knowing the outcome helps me better follow the picture. This podcast was great for that as well as for listening about movies that I had already seen and was still sort of wondering about. The dialogue isn't complex or overly analytical and listens more like a review than simple flick klatch. The chats also have helped me be better able to discuss movies and certainly piqued my curiosity about several actors, writers, and directors that I don't know too much about. My only disappointment is that there aren't more of these podcasts to pick from--with all of the movies being made nowadays, there's plenty to discuss!
Please omit the street noise from your next podcast
1 out of 5 stars
Normally I'd give this podcast 5 stars...
but the latest podcast has our hosts talking over tons of annoying street noise. This sounds like they caved in to some Suit's idea of making the podcast "hip" and "edgy". It just makes it lame, and hard to understand. Sorry to sound like a grumpy old man; you guys have great things to say--I'd like to be able to hear them.
Msr Smith
5 out of 5 stars
Dana Stevens, et al, brilliant and beloved
Dana Stevens (catch her also at the remarkable 'Slate Culture Gabfest' -- not suitable for those with instinctive revulsion to the term 'culture' or 'gabfest') consistently comes through with nuanced and relatable review of the movies you know you (don't) want to see. As these are Spoiler specials, many may wish to listen in /after/ seeing the relevant film(s), but I use them to screen my movie list. When by the whiles of fate I find myself bucking the implicit recommendation of the podcast and going to see an unpromising film, I find a lot of justice not just in the gist but in the actual points of the Stevens, et al, critique; likewise when I have the chance to see a film covered in the Specials which I think I'll like. I don’t always agree – for instance, on Tropic Thunder – but even in contrary views presented on this show lie the seeds of strong alternative opinions, so excellent is the coverage. In short, I can think of no one better than Mms Stephens to help me with my personal investments in the area of movie time and $. Indeed, she has turned me on to many a great film. In the process, her podcast has been frequently hilarious and always a good time. Her penchant for picking up excellent discussion partners certainly helps, but at the end of the day it's all Dana Stephens. If you’re looking for a good one to start with, perhaps see if you can’t find the Twilight episode. If I recall, I woke someone up laughing to that show.
Sford
5 out of 5 stars
Spoil Away!
Where has the Slate Spoiler Podcast gone? This is one of my favorite podcasts. It is intelligent, fun, funny and doesn't interfere with my film enjoyment. Please bring it back!
atacta
3 out of 5 stars
Hit and miss
Was very entertained by the review of Knocked Up. Then came 'No Country for Old Men' and Dana Stevens brushed the film off as violent claptrap and never even acknowledged the craft of the film. Then she wondered if it would do any box office at all. Her confused male counterpart wasn't sure but he would recommend the film to anyone but those in his family. Probably the worst film review I have ever heard. Dana, how much grief have you gotten for this one? ;-)
galval
2 out of 5 stars
"Sort of" out of sorts
This is an interesting gabfest and Dana Stevens is very astute. Unfortunately her reliance on the phrase "sort of" which was used over 40 times in her review of Baby Mama and continues to plague all of her podcasts is sort of annoying.
Caon
2 out of 5 stars
Dana is old
haha, Dana doesn't get much of what she's talking about. Regrettably, she will stand on her soapbox and speak of films of which she has no solid background; I guess only having an opinion is enough to call someone a "Critic." She shouldn't call "child abuse" subjecting children to the creative and active visual design of a movie that she cannot understand (which speaks more of her own age rather than the shortcomings of a movie). She's sufficiently entertaining to listen to while doing other things.
konakathie
4 out of 5 stars
Where are the 2008 reviews???
Beowulf is the latest? I like this podcast, but waht's goin on?
who has a nickname?
5 out of 5 stars
please, more
I really like this concept, and the review that results from not worrying about spoiling the plot. But we haven't seen a new on in some time. Please, keep them coming!
PaleLittleGirl
5 out of 5 stars
Entertaining and Helpful
Great, well informed, and funny, this is the best movie reviewing podcast I've heard. But when is it going to be updated already? I want to hear the spoiler special of Cloverfield!
shalgiva
5 out of 5 stars
Love It!
Very cool podcast! I love the voice of the female critic. She sounds so sexy.
SamGash
5 out of 5 stars
Fun Times!
Dana Stevens is quickly becoming my favorite movie critic. The spoiler specials are generally on point and funny. My girlfriend and I enjoy listening to the spoiler specials after watching and discussing the latest film. Accurate without being too negative, generally valid criticism. You can tell she likes movies and is great at pointing out some interesting details in the films. I recommend!
mattkeowen
4 out of 5 stars
Stay with Movies
This is a great podcast except when the focus is on 24. Slate should stick with movies and skip the TV rehash.
jessejames4
1 out of 5 stars
Slate Spoiler Special?
Shouldn't this be called "Slate Spoiler Special for 24?" Jesse Connecticut
lewisfilms
3 out of 5 stars
Yay! 24...
While they sometimes stray off-topic, this is a good recap and discussion of 24.
utroorat
5 out of 5 stars
The spoiler podcast fills a valuable niche
We've all had the experience when we get together with friends and start to discuss a movie, then discover that one of us hasn't seen it yet. It's frustrating trying to share our opinions with each other without spoiling the movie for others. A film critic is always in that position. This podcast relieves that frustration. I am very interested in what other people get out of a movie, and I've found the spoiler podcasts very entertaining. Without exception I've come away with some new ideas about the movies reviewed after listening to it, whether I agree with everything or not. Regarding all the negative reviews, I'll note in passing that the number of stars is inversely correlated with the sum of misspellings + grammar mistakes + illiteracies.
wallet55
4 out of 5 stars
for those of us that do not get to see every movie...
OK, some of us do not have the time or interest to see every movie out there, and this kind of review is often fun. I will never get around to The Prestige, but at least now I know what the fuss was all about. As with all things Slate, this is very NYC, which can be annoying if you are not, but other than that, is a pleasant listen.
love&sincerity
4 out of 5 stars
WAY Better!
I came back to this podcast after giving it up due to the earlier episodes. Glad I did. The "Departed" conversation was terrific; insightful and energetic. Great job in getting the right people. Hope it continues. Thanks for the improvements!
n8inupland
1 out of 5 stars
Doesn't do it for me...
One review put it: "dismissive and smug" I agree with that. I like the concept of the discussion. The dialogue is something left to be desired.
El Dudo Abida
4 out of 5 stars
No idea what everyone else is talking about
The whole concept is cute and fun, like the Slate spoiler specials graphic on the upper left hand corner of your screen. Quick witted and smiling movie discussion that doesn't purport itself to be anything else.
HMNSHLD
1 out of 5 stars
so
Just saying the certain plot points and making a joke or two is considered a "review".
jaundice27
1 out of 5 stars
Slate's movie critic is awful
please, please, please, find another movie critic!
Nancy’s iTunes
1 out of 5 stars
Ya need to oull it together
Not very good at all, you barly talk about the movie, and you say your going to spoil it? thats really not true. Try a little arder next time.
Podcast information
- Amount of episodes
- 462
- Subscribers
- 42
- Verified
- No
- Website
- Explicit content
- Yes
- Episode type
- episodic
- Podcast link
- https://podvine.com/link/..
