There's nothing I hate more than a review that's mostly plot description -- unless it's a movie that's mostly plot. To me, movies are primarily about images, and after that, behavior, emotions, ideas, and so on. If there's a story in there, swell, but for me, story is the MacGuffin, the excuse that seems important when you're watching the movie, but which turns out to be just a tiny part of the experience when it's over.
So, I've always tried to avoid anything beyond the most basic statement of a film's premise, and perhaps a description of its main characters, when writing about movies. Which is why I'm so disappointed that so many of the entries in the 2006 Toronto International Film Festival catalog ($34.17 Canadian -- though the US exchange rate is practically even now) give away far too much.
I know it's tough to write these things (I did it for years in Seattle). You have to describe enough to make the movie sound enticing enough to potential ticket-buyers. But this is a festival, and one of the glories of a festival is getting to see something that hasn't already been pre-sold and ruined by giveaway trailers and TV spots. So, to cite just one example, if anybody's intending to see "Day Night Day Night" in Toronto, don't read the catalog description!
Love this: "story's the MacGuffin..." It seems to me that too many people now put all of their concentration on the MacGuffin, instead of noticing what weird, anachronous collages all films really are. Actually, I don't think this just pertains to movies: even in the 'real world' 'narratives' have become the driving force, with few seeing their often arbitrary and artificial natures.