Jim Parsons’ gay sick flick “Spoiler Alert” is PANNED by critics!

Fuck them!!!!!

4th thread in the last 2 days

That's just one critic, someone posted another review earlier today that was pretty positive. Post the score from a review aggregator next time if you wish to convey the overall sentiment.

Why sick flick? I'd watch it but I have a low tolerance for sick.

R4 It’s a sick flick because the entire story is about his boyfriend dying.

I don't like sad either. Thanks R5. I won't be watching it. I only like to watch sad movies with a partner and currently I'm single.

This screams airplane movie.

Jim Parsons has 2 characters in his wheelhouse, Sheldon Cooper, and maniacal queen in Ryan Murphy shows...

so will Parsons call everyone who doesn't see his film a homophobe?

Few critics have reviewed this - so far only 5 on RT, including Variety (bad review) and Hollywood Reporter (good review). Right now it's 3 bad and 2 good. We'll see what the final tally is when the film opens 12/9.

It can’t possibly be worse than Bros so it’s already winning.

[quote] It can’t possibly be worse than Bros so it’s already winning.

Maybe not.

World of Reel

[quote] I completely forgot I watched this movie. I’m not even exaggerating. Michael Showalter’s “Spoiler Alert” was screened a few weeks ago, but the review embargo has only lifted now. It’s a total tearjerker, in the very worst sense of the term.

[quote] “Spoiler Alert” is a gay cancer romance that tracks the final 11-months of photographer Kit Cowan's life, from his diagnosis with the terminal disease to his death, all seen through the eyes of his lover. It’s at 40% on Rotten Tomatoes and sits at 55 on Metacritic. Too kind. The fact that I barely remember this movie says it all.

[quote] “Spoiler Alert” is a gay cancer romance

Yes, that sounds inviting.

[quote] “Spoiler Alert” is a gay cancer romance

Absolutely no one wants this.

Does Jim show hole?

Ugh, trying to do a gay ‘Love Story’. Ewww. Sheldon ain’t no Ryan O’Neal.

I don’t see the arpel of Jim Parsons. He does nothing for me and I’ve seen him in lots.

[...]

I wonder how Michael Ausiello feels about the film portraying him as the ugly one in the relationship.

R19 Fantasy can only go so far and Jim Parsons is about 7 points above Ausiello (so a 1 to a 3).

THR gave it a good review and they're very hard to please:

I won't watch this. Ben Aldridge is simply too hot to kill off.

[quote] I don’t see the arpel of Jim Parsons

Does anyone see Parsons' arpel?

I don't see the arpel of Jim Parsons either, but there are certainly less arpelling celebrities.

OP = Billy Eichner

Can we PLEASE get other, more attractive “mainstream” gay actors besides Parsons and Neil Patrick Harris?

Not you, Billy.

Example #6977 why straight actors shouldn’t play gay. Parsons has been wading through oceans of sitcom-money pussy for decades and it should come as no surprise that he has no chemistry with another man.

I half-watched a trailer and thought Sally Field would be the one who died. Who the hell wants to watch a gay cancer movie at Christmas? Why not a gay Love, Actually, with lots of hot guys, some meet-cutes, some break ups, some Christmas music? Why does it always have to be sad? No Billy Eichner, please.

Why do these gay movies have no attractive actors starring in them? I have no issue with straight actors playing gay roles if we can get good-looking hunks for once.

Spoiler Alert : someone dies.

Great way to promote a movie at Christmas.

Gay guy dies of cancer is soooo 30 years ago!

"Parsons has been wading through oceans of sitcom-money pussy for decades and it should come as no surprise that he has no chemistry with another man."

I had no idea Blossom was an ocean of sitcom-money pussy.

Whoa!

Jim Parson has even less appeal than Billy Eichner as a romantic lead, if that’s possible.

BURY YOUR GAYS, R28.

Hmm, I disagree, r33. Parsons is unattractive, like Eichner, but Parsons doesn’t scream cluster B like Billyboy. I’d much rather watch a plain-but-normal actor than an ugly and crazy one.

I LOVE Sally Field and Ben Aldridge so I am sorely tempted to give this a go.

But I cannot bear to watch Parsons' mummified meerkat face in yet another flick about dying gays. I literally just watched yet another stupid gay AIDS movie and I realised I'm sick to death of them. Cancer is barely any different than AIDS.

And in complete agreement that Parsons is out of Ben's league here. I get that he's trying to get involved in more gay projects, and more power to him, but does he have to cast himself in them? Someone call Jonathan Bailey. Parsons was great in The Boys In The Band as the bitter queen but I cannot see him as a romantic lead.

