Slate's Spoiler Specials

Reviews For Slate's Spoiler Specials

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.


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.
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.
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.
It seems as though these hosts don’t even watch the movies they review. Completely dull and boring people.
Pretentious hosts and reviews. It seems like they are desperate to let the listener know how cosmopolitan and “woke” they are.
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.
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.
Speech impediment girl ruined the show and just wanted to here herself talk
“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.
I also like Kang. She’s funny.
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.
Like many movie podcasts this one can get pretentious, but the conversation is generally smart and insightful. HOWEVER, a few panelists say “like” in every other sentence. It entirely brings you out of the show and detracts from that which is smart and insightful. And as another reviewer noted, Kang’s vocal fry is unbearable. It’s so bad and pronounced that I just hope she’s doing it as an ironic affectation.
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.
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 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
Is an affectation
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.


Tends to be pretentious, poorly researched and joyless.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Booksmart podcast was the final straw for me. These hosts, specifically the females, are simply miserable human beings. Good riddance...


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.
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.”
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??
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.
+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
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.
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.
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!!
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.
I hope that I love life, and movies, as much as Dana Stevens or Roger Ebert 10 years from now.


By MSAX123
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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