- Last upload date
- January 20, 2023
- Last fetch date
- March 22, 2023 3:49 AM
- Upload range
- WEEKLY
- Author
- Slate Podcasts
- Copyright
- ©2018 The Slate Group
susbcribers
- M3gan: The Uncanny Valley of the DollsThis week’s Spoiler Specials takes on M3gan, with Slate’s movie critic Dana Stevens and features director Jeffrey Bloomer. Note: As the title indicates, this podcast contains spoilers galore. Read another Slate review here. Email us at spoilers@slate.com. Podcast production by Kristie Taiwo-Makanjuola.0 comments0
- Glass Onion: A Knives Out MysteryThis week, Slate's Dana Stevens and Dan Kois spoil Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery, the sequel to Rian Johnson’s Knives Out. Note: As the title indicates, this podcast contains spoilers galore. Read Dana’s review here. Email us at spoilers@slate.com. Podcast production by Kristie Taiwo-Makanjuola0 comments0
- Slate's Spoiler Specials Dec 23 · 37m Avatar: The Way of WaterThis week, Slate's Dana Stevens and Sam Adams spoil Avatar: The Way of Water, James Cameron’s long-awaited sequel to his 2009 film. Is it true that “the most dangerous thing on Pandora is that you’ll grow to love it too much?” Note: As the title indicates, this podcast contains spoilers galore. Read Dana’s review here. Read Sam’s advice on which version to catch here. Email us at spoilers@slate.com. Podcast production by Kristie Taiwo-Makanjuola0 comments0
- TárThis week, Slate's Dana Stevens and Dan Kois spoil Tár, Todd Fields’ first film in 16 years. Cate Blanchett stars as a world-famous conductor whose life takes an unexpected turn as she prepares for a career-changing opportunity. Note: As the title indicates, this podcast contains spoilers galore. Read Dana’s review here. Read Dan’s review here. Email us at spoilers@slate.com. Podcast production by Kristie Taiwo-Makanjuola0 comments0
- Black Panther: Wakanda ForeverThis week, Slate's Dana Stevens and Nadira Goffe spoil Black Panther: Wakanda Forever, the sequel to Marvel’s Black Panther. Note: As the title indicates, this podcast contains spoilers galore. Email us at spoilers@slate.com. Podcast production by Kristie Taiwo-Makanjuola0 comments0
- House of the DragonThis week, Slate's Sam Adams and Rebecca Onion spoil the season finale of HBO’s House of the Dragon, the prequel to Game of Thrones. Note: As the title indicates, this podcast contains spoilers galore. Email us at spoilers@slate.com. Podcast production by Kristie Taiwo-Makanjuola0 comments0
- Halloween EndsThis week, Slate's Sam Adams and Jeffrey Bloomer spoil the 13th entry in the Halloween franchise, the alleged final showdown between Jamie Lee Curtis's Laurie Strode and Michael Myers. Note: as the title implies, the podcast contains spoilers galore. Email us at spoilers@slate.com. Podcast production by Kristie Taiwo-Makanjuola0 comments0
- Slate's Spoiler Specials Sep 16 · 30m Orphan: First KillThis week’s Spoiler Specials takes on Orphan: First Kill. Slate senior editor Sam Adams joins features director Jeffrey Bloomer to spoil the prequel to the 2009 psychological thriller, Orphan. Note: As the title indicates, this podcast contains spoilers galore. Email us at spoilers@slate.com. Podcast production by Kristie Taiwo-Makanjuola.0 comments0
- The SandmanThis week’s Spoiler Specials takes on The Sandman. Senior editor, Sam Adams, and Slate’s book critic, Laura Miller spoil the comic book series by Neil Gaiman. Note: As the title indicates, this podcast contains spoilers galore. Email us at spoilers@slate.com. Podcast production by Kristie Taiwo-Makanjuola.0 comments0
- Bodies Bodies BodiesThis week’s Spoiler Specials takes on Bodies Bodies Bodies. Slate’s movie critic Dana Stevens and Slate writer Nadira Goffe spoil A24’s latest murder mystery, directed by Halina Reijn. Note: As the title indicates, this podcast contains spoilers galore. Read another Slate review here. Email us at spoilers@slate.com. Podcast production by Kristie Taiwo-Makanjuola.0 comments0
- Bullet TrainThis week’s Spoiler Specials takes on Bullet Train. Slate’s movie critic Dana Stevens and senior editor Sam Adams spoil the latest action comedy release from Atomic Blonde director and John Wick co-creator, David Leitch. Note: As the title indicates, this podcast contains spoilers galore. Read Dana’s review here. Email us at spoilers@slate.com. Podcast production by Kristie Taiwo-Makanjuola.0 comments0
