Down 44,868 this week

The Spoilers (1914)

 -  Drama | Western  -  11 April 1914 (USA)
Your rating:
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 -/10 X  
Ratings: 6.7/10 from 22 users  
Reviews: 2 user | 1 critic

The first of many filmed adaptations of Rex Beach's adventure novel of the Alaskan gold-rush.



(scenario), (novel)
0Check in

Editors' Spotlight

IMDb at Comic-Con 2014

Follow our coverage of Comic-Con 2014, direct from San Diego July 23-27 in our Comic-Con section.

User Lists

Related lists from IMDb users

list image
a list of 9883 titles
created 8 months ago
list image
a list of 64 titles
created 6 months ago

Related Items

Search for "The Spoilers" on

Connect with IMDb

Share this Rating

Title: The Spoilers (1914)

The Spoilers (1914) on IMDb 6.7/10

Want to share IMDb's rating on your own site? Use the HTML below.

Take The Quiz!

Test your knowledge of The Spoilers.

User Polls



Cast overview:
William Farnum ...
Tom Santschi ...
Alex McNamara (as Thomas Santschi)
Bessie Eyton ...
Frank Clark ...
Dextry (as Frank M. Clark)
Jack McDonald ...
Slap Jack (as Jack F. McDonald)
Wheeler Oakman ...
The Broncho Kid, alias of Drury
Norval MacGregor ...
Judge Stillman (as N. MacGregor)
William Ryno ...
Struve (as W.H. Ryno)
Marshall Farnum ...
Lawyer Wheatin


The first of many filmed adaptations of Rex Beach's adventure novel of the Alaskan gold-rush.

Add Full Plot | Add Synopsis




Drama | Western





Release Date:

11 April 1914 (USA)  »

Company Credits

Production Co:

Show detailed on  »

Technical Specs


Sound Mix:

Aspect Ratio:

1.33 : 1
See  »

Did You Know?


Version of The Spoilers (1942) See more »

Frequently Asked Questions

This FAQ is empty. Add the first question.

User Reviews

First You Have To Explain....
10 April 2005 | by (New York City) – See all my reviews

At the top of the comments page is a request: if you've seen this title, please write a review for others. But there is so much to explain about this movie before a useful comment can be made, that it becomes a meaningful problem.

First and foremost, this is a silent picture in black and white. This means that, at the time I write this review, perhaps one person in ten thousand would be willing to see it at all. The prejudice against black and white movies is, I feel, foolish, but silent movies pose an even greater problem to the modern moviegoer. As brilliant as they may be, it is usually only the great comedies that make any sense to modern moviegoers. Silent movies are rewarding, yes, but they are not meant for the passive moviegoer who sits down and says "Entertain me!" You must pay attention. You must understand that you are dealing with a society that is long gone. Are there a hundred people alive in 2005 who saw this movie ninety-one years ago?

The last and foremost problem is that this is not a movie such as you are used to, a series of pictures that tell a story with occasional titles to convey dialogue or scene-setting. No, the titles tell the story and the movie illustrates it. This movie-making technique was dying out when this movie was made.

If you are willing to put in the work to look at this movie, here are some of the things you might wish to look for.

First, the prints available seem to be in good shape, but there seem to be issues with the continuity. Perhaps someone went back and edited the movie to make it shorter, and did a bad job. Perhaps when this print was assembled, there were technical issues with the cutting continuity. The acting is primitive, even by the standards of the era.

Despite those issues, the movie was such a success that it made its lead, William Farnum, a major star and made its production company, the Selig Polyscope, a lot of money -- always an important issue for commercial art. The good points of this movie are that it is much more complicated than later versions of this often-filmed movie. It hints at the complexity and philosophic issues of the Rex Beach novel it is based on. True, this makes characters appear out of nowhere and vanish just as suddenly, but such issues are not restricted to movies more than ninety years old.

It also has some beautiful cinematography, particularly the early, ship-bound sequences which seem to have been filmed on actual ships of the era. And once the action gets going, it gets moving fast, with explosions and fistfights aplenty.

So, is this movie worth your time? I'm afraid you'll have to look at it and tell me.

12 of 15 people found this review helpful.  Was this review helpful to you?

Message Boards

Discuss The Spoilers (1914) on the IMDb message boards »

Contribute to This Page

Create a character page for: