|by Erik Childress
(EDITOR’S NOTE: This is a reposting of an article originally printed in April 2005. It was temporarily taken down out of respect as our anonymous source was discovered and let go from his position in January 2006 for the information he provided.)
ERIK: Tell us about the quotes. The junket scene normally comes before the genuine press screenings. Do you get a full list of quotes from the junket critics? Is it always the same names? Are you ever instructed which critics you should be using?
DAN: We were sent, from the studio, a list of all the quotes they have for this movie so far, and I don't know how this list is compiled. Of course, since there hadn’t been press screenings (or if there were, the reviews weren’t out yet) it's a list that looks like this:
Gerri Miller, Scholastic.com
Mike Szymanski, Zap2it.com
Patrick Stoner, WHYY-TV, Philadelphia
Maria Salas, NBC Miami (WTVJ-TV)
Mose Persico, Entertainment Spotlight, CTV Montreal
Tony Toscano, Talking Pictures
Antony Teofilo, Themoviereporter.com
Paul Fischer, Dark Horizons
Lee Thomas, Fox 2 Detroit
Shawn Edwards, Fox TV, WDAF-TV Kansas City
George Pennachio, KABC-TV Los Angeles
Earl Dittman, Wireless Magazines
I don't think the studio really cares who the quotes come from. Of course, if you can splash "New York Times" or "Entertainment Weekly" or "Chicago Sun-Times" all over the place, that's preferable, but otherwise the words are more important than the attributions. Average Joe-Blow Moviegoer doesn't know (or care) who Earl Dittman is, or which movies he's liked in the past, nor will he be able to read the tiny "Earl Dittman" beneath the quote in the 1.5 seconds it's on TV. So why should the studio care?
Of these quotes, most sound like they are part of a full review article somewhere, and a few even sound like they are from legitimate reviews (i.e. not entirely fawning). Gerri Miller says "funny, clever, great fun." (I'm paraphrasing.) However, Shawn Edwards goes a bit overboard, I think:
"Funtastic!...A breathtaking and 100% exciting instant classic that will capture you and take you on a ride you've never been on before."
There's no way we'd ever use that in a spot. It's too long and cumbersome. Not much better on the utility scale is Mose Persico:
"See it twice!! ... funny, tender, and chock full of characters!"
ERIK: And the studios TELL you to use these quotes?
DAN: Sure, but largely (at least at this stage, when there's no Ebert or NYT quotes to be had) it's based on the quote's content, not its attribution. They don't want to say "the best family film of the year," because they don't want to be pigeonholed as a family film; they'd rather be "hilarious" and "absolutely stunning", which are more general.
We cut TV spots in advance of their air, obviously. That countdown spot that says "In 5 days!" was cut prior to 5 days before the release of the movie. Similarly, the review spots are often cut far in advance, before there are any reviews to cite. (More than once "the #1 movie in America" spot, ready to go, has had to become "the #1 comedy in America" when the box office numbers come back.)
ERIK: So how do you cut review spots that early without actual reviews?
DAN: Simple, we make 'em up. We make up a couple of reviews (sometimes cribbing them from other, similar movies; sometimes making them out of whole cloth) just so we have a structure to cut a spot around. These spots are called "review shells", and when we get real reviews, we slot 'em in.
Only sometimes the studio doesn't bother to get real reviews. (See David Manning.) Sometimes, more often than you think, the studio likes the review shell as-is, and so turns the fake reviews into "real" ones by asking a reviewer to attach his name to an existing blurb. (See Earl Dittman.)
For example: Earl D. turned in two solid pages of review quotes for my current project. But another of "his" quotes was one that we'd cut into the spot a week previously. My producer came up with the quote, I cut it into a spot, the studio liked it, and eventually instead of replacing it with a real quote, they asked Earl if he "wanted" the quote.
ERIK: No wonder the David Manning scandal didn’t have the legs it deserved.
DAN: This happens all the time. All that happened with Manning was that the studio skipped one step in the established process (they didn't get a real reviewer to "take" their fake quotes). In fact, one producer that I've worked with has the dubious honor of being one of about four guys that could claim to be David Manning. (He'd made up some of the Manning quotes.)
ERIK: When you do get quotes directly from the "junketeers" - are they written out specifically as quotes? Dittman does actually write little capsule reviews, believe it or not. I've seen them and I've seen quotes of his taken directly from that. Are we looking at him starting with the blurbs and fashioning a review AROUND them?
DAN: The sheet we get is compiled by the studio, so I don't know if the quotes have been pulled from articles or not. If they have, typically we get the whole article, and they let us choose the quotes we want. So I imagine that these quotes are supplied just as blurbs.
They are structured to look like quotes, though:
"Robots is more fun than Finding Nemo." "A stupendous family adventure full of wonder and imagination." "As fun for adults as it is for kids." – Anthony Teofilo, themoviereporter.com
Lee Thomas, of Fox 2 Detroit, hasn't quite gotten the hang of the blurbs:
"A Mechanical Masterpiece! Full of fun for the whole family!"
"When a ROBOT does 'the robot', you know you have a huge hit!"
"Robin Williams works his magic"
This one is prefaced with a disclaimer: "The following quote is provided on behalf of Larry King and does not necessarily reflect the views of CNN. Please do not identify or reference CNN in connection with the quote." The quote is, "Robots is a rollicking roller coaster ride of a movie ... thrilling, funny, creative, just one terrific time. A guaranteed crowd pleaser ... Robots is robotic!"
And now, without further ado, the Dittman Files. You tell me if there's any possible way all this stuff could have come from one review. The typos and ellipses are reproduced here verbatim from my sheet.
"Robots is more incredible than The Incredibles" (that's the one my producer made up.)
(And it’s the one that made it into the final ads.)
"Hysterical, ingenious and whimsical 'Robots' is an even more spectacular, computer-animated film than 'The Incredibles' ... In fact, the term 'brilliant' fails to accurately describe how wondrously witty and innovative 'Robot' [sic] really is ... a hilariously clever and breathlessly innovative work of computer-animated entertainment, 'Robots' is a visually stunning and wildly hilarious comedy for intelligent, humor-starved movie-goers ready to laugh themselves silly."
-- Earl Dittman, Wireless Magazines
"Magical, clever and innovative, 'Robots' is a hysterical comedy inhabited by a hilarious universe filled with the funniest and most witty group of mechanical 'bots you'll ever encounter ... If you thought the superheroes of 'The Incredibles' and the ocean-dwellers of 'Finding Nemo' were humorous, you haven't heard nothing yet. The side-splitting humor of the mechanical beings in 'Robots' is worthy of a capital 'H' ... Forget 'The Incredibles,' 'Robots' is one heck of a funny animated comedy ... 'Robots' is a hilariously awesome and breathlessly inventive work of entertaining animated brilliance" -- Earl Dittman, Wireless Magazines
"The ultra-hilarious 'Robots' is so innovative and wily, it propels the animated action film to a whole new dimension ... it's a computer animated comedy like no other you've ever seen ... 'Robots' is an exciting and explosive technical marvel ... 'Robots' is a spectacular, eye-popping piece of master filmmaking... You can't afford to miss a single frame of this amazing, unforgettable animated classic." -- Earl Dittman, Wireless Magazines
"A sharp, clever and entertaining animated adventure, 'Robots' is easily one of the most hilarious and smartest comedies since 'The Incredibles' ... Exciting, witty, outlandish and unconditionally hilarious, 'Robots' is a gut-busting and side-splitting animated hi-tech comedy that will keep you laughing from beginning to end ... You've never laughed this much at a movie before ... It's absolutely one of the most hysterical and heart-warming comedies ever conceived." -- Earl Dittman, Wireless Magazines
"A spectacular, breathtaking and momentous hi-tech computer-generated adventure full of unstoppable thrills and chills, 'Robots' is an animated adrenaline rush that'll keep you laughing, clapping, and cheering with excitement throughout the entire movie ... You don't want to miss a single frame of this energizing and laugh-filled animated adventure of truly epic proportions." -- Earl Dittman, Wireless Magazines
"It's time to move over Incredibles, because the action-packed and hysterical 'Robots' proves there's a group of mechanical beings that's even more outrageous, clever, lovable and hilarious than a family of superheroes ... An exciting and explosive piece of cinematic technological marvel, 'Robots' is absolute perfection. You'll never laugh so much and so hard at a big screen comedy ever again!" -- Earl Dittman, Wireless Magazines
"Ewan McGregor is remarkable ... He's cool, lovable and downright hilarious in 'Robots' ... McGregor delivers a splendidly spirited and seemingly effortless performance ... Based on his vocal performance, it's time to crown Ewan McGregor Hollywood's newest king of comedy ... In 'Robots', McGregor exposes his remarkably keen ability to make every single joke hilarious and unforgettable ... He's a natural born comedian." -- Earl Dittman, Wireless Magazines
"A sure-fire Oscar winner ... 'Robots' is an exciting and explosive big screen spectacle ... The Academy Awards were created expecially for original and thrilling animated motion pictures such as 'Robots'... Filmmaking at its best, next year it deserves every Oscar it qualifies for ... Place your bets early, because 'Robots' will be an indisputable winner on Oscar night 2006 ... in other words, it's going to clean up!" -- Earl Dittman, Wireless Magazines
"Robin Williams absolutely steals the show with his hilarious, over-the-top, slapstick performance in 'Robots' ... Possessing superb comedic timing and impeccable chemistry with his animated co-stars, 'Robots' finally bears out the fact we've all known for years -- that Robin is most hysterical human being and mechanical being in the universe [sic]... Wildly hilarious, Williams is magnificent ... His performance in 'Robin' [sic] is priceless." -- Earl Dittman, Wireless Magazines
"Wow! 'Robots' is absolutely magnificent ... Although there's still nine months to go in 2005, 'Robots' is such a spectacular animated film that it already deserves the Number One spot on every critic's year-end Top Ten list ... if 'Robots' is any indication of the caliber of animated motion pictures we can expect from Hollywood from this day forward, audiences are in for the best movie-going years of their lives ... Count 'Robots' as one of the funniest and brilliantly conceived computer-generated animated films of the new millennium." -- Earl Dittman, Wireless Magazines
I'd honestly never noticed this level of shameless 'print-me-ism' until this project. It was these quotes what led me to the Internet and to your site. Most everyone I shared those Dittman quotes with has doubled over in laughter. One producer said that "it's as if he's being sarcastic, like they asked him for positive quotes and he said, 'You want positive quotes? Fine, I'll give you fucking positive quotes.'" These are not really typical of the kind of stuff we get as review quotes. Sure, we get the junket crap, but this stuff was over-the-top. The producer went on to say that a lot of people do discount the junket quotes as bullshit, not because they know who Earl Dittman is or isn't, but because it's marketing hyperbole. It's in the same class as "Celebrex will make you happy again" or "Tide cleans clothes better than the leading brand."
ERIK: So why run the quotes at all?
DAN: It's sort of a 'throw it all against the wall and see what sticks' practice. Most people, I'd say, don't give a second thought to movie advertisements, so whatever seeps into their subconscious while they're in the next room making a sandwich during the break from The O.C. works to the favor of the movie. The fact that some people see through the bullshit assumes that those people pay attention enough to care. Most people don't.
ERIK: Are you aware of the studios ever putting a blacklist on particular critics whom they DON'T want to see on their ads? I know this happened to Shawn Edwards from a studio who felt he lied, cheated and misrepresented himself to them.
DAN: I have not experienced this. We get our lists of quotes from the studios, so I imagine if there are political issues they are dealt with above our heads.