- Thor: Love and ThunderThis week’s Spoiler Specials takes on Thor: Love and Thunder. Slate’s movie critic Dana Stevens and senior editor Sam Adams spoil the newest release from the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Note: As the title indicates, this podcast contains spoilers galore. Read Dana’s review here. Email us at spoilers@slate.com. Podcast production by Kristie Taiwo-Makanjuola.0 comments0
- Slate's Spoiler Specials Jun 24 · 31m LightyearThis week’s Spoiler Specials takes on Lightyear. Slate’s movie critic, Dana Stevens, and senior editor, Sam Adams spoil the new animated film from Disney. Note: As the title indicates, this podcast contains spoilers galore. Read Dana’s review here and Sam’s review here. Email us at spoilers@slate.com. Podcast production by Jasmine Ellis and Kevin Bendis.0 comments0
- Outward: Fire IslandIt’s June, and in honor of Pride, we’re bringing you a special episode from the Outward podcast! Hosts Christina Cauterucci, Jules Gill-Peterson, and Bryan Lowder dig into the big gay movie of summer 2022: Fire Island. Directed by Andrew Ahn and written by Joel Kim Booster, who also stars in the film, Fire Island explores the magic of queer spaces like the titular enclave—along with the class and race disparities that often beset them. The film, which also stars Bowen Yang, Margaret Cho, and Conrad Ricamora, is a gay resetting of Pride and Prejudice. Does it succeed? The hosts discuss this, and much more, in spoiler-filled detail. This podcast was produced by June Thomas. If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe to Outward wherever you get your podcasts.0 comments0
- Jurassic World: DominionThis week’s Spoiler Specials takes on Jurassic World: Dominion. Sam Adams, a senior editor at Slate, is joined by Slate’s features editor, Jeffrey Bloomer to spoil the latest evolutionary stage of the Jurassic World series. True to the spirit of bringing something back from the past, the stars of Jurassic Park—Laura Dern, Jeff Goldblum, and Sam Neill—join the dinos and their JW counterparts Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard. The cast is big, the predators are bigger, but the villains and plot lines raised more eyebrows than heart rates among our critics. Note: As the title indicates, this podcast contains spoilers galore. Email us at spoilers@slate.com. Podcast production by Jasmine Ellis and Kristie Taiwo-Makanjuola.0 comments0
- Top Gun: MaverickThis week’s Spoiler Specials takes on Top Gun: Maverick. Film critic Dana Stevens is joined by Slate editor and writer Dan Kois to spoil the long awaited sequel, starring Tom Cruise and directed by Joseph Kosinski. Maverick is pressed into service, training a group of young pilots to carry out a dangerous strike in a rogue nation. But it soon becomes clear that only Maverick has the right stuff to lead the mission. Does Maverick fly high, or get grounded? Is Top Gun: Maverick better than the 1986 original? Read Dana’s thoughts on the movie here. Note: As the title indicates, this podcast contains spoilers galore. Email us at spoilers@slate.com. Podcast production by Jasmine Ellis.0 comments0
- The Waves: What Reality TV Says About UsOn this week’s episode of The Waves, historian and original Waves host, Marcia Chatelain is joined by sociologist Danielle Lindemann to talk all things reality TV. They discuss Danielle’s new book, True Story: What Reality TV Says About Us and why we don’t take reality television as seriously as we should. Later in the show they talk about why women are more successful at monetizing their reality TV brand and how the genre takes us on a tour of the class system. In Slate Plus: Is The Bachelorette feminist? Recommendations Marcia: The True Crime Obsessed podcast, Let the Women Do the Work Danielle: The Netflix series Selling SunsetPodcast production by Cheyna Roth with editorial oversight by Shannon Palus and Alicia Montgomery. Send your comments and recommendations on what to cover to thewaves@slate.com0 comments0
- Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of MadnessThis week’s Spoiler Specials takes on Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness. Film critic Dana Stevens is joined by Slate senior editor Sam Adams to spoil the Marvel film that stars Benedict Cumberbatch, Elizabeth Olsen, and Chiwetel Ejiofor. Directed by Sam Raimi, the first action scene takes place at the wedding of Doctor Stephen Strange’s (Benedict Cumberbatch) ex (Rachel McAdams) being interrupted by a one-eyed octopus creature from space that’s chasing after America Chavez (Xochitl Gomez). It’s an explosive start to a film that has some of the best –and the worst– of what Marvel movies are famous for. Read Sam’s review of the movie. Note: As the title indicates, this podcast contains spoilers galore. Email us at spoilers@slate.com. Podcast production by Jasmine Ellis.0 comments0
- Slate's Spoiler Specials May 6 · 39m Decoder Ring: The Sideways EffectHey, Spoiler Specials listeners, Dana Stevens here. If you haven’t heard the Slate podcast Decoder Ring yet, I urge you to check it out. Hosted by our friend Willa Paskin, each episode cracks a different cultural mystery by examining its history and why it still matters today. In their new season they look at how men’s razors went from one...to two...to five blades! They explore how "method acting" became so misunderstood—there’s more to it than just Jared Leto behaving badly. And now, we present their latest which I loved. It follows the unlikely path of a 2004 indie flick from director Alexander Payne...off the screen and onto our restaurant menus. Decades later, the American wine industry is still under the influence of “The Sideways Effect." Make sure to subscribe to Decoder Ring wherever you listen, and I hope you enjoy this episode!0 comments0
- The Unbearable Weight of Massive TalentThis week’s Spoiler Specials takes on The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent. Film critic Dana Stevens is joined by Keith Phipps to spoil this action-packed comedy, starring Nicolas Cage as a struggling actor who is desperate to get back on the A list. Nicolas Cage plays Nick Cage, with Tiffany Haddish, Pedro Pascal, and Neil Patrick Harris co-starring. Dana and Keith tell listeners if this self-referential romp went deep enough. Read Dana’s review of the movie. Note: As the title indicates, this podcast contains spoilers galore. Email us at spoilers@slate.com. Podcast production by Jasmine Ellis.0 comments0
- Bridgerton (Season 2)On this week’s Spoiler Specials, Slate’s Marissa Martinelli and Rebecca Onion spoil season 2 of the Netflix hit Bridgerton. It’s wedding season again, and this time, it’s Lord Anthony Bridgerton’s (Jonathan Bailey) turn to marry. But for the Viscount, finding a wife is more about one’s duty to the family line than love. And Lord Bridgerton thinks he’s found the perfect match in Edwina Sharma (Charithra Chandran). But will her sister Kate (Simone Ashley) approve? With all the drama that unfolds, how will Lady Whistledown keep up with this season’s shenanigans? Read Rebecca’s review of the second season. Note: As the title indicates, this podcast contains spoilers galore. Email us at spoilers@slate.com. Podcast production by Jasmine Ellis.0 comments0
- Deep WaterOn this week’s Spoiler Specials, Slate’s movie critic Dana Stevens is joined by Slate’s Jeffrey Bloomer and Dan Kois to spoil Deep Water. The film opens with marital unease between Vic Van Allen (Ben Affleck) and his wife Melinda (Ana de Armas). Melinda has constant flirtations that Vic moodily tolerates … until he doesn’t. Note: As the title indicates, this podcast contains spoilers galore. Email us at spoilers@slate.com. Podcast production by Cleo Levin0 comments0
- Turning RedOn this week’s Spoiler Specials, Slate movie critic Dana Stevens and former Slate staff writer Karen Han spoil Turning Red, directed by Domee Shi. When 13-year-old Meilin (Rosalie Chiang) starts to experience puberty, she turns into a giant red panda. Little does she know that the matriarchal side of her family has a connection to this mythical creature. Her mother, Ming (Sandra Oh), also has a story about turning into a giant bear when she experiences intense emotions. Will this new revelation bring Meilin and Ming closer? And what will the teenager’s friends think when they find out about her new gift? Read Dana’s review of the movie. Note: As the title indicates, this podcast contains spoilers galore. Email us at spoilers@slate.com. Podcast production by Jasmine Ellis.0 comments0
Podcast hosts
No host has claimed this podcast yet, if you are the host you can verify ownership by claiming this podcast
©2018 The Slate Group
