# Movie reviews and false advertising **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Tags:** movies\ **Created:** [February 14, 2024, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-and-false-advertising/997542 "2024-02-14T05:48:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2024, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-and-false-advertising/997542/1 "2024-02-14T05:48:41Z")
I didn’t know where to put this question so I put it here as it may have a factual answer. As we know, movie studios publish positive reviews of their films in advertisements. Back in the day Siskel and Ebert were the gold standard. Two thumbs up was the Holy Grail, only one thumb up was nowhere near half as good, and two thumbs down was the kiss of death. In the movie [Dumb and Dumber](https://youtu.be/dGameQbaaSo?si=fyNs9dFe4cIa1sFf) Siskel gave the movie thumbs up, Ebert thumbs down. However, Ebert had stated: _ **" You heard me not only laughing, I almost had to be hospitalized. There was one moment in this movie that is probably the funniest moment I’ve seen in five years of comedies. Maybe longer."** _ But ultimately he couldn’t recommend the movie. But what if New Line Cinema had advertised that quote? Would that be false advertising? On one hand, it insinuates that Ebert recommended the film which is not true. On the other hand he did make that statement which paints at least a portion of the film in a very positive light. Do studios ever para-quote reviews like that? I’ve never really checked out something like this. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2024, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-and-false-advertising/997542/2 "2024-02-14T05:57:21Z")
Of course movie marketers engage in deceptive, or at least misleading, partial quoting of critics. Here’s a classic (and hilarious) example. [![](https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2015/09/09/08/legend.jpg?width=1200&height=1200&fit=crop) ](https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2015/09/09/08/legend.jpg?width=1200&height=1200&fit=crop) Notice anything unusual here? Look between the two heads of Tom Hardy. _The Guardian_ gave this movie two stars, exactly as shown. But the layout certainly _implies_ that it’s another four-star review, with two stars hidden behind the actors. And if you look more closely, you’ll see that _The Guardian_ is far and away the most reputable journalistic publication in the batch. So there’s a couple of layers of misdirection here. I would say this qualifies as, if not flat-out dishonest, then certainly spurious representation of the critical position. It’s pretty clever, though. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2024, 7:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-and-false-advertising/997542/3 "2024-02-14T07:14:26Z")
The quote is also from a Huffington Post **blog** , which can basically be anyone. ---
**Author:** ![Francis\_Vaughan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/francis_vaughan/32/3093_2.png) [@Francis\_Vaughan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Francis_Vaughan)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2024, 8:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-and-false-advertising/997542/4 "2024-02-14T08:11:11Z")
> [@Cervaise](#): > > I would say this qualifies as, if not flat-out dishonest, then certainly spurious representation of the critical position I would say it is a well crafted FU to whoever reviewed it at the Guardian. IMHO, the Guardian can be counted on to be as miserable as possible on any topic. As movies go, it wasn’t terrible. But there is only so much you can do with the basic story. It wasn’t exactly uplifting. Maybe it wasn’t miserable enough for the Guardian. > [@pkbites](#): > > But what if New Line Cinema had advertised that quote? > Would that be false advertising? Hard to construe a complete quoted sentence as false advertising. Heck, put the quote next to the thumbs down. People will be curious. A reviewer is not going to go after someone taking a quote like that with clear context. It probably doesn’t make good business sense to overtly misquote reviewers. Not unless you never intend making another movie. ---
**Author:** ![don\_t\_ask](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e68b1a/32.png) [@don\_t\_ask](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/don_t_ask)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2024, 8:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-and-false-advertising/997542/5 "2024-02-14T08:38:06Z")
No movie seems to have taken the approach used by comedian Stewart Lee - [ONLINE CRITIQUES](https://www.stewartlee.co.uk/online-critiques/) ---
**Author:** ![Asuka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@Asuka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asuka)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2024, 8:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-and-false-advertising/997542/6 "2024-02-14T08:41:23Z")
[According to this website](https://www.cjr.org/special_report/misquoted-movie-reviews.php) it happens all the time. > GARFIELD THE MOVIE > “Fun!” - Washington Post > Meanwhile, the word “fun” does not appear at all in two reviews of the film in the Post. The closest it gets is this, in a review by Anne Hornaday: “Garfield is rather unpleasant, and he’s never very funny.” ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2024, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-and-false-advertising/997542/7 "2024-02-14T12:27:21Z")
I don’t know how much, if any, quoting-out-of-context _would_ constitute false advertising, but I very much doubt that a quotation without any misrepresentation of something that a critic _did_ like about a thing could be considered false advertising just because that person also had things they didn’t like about it or wasn’t overall positive about it. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2024, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-and-false-advertising/997542/8 "2024-02-14T12:38:32Z")
On the back of the paperback edition of Arthur C. Clarke’s **2001: A Space Odyssey** , the edition that came out coincident with the movie’ s release, there’s a collection of extremely brief quotes. One of these read: “Mind-boggling” – Life Well, Life magazine did call the film “mind-boggling”, but it was in a feature piece about the film, not a movie review. I checked. I didn’t check the other quotes, but it wouldn’t surprise me if some of them were also taken not from reviews. And that’s pretty much equivalent to what the OP cites – a real quote from the source that is, however, not from a review, and which is cited as if it was. I recall one critic complaining about some book or movie that had abstracted an out-of-context line from his review that gave the impression that he was praising the work, when he had, in fact, panned it. In a later review he pointed out that he had carefully written the current piece so that no one could do the same with it. So this is a long-running problem. Heck, Mad magazine did a parody piece once showing how you could turn a bad review into a good one by judicious cherry-picking. ---
**Author:** ![Horatius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/horatius/32/3572_2.png) [@Horatius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Horatius)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2024, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-and-false-advertising/997542/9 "2024-02-14T12:51:20Z")
> [@CalMeacham](#): > > Mad magazine did … a bad review … by judicious cherry-picking. **(Edited to make a point)** It’s not that hard. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2024, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-and-false-advertising/997542/10 "2024-02-14T13:08:03Z")
[“NBC has done it again” — Washington Post](https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1999/01/14/nbc-takes-the-con-out-of-context/b27b7429-acfb-4e4e-a70a-c75a32871099/) > [@](#): > > Shales called the new NBC series, which replaced “Trinity” on Friday night, “a dismal drama about a fretful family.” He continued: “It presents us with a houseful of characters who are unpleasant, unsympathetic or simply creeps.” He said the lead actress, Melina Kanakaredes, “has hair galore but forgot to develop a personality – or at least to come up with one for the boring and chichi character she plays.” In short, he didn’t like it. Unfazed, NBC continued putting together an ad for the show, planning to fill it with glowing review lines from adoring critics. They simply spun one of Shales’s criticisms. Here’s what Shales wrote: "There’s no meaning in Providence.’ It’s as dreary and dismal and empty as Trinity.’ Thus can it truly be said: NBC has done it again.’ " Here’s what appeared in the ad: “NBC has done it again” – Washington Post. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2024, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-and-false-advertising/997542/11 "2024-02-14T13:18:05Z")
[Ebert’s written review of _Dumb and Dumber_](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/dumb-and-dumber-1994) starts out (bolding added by me): > [@](#): > > The purpose of a comedy is to make you laugh, and there is a moment in “Dumb and Dumber” that made me laugh so loudly I embarrassed myself. I just couldn’t stop. It’s the moment involving the kid who gets the parakeet. **But because I know that the first sentence of this review is likely to be lifted out and reprinted in an ad, I hasten to add** that I did not laugh as loudly again, or very often. It’s just as well. If the whole movie had been as funny as that moment, I would have required hospitalization. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2024, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-and-false-advertising/997542/12 "2024-02-14T14:11:46Z")
Movie distributors and book publishers have been lifting quotes out of context and highlighting favorable comments at the expense of overall negative or meh ones since…well, forever. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2024, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-and-false-advertising/997542/13 "2024-02-14T14:30:52Z")