R36 He’s not really a romantic lead when the other guy literally dies to get away from him!

[quote]I don’t see the arpel of Jim Parsons.

Neither do we.

Take a lesson, Roses.

That’s how you lampoon a typo ^

[quote] I cannot bear to watch Parsons' mummified meerkat face

This description is perfect.

He looks CRAZY! Wtf did he do to his face? It’s genuinely terrifying. And his hairline!! Omg the whole thing is a horror.

DEAR HOLLYWOOD: WE WANT A GAY MOVIE WHERE TWO HOT FAGS GET TOGETHER!!!!!

ALSO JIM PARSONS IS NOT A MOVIESTAR!!!!!

R27 To be fair, Parsons doesn’t have chemistry with the women, either. He comes off completely asexual whenever he has to show romantic interest in everything I’ve seen him in.

NYT: "...the execution flounders in part because Parsons, who had a 12-season stint on “The Big Bang Theory,” can’t shake the sitcom off himself in the serious sequences. A bigger problem is that the so-called sincere dialogue is either blunter than a soap opera (“It’s his mother. He told her not to come. I’ve never even met the woman.”) or hammier than a Hawaiian pizza (“Hey honey, I’m cancer! I mean, I’m home!”) These clunkers could work if the film had the moxie to demand a laugh. Instead, you can practically see the actors wince."

Philadelphia 2.0?

I thought it was just me who thought something was off about Parsons' face. He looks like he's had fillers. He looks awful.

He’s definitely had major work done and it’s sad.

This is what happens when you give a gay man too much money.

Skip the film and read the book.

People mag just gave it a glowing review. Op, self-hating much?

People Magazine??? Oh my sides!

R49 is right.

R49- agree, the memoir was excellent. Michael Ausiello did an amazing job of writing a deeply personal memoir about losing a life partner and he didn’t pretend their relationship was perfect and he didn’t canonize his deceased husband. It was a warts and all memoir, and very well done.

R52 With his face it would have to be warts and all.

TheGuardian.com claims that Sally Field is the MVP of the film:

[quote] The only real emotion the film can muster comes courtesy of an other league Sally Field, playing Kit’s mother, who immediately adds another dimension that’s sorely missing elsewhere. In just a handful of scenes, she walks away with the film. It’s an easy job, though, given how lacklustre the leads are, especially an uncomfortably miscast Parsons, unable to move past his obvious sitcom instincts, giving us more in moments where we need less and never conjuring even the vaguest of chemistry with Aldridge, a real killer for a film as mushy as this.

Is the Smurf collection part of the book as well? Hope not.

"Hammier than a Hawaiian pizza"? The Times should be ashamed.

R54 I saw a couple of the clips Sally was in and she didn’t seem any better than anyone else. I think once actors get to a certain age / “legend” status reviewers just defer to them automatically.

Just saw this with my partner and we both absolutely loved it and most of the crowd seemed to as well. It was funny, moving, and very well-acted.

Surely there must be a gay storyline with a happy ending. Why can't they make a gay film where the two guys fall in love and live happily ever after?

Anyone who looks like Jim Parsons cannot get an average looking guy (in real life). They should have cast a below average boyfriend to make it seem more credible.

R58 Thank you for that perspective, Cher.

R54. Haven't seen it yet but this sounds extremely plausible.

I like Sally in most things and Parsons really hasn't been able to move past TBBT.

Sally, like Luke, should stick with Hallmark films. No one wants to see them in feature films.

The trailer looked awful!

Let me guess

Ignore R65z. LOL

The young Ukrainian gay Youtuber and his boyfriend (from another thread) went to a premiere of "Spoiler Alert' and loved it. They previously really hated "Bros." Everyone cried at this one.

I was receptive to it until I saw it was co-written by Dan Savage.

Christmas comes early to Datalounge.

In 2022 no one has done more to damage Gay Box Office totals than Jim Parsons and Billy Eichner. Parsons is 50 and seems to think he is an ingenue. Playing the adorable wide eyed twink gay (at his age) is creepy. The guy who plays his BF in Spoiler Alert is 15 years younger and yet we are supposed to not notice?.

Jim Parsons and his husband are winners of the Lucky Club who do not realize that they are a relatively talentless couple sitting on a pile of cash based on a fluke character on a well written sitcom.

They suck as producers and so far have ruined everything except Young Sheldon. Jim needs to focus on his philanthropy because he is no Greg Berlanti.

There, I've said it.

It's got a 70% currently on RT. Not a stinker, but far from a critical hit.

Interesting when you see two gay men in Hollywood who DON'T feel the need to have Social Media Brats. One of the few good things about Jim Parsons and his husband.

