I know this isn’t exactly breaking new ground but this shit has finally gone too far for even me. I’m talking about the blurbs and hype offered up whenever a new motion picture is released. First, I can handle the “…FUNNNY!!!11!..” “…heartwarming…” “…great for the kids…” bullshit that is formatted like this because it doesn’t tell you what words came before or after. Technically the last one could be applied to The Devil’s Rejects. Being an excerpt of a statement it could have been “Not as great for the kids as Toy Story” and still apply. But I can deal with that. The people attributed to the quote know how the quote will be used and they make good coin doing it. If I’m not wrong, some of these quotes are given without the person actually watching the movie.
The blurbs and quotes are bullshit. I know that going in. Almost everyone does. (Remember when The Animal was touted as “The funniest movie I’ve seen all year”?
But this voice-over has finally sent me over the edge. The Weatherman, starring Nick Cage is being released on Friday. That’s Friday, OCTOBER 28. Roughly 2 months to go to 2006. We have covered 10 of the 12 months this year so far. We are 5/6 done with 2005.
The voice-over? “The first must-see movie of the year!”
:smack:
Says something about the quality of big-name, major productions being shit out of Hollywood lately. Normally the first must-see movie of the year is released about 3 nanoseconds after midnight January 1. Followed by 89 movies that are the must-see film of the year. That’s expected. We’re all accustomed to that. We hear it and let it fall to the wayside of life. But what the fuck is with THE FIRST must-see movie of the year being released while staring at the ass-crack of November?
I’m starting to see film piracy as morally wrong. Not because of any ethical or financial issues. Rather because the simple act of watching this shit that relies on such piss-poor advertising must somehow corrupt the very soul of the poor bastards subjected to this shit.
That’s almost as bad as the best/funniest/scariest/whateverest movie of the year coming out in January.
Don’t forget movies being the #1 comedy/#1 action thriller/#1 action comedy buddy picture dance movie starring Rob Schneider that opened a week ago. :rolleyes:
But that’s just it. If a comedy is released the first week of January, it has a damn good chance of being the funniest of the year. (Considering the year may be 3 days old) Then in 2 weeks another is the funniest. But to be the first must-see of the year in Oct when there are at least a dozen other’s touted as the same for 10 months just makes my ass twitch.
Well, at that time, Sony was doing ads with quotes that were literally bullshit. Was that quote by David Manning of the Ridgefield Press, by any chance?
While we’re at it, how about pitting the amount of information given away in the trailers?
I think ‘The Island’ would have been much better had the trailer not shown scenes of the clones running around L.A and ending with one of them yelling “THERE IS NO ISLAND!”
Thats just me.
When “Nuns on the Run” was released it carried with it a quote to the effect that it was the best transvestite nun chase comedy of the year. Prompting a perplexed Gene Siskel to wonder exactly how many other transvestite nun chase comedies had been released that year.
I’m almost sure it was Earl Dittman of Wireless Magazine. My wife and I have learned that the one sure-fire way to know that any given film is a complete shit-bomb is that Earl Dittman’s name appears (always in very, very fine print) in the ad.
Strangely enough, it’s probably the funniest transvestite nun chase comedy of all time.
I have a neat trick to use at video stores. When looking at the box, don’t read the comments such as “Rivetting”, “I loved it!”, and “The best movie I’ve seen in the past 4 billion years.” You’ll never see anything disparaging in those comments. Instead, read who wrote the comments. If it was Roger Ebert*, then rent it. If it was Roy Finkelstein of the Terra Haute Daily Shopper, it’s because they couldn’t get Roger Ebert to say anything nice about it.
"In a world … where the New Year starts on October 28th … "
Since you mentioned “The Weatherman”, another problem with the advertising is that I just found out it is a pretty “dark” movie. However, the TV ads give the impression that it is “a laugh-filled cinematic romp”.
The only reason I brought up David Manning is because Sony’s advertising division made him up, and The Animal was one of the films he “reviewed.” Sony actually got in trouble for it, and was forced earlier this year to actually give refunds to people who saw the films he “reviewed.”
I used to be able to at least use his ratings as a rough guide, but he’s become so inconsistent that I can’t even do that anymore. He likes some movies I thought were lower than pond slime and disses some movies I thought were decent-to-good.
Sometimes, I even think his explanations as to why he dislikes something are crap. A recent example is the recent War of the Worlds movie: he makes a comment about why it’s oh, so silly for the alien machines to be tripods because that is so clearly an unstable design. Yeah, like us bipeds have room to talk. There are things to dislike about that movie, though some things were well done, but the tripod comment be jus ignunt.
I still like Ebert, so sue me. I think the point he was trying to make in the War of the Worlds review was this: if you’re making a light-hearted science fiction romp, then it would be perfectly okay to have impractical technology. But Spielberg’s movie took itself way too seriously and was largely humorless, hence it’s far harder to ignore the technological implausibility.
Hi, duffer! We’ve met before and I disagree with you about pretty much everything. Lately that intro’s been a preface to agreeing with you, but, um, not this time. Exactly how much do you want to restrict and scrutinize advertising, not just for movies but for every product, including those purchased by those with no extra income for entertainment? Should similar standards, whatever you think they should be, apply to promises made by politicians, preachers and anyone else who makes promises and representations as to the truth and depends upon his/her audience for a job and/or an income? If so, when and where will you be starting your own church-state?
Holy Ghostly Morphing Toast – I just realized there’s a way you could answer this which would put you politically to my left. And I thought I was leaning comfortably against the wall. I’m nervous, but I’ll be watching. Best regards and wishes, by the way – sorry about the way the football season’s going.
If you read that article through, it’s pretty apparent Earl exists. Not that it makes him a good person. He’s a horrible critic, and by his utter failure to render any sort of useful opinion in his chosen field of study, a bad person, too.
The King of Soup, huh? What was all that supposed to mean? I didn’t call for restrictions on advertising, I was pointing out how absurd it has become. Moreover, I’m not sure how the poor schlub spending money he doesn’t have on entertainment figures in. Maybe some clarification on what I’m not getting?
And now I’m dying to know what this mystery answer is that would put me to the left of you. I can be pretty imagininative at times but I’m drawing a blank here.
I’m sorry, but having three legs for the machines was one of the most plausible things in the movie. He spends two paragraphs bitching about tripods. A tripod can become a bipod and still kind of get around. Chop off a human’s leg, or a bird’s leg and see how well our biologically “superior” divisible-by-two limbs allow us to get around. It’s crap, it’s a waste of time, and it doesn’t belong in a movie review. He could have spent that time and space on telling us about why it didn’t work for him as a movie, things that could have been changed to make it better, anything but his (stupid and uninformed) speculations on biological fitness.
The guy gave Showgirls the same star rating as War of the Worlds. I’d scoop out my eyeballs with a rusty spoon before I’d watch Showgirls, and I have a positive bias for looking at naked chicks. I fast-forwarded through most of that movie looking for any good, or merely watchable parts and still felt soiled. Two stars, my hairy ugly ass. I loathe Armageddon (one star from Ebert), yet I’d still rather watch that on constant loop than Babe: Pig in the City, which got four (4?!) stars from him.
These days, if I read Ebert it’s to make fun of how bad he is at expressing what makes a movie work and what doesn’t. Granted, he makes a living criticizing movies and I don’t, but that only leads people like me to think, “Even I can do better than that,” and eventually one of us will take over his job.
The Weather Man was originally slated to come out in late March/early April. It was screened for reviewers in early March. That is when the review was written.