In 2002, [Sony was posting quotes from reviews](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sony-pays-for-fake-reviews/) of its movies by David Manning of The Ridgefield Press. The problem? The Ridgefield Press is or was a real weekly newspaper in Ridgefield, Connecticut but David Manning was not real and the quotes, and reviews, were fictitious. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2024, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-and-false-advertising/997542/14 "2024-02-14T14:50:17Z")
Years ago there was a minor scandal because they were just making up quotes and attributing them to people who weren’t real. Late 1990s or early 2000s I think. They would also invite “critics” to screenings, but they were really just shills who would say something nice about any movie they watched in exchange for getting to watch movies for free and getting minor swag. ---
**Author:** ![Q.Q.Switcheroo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/q.q.switcheroo/32/5713_2.png) [@Q.Q.Switcheroo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.Q.Switcheroo)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2024, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-and-false-advertising/997542/15 "2024-02-14T15:05:53Z")
From Richard Corliss’s Time magazine review of _Rush Hour 2_: > The film seems content to rely on the formula that could (small sigh) extend for a few more sequels: Jackie kicks butt; Chris kicks sass. A few weeks later, this showed up in ads for the movie as: > “JACKIE KICKS BUTT! CHRIS KICKS SASS!” - Richard Corliss, _Time_ ---
**Author:** ![XOldiesJock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/ec9cab/32.png) [@XOldiesJock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XOldiesJock)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2024, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-and-false-advertising/997542/16 "2024-02-14T15:41:01Z")
I remember that scandal involving phony critics. And I often laughed about glowing quotes from a critic whose byline appeared in the Paducah Sun-Dismal or some such obscure small town daily. Like, who really cared what that reviewer thought, even if they were legitimate? One “real critic” who always appeared on posters and advertising was the late Joel Siegel from ABC’s “Good Morning America.” He apparently never saw a movie he didn’t like. No, **love!** Since Roger Ebert’s demise, it’s been difficult finding a critic whose opinion I respect. Peter Travers, formerly of Rolling Stone and currently with ABC, is pretty reliable. ---
**Author:** ![engineer\_comp\_geek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/engineer_comp_geek/32/504_2.png) [@engineer\_comp\_geek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/engineer_comp_geek)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2024, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-and-false-advertising/997542/17 "2024-02-14T21:02:12Z")
**Moderator Note** > [@Horatius](#): > > (Edited to make a point) Reminder: Editing text inside a quote box to make editorial comments is strictly prohibited here. Do not alter text inside a quote box. ---
**Author:** ![jjakucyk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/3d9bf3/32.png) [@jjakucyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjakucyk)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2024, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-and-false-advertising/997542/18 "2024-02-14T22:05:16Z")
> [@Cervaise](#): > > Here’s a classic (and hilarious) example. > … > Notice anything unusual here? I first noticed “Unmissable…a British Classic” thinking that they chopped out something along the lines of “…you won’t believe how these wankers desecrated a…” ---
**Author:** ![Shoeless](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shoeless/32/7099_2.png) [@Shoeless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shoeless)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2024, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-and-false-advertising/997542/19 "2024-02-15T00:07:09Z")
> [@XOldiesJock](#): > > I often laughed about glowing quotes from a critic whose byline appeared in the Paducah Sun-Dismal or some such obscure small town daily. Like, who really cared what that reviewer thought, even if they were legitimate? One of the ones that always jumped out at me in movie ads were blurbs from some reviewer at “Women’s Wear Daily”. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2024, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-and-false-advertising/997542/20 "2024-02-15T01:12:35Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > Years ago there was a minor scandal because they were just making up quotes and attributing them to people who weren’t real. > [@XOldiesJock](#): > > I remember that scandal involving phony critics. And I often laughed about glowing quotes from a critic whose byline appeared in the Paducah Sun-Dismal or some such obscure small town daily. Like, who really cared what that reviewer thought, even if they were legitimate? Are you perhaps thinking of [David Manning from The Ridgefield Press](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-and-false-advertising/997542/13)? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movie-reviews-and-false-advertising/997542.md?page=2)