Young Sheldon is an enigma. I came to the realization that the show is interesting except Young Sheldon is not. Think about it. Every character is interesting, the actors can act. Not Iain Armitage. I watch to see what MeeMaw is up to. Or if Georgie is going to take off his shirt. I could care less about Sheldon. The rumors of IA and his backstage tantrums probably explains why he isn't with the main cast as much.

As much as I love Ben Aldridge as an actor...comedy is not his schtick.

r74, Young Sheldon is going to run into BBT canon when the dad doesn't die after fucking around an Sheldon doesn't go to Germany with Mary when he turns 14.

I doubt that would be a big problem. "Frasier" committed all sorts of canon problems with "Cheers" (on "Cheers," Frasier did not have a brother and his father was dead) as did "Rhoda" with the "MTM" backstory for the Rhoda Morgaenstern character (who on "MTM" had an older sister named Debby, not a younger sister named Brenda).

And I won't even begin to go into the Chuck Cunningham problems on "Happy Days."

R77 The difference is that Young Sheldon is a prequel. A spinoff that takes place after the original can always add things. Just because they didn't mention or show Niles on Cheers doesn't mean he didn't exist.

[quote]Just because they didn't mention or show Niles on Cheers doesn't mean he didn't exist.

But they had previously said on "Cheers" that Martin was dead. And the writers of "MTM" said that Rhoda had no younger sister. And we many times saw Richie and Joanie's older brother Chuck, and then he disappeared and Mr. and Mrs. Cunningham talked about only raising two children.

There is no point in demanding sitcom continuity, unless you are on the spectrum like Sheldon.

So he becomes some other parallel Young Sheldon in the Lorrieverse? I hope he grows up gay and never marries Amy.

The preview was cringe.

I’m sure Sheldon’s father is going to die at some point; he has already had some health scares. Also, his father has not fooled around yet although he has thought about it.

I seriously doubt Iain will ever work in Hollywood again after Young Sheldon ends. You can already see the lengths the rest of the cast goes to NOT do scenes with him. Missy is the one he mostly does scenes with now.

They can just say the old Sheldon misremembered his youth or was lying. He made up going to Germany and his father cheating and dying to get sympathy.

[quote] I seriously doubt Iain will ever work in Hollywood again after Young Sheldon ends. You can already see the lengths the rest of the cast goes to NOT do scenes with him.

What happened? Why do they all hate him? Is he being a diva?

R85 = Let's just say there is a reason MeeMaw mostly works with the other kids. And notice how Sheldon PHONES home sometimes instead of talking to Mary in person? They have a whole other cast for Sheldon now.

Ian has been a working actor since he was kidnapped by the nanny on SVU.

[quote] Let's just say there is a reason MeeMaw mostly works with the other kids. And notice how Sheldon PHONES home sometimes instead of talking to Mary in person?

What is the reason? Is it because he’s Muslim now? Are they Islamophobic?

It's homophobia, plain and simple! They just can't stand Iain's queer self-confidence + his affinity for blatino and arab escorts.

The movie is really good

I use to listen to Michael Ausiello on the TV Guide podcast years ago and thought he was an idiot. Not interested in seeing this film at all.

Would this have worked better as a Lifetime movie?

It works just fine, take a look at the audience reviews, 90% positive

R93 Bros had the same audience score and it still sucked donkey balls.

I love Showalter so I'll give it a try.

R67 FUCKING Bor-ius and Natasha.

90% positive on Rotten Tomatoes because nobody wants to be labeled a homophobe for hating the movie. Box Office numbers will tank this weekend. I look forward to seeing how much money Sheldons latest flop loses. Are Parsons and Eichner the best the gay community can come up with? At least Brokeback Mountain hired hot fuckable guys.

R97. Parson may have just come off the melted wax figure line but Aldridge is definitely hot and fuckable.

Jim Parsons in a rom com is just so believable after all those years as romantic hottie Sheldon!

At least he's not BILLY FUCKING EICHNER!

90% is not just a number, actually read the comments

The movie was a snooze fest in the first 30-40 minutes, people were getting up and down from their seats the entire time. But the last half of the movie was quite gripping. The sitcom-thing was terrible. They could've done away with it. They really didn't know how to handle the Sebastian character (I don't know if it's the author's fault or the director's). Antoni Porowski was bad bad bad. Every scene with Sally was magical, especially the ones back in Pennsylvania. Bill Irwin was great as well, his character shows why Aldridge's character went for dweebs. I cried twice during the movie and once after the movie in the Taco Bell drive thru. Even though they went through something so traumatic, there was something so shallow and empty about their lives and their relationship. That might be an accurate description of the real men or it's the fault of the director. But yeah, it didn't feel like they truly were in love except for his last days with cancer.

Spoiler Alert REAL review – "bland gay weepie leaves dry eyes in the house"...."Ineffective leading duo and rote script hamper otherwise affecting true story of a couple tackling terminal illness"........."For a film based on the realities of an actual couple, there’s an overwhelming lack of lived-in specificity to the characters, their relationship and their sexuality, as if it’s all been concocted by someone whose knowledge of gayness comes from watching Queer Eye."....

This movie would have been so much better with Beanie Fieldstein and Kristy McNichols

At least we get to watch him die unlike Billy Eichner in Bros, as much as the audience wanted to.

LOL@r104!!!

R102, That last comment is confusing, since Michael Ausiello, Dan parent and David Marshall Grant are all gay men who have not learned about being gay from a TV show.

Hollywood is full of gays. Yet no one in Hollywood knows how to make a convincing gay movie.

R107 That's because gays are as boring as all other men. Gay or straight we all suck and "relationship" movies generally suck too. Let's have some action heroes who just happen to be gay, not movies where the entire focus is BEING GAY and nothing else.

We have not fulfilled the cinematic promise of Brokeback Mountain.

R108. I haven’t seen it yet, but apparently the Glass Onion fills that bill

R110 That’s good to know!

It’s officially a flop.

When you are a member of the Lucky Club you get to do vanity projects.

Hey, Jim, call Elon and ask how HIS vanity project is going.

Did anyone actually expect this to make millions?

We are now in the Gaysploitation era of the Rom-Com.

Has Parsons had (bad) work done? Or is he just aging into a leather muppet?

Doesn't help that he squints and wrinkles his whole face when he smiles.

I can’t believe they used that wax face for the movie poster. At least photoshop it to make it look human.

According to R12 it only made $1.2 million total. What do big stars like Sally Fields and Jim Persons get paid to star in this? Millions? How does it make economical sense?

Lame movie. And that BBT actor is whiny as always

R114 Focus Features apparently did, they gave this a wide release.

I got through it which is more than I could do with Bros. I was hoping for a homophobic character because the fact that a gay man gets rectal cancer is just waiting for a bad joke. But can't gay men have higher standards than Felicity and Drag Race? At least there were no trans characters for added diversity.

Ben Aldridge deserves better than this.

Maybe he can get his throat cut in his next movie.

So Michael Showalter gets to direct a gay themed film even though he's straight with no blowback, but the chick who directed 3 Generations has been run out of the film business because A- She wasn't a tranny and B- she cast Elle Fanning to play a pre-op FTM instead of a tranny.

[quote] Ben Aldridge deserves better than this.

So did Michael Ausiello and his late husband.

Ausiello was on set during filming.

The movie was pretty good.

I was glad we didn't get the Sally Field having a breakdown scene though I guess her rant about the woman cheating in the triathlon was a parallel.

The film is now streaming on Peacock.

Most of the film is about their relationship before the cancer. For those of us on both sides of the story, (losing someone (to AIDS) having several types of cancer myself.) Due to those factors, perhaps I'm a little less judgmental. It brought back bittersweet memories several times. I enjoyed much of it and yes, I cried at the end.

I didn't even get through the first 10 minutes.

Oh well.

I watched on Peacock today. I teared up more than once and bawled at the end. It was sweet and sad and the cast was excellent.

What happened to the monosyllabic lesbian? I liked her.

Also: why doesn’t Jim Parsons ever show his teeth?

He’s the polar opposite of fuckable.

What R8 said. This guy got lucky.

Streamed it tonight. Parsons and hottie Aldridge have ZERO chemistry. The film trades in endless gay stereotypes and banalities; it is quite awful.

I just would I want to watch an ugly old man in a rom com?

Their relationship just isn’t believable, on many levels.

Caught on DVD and Hi-Def TV: the gruesome fascination of the contrast between Parsons' eerily smooth (botoxed) forehead and crepey-wrinkly neck.

Is the American film industry even capable of making a decent gay feature now?

Another movie about gay men that gay men rip to shreds

Same as it ever was

I thought this movie worked. The scenes felt like they might have actually happened, as opposed to so many gay themed movies that feel stilted or untrue. Maybe it not an Oscar contender, but I felt it was a good movie to watch at home. And yes, I did tear up.

I thought it was pretty moving, although the emotional rug gets yanked out from under you at the end with the whole “film with in a film” element.

It just seemed very weepy Lifetime movie. Which is about what it delivered.

I'll watch it and probably cry in a few months when it streams somewhere for free.

It’s free if you subscribe to Peacock, otherwise it’s $5.99 on different streamers.