vonnegution

I am appalled by Mr. Lane's review of the new "Watchmen" film. While I have yet to see the movie, and therefore cannot judge the review on its critical merits, I don't need to see the film to take umbrage at Mr. Lane's irresponsibility to his audience.

I counted two distinct and explicit references to the ending of the movie (and the book) in this review. I'll grant that the specifics of the ending weren't divulged in great detail, but both the identity of the main villain and the ramifications of his actions and choices were revealed. The fact that these details were simply dashed off without regard to their nature as spoilers is what makes Mr. Lane's affront to cineasts utterly disdainful.

How, in good conscience, did Mr. Lane and his editor(s) come to the decision that unveiling the secrets of the film's (and the book's) central mystery served their readers? Does Mr. Lane hate "Watchmen" the movie (and the book) so much that he wished to deprive those uninitiated with the source material of the journey to reach their own conclusions? Did he think that because the graphic novel is available to everyone that the ending of the film isn't spoiler material? If either one are the case, that plainly belies Mr. Anthony's distaste for the very people he is trying to communicate with.

While I am not a regular reader of The New Yorker, and so I don't know if divulging major plot points to films or books is a common practice, Mr. Lane's irresponsible review ensures that I will never become one. I sincerely hope you do the right thing and update your online review of "Watchmen" to either remove the undesirable plot revelations or, at least, set them off as separate from the rest of the piece. The integrity of Mr. Lane and The New Yorker require nothing less.