ERIK: If you say that John Q. Public doesn't care about the statements made by the Dittmans and the Fischers of the world - then why does the studio even bother with the early quotes? Why not just wait for the press screenings and get the Eberts and the NY Times? If most people either ignore or are savvy enough to dismiss the idiotic quotes they hear on Son of the Mask, then why bother?
DAN: Let me clarify what I mean. I think John Q. Public doesn't care who said the quotes. They don't
differentiate between Earl Dittman or Shawn Edwards or A.O. Scott (unless it says NY Times, maybe) or whatever. If a review spot reads "This movie is stunning! – Earl Dittman" I'm pretty sure that it gets exactly as much consideration (however much or little that may be) as the quote that says "This movie is stunning! -- [insert respected but not well-known critic]".
And as far as that goes, putting an Ebert or a NY Times attribution on a quote gives it a boost in the eyes of some of the public, but it's not like they didn't believe it when it was an Earl Dittman quote. They just might notice it more if it's an Ebert quote. You see the difference?
In other words, let's say attaching a review to a movie gives it a +2 on whatever scale you use to
measure people's desire to see it. An Earl D. quote is +2, a Shawn Edwards quote is the same +2. An Ebert quote is a +5, say. It's not because people don't trust Earl; they have no idea who the fuck he is, if they even notice his name at all. So in the same way, an Erik Childress quote may also be a +2, because you're just as unknown to the public compared to Ebert. (Nothing personal, just by way of example.) It doesn't matter how bad Earl's credibility is, or how good yours is. You're both the same +2, because people don't know the difference.
Now, if you're the studio, you want to run review spots, to gain that +2 or +5 or however much you can get. You haven't seen your movie reviewed in the NY Times yet, so you can't get that +5. You have a bullshit blurb from Earl -- "Stunning!" -- and an honest blurb from Erik Childress -- "Not that great." Which quote do you run?
And especially if your movie is Son of the Mask, you're fighting against the movie itself that is turning people away. So you run with as many "Stunning"s and "Hilarious"es as you can. You will never get a +5, so you get as many +1s and +2s as you can.
So to reiterate, most people equate an Earl Dittman quote right across the board dead even in credibility with anyone else they have never heard of. They probably don't even think of it as less than a NY Times quote, unless they happen to see a NY Times quote right next to it in the newspaper and think, "Hey, the NY Times loved this movie, but only the Albequerque Sentinel loved this other one." For as much as quotes matter -- and you can argue that they are not +2, they're only +0.5 -- I think the general moviegoing public does not ever recognize an Earl Dittman attribution and assign the movie a -2 instead of a +2.
ERIK: Have you ever tried convincing the client that using these quotes would be detrimental to their cause? It's usually quite clear when the junket boys are all over a movie early - that the studio has a shit movie on their hands.
DAN: No, because only you and your colleagues recognize that. You'd know if the movie was shit with or without Earl Dittman quotes. You, the savvy filmgoer, are typically not the audience. The studio will pick a "Stunning! Absolutely hilarious – Shawn Edwards" over a "Decent – Roger Ebert" every single time. Because that Earl quote is a +2, and that particular lukewarm Ebert quote is a +1. But, like I said, "Stunning! Absolutely hilarious – Roger Ebert" is a +5, and he'll beat Earl every time.
My producer was looking over the quotes we've gotten so far on Robots and he said, "We've got to get some real quotes in here." Meaning, not the junket-whore quotes. They know the difference. It's just a matter of using what they have.
Another example: on one project the client sent us a fax that was the transcript of Ebert's show when he had reviewed the movie. The client had underlined the lines that he wanted us to consider for quotes. Reading the entire transcript, it was clear that Roeper didn't like the movie at all, and Ebert only kind of tolerated it. But there were a few gems: "In a few places it was genuinely funny" became "Genuinely funny". That, from Ebert, will beat out "I shit my pants laughing for two full hours, and then two more at home as I recalled it later – Earl Dittman" every time.
ERIK: Ebert has been pretty outspoken over the mishandling of his quotes in the past.
DAN: Ebert is particularly strict about quotes: you have to use his show logo in the attribution graphic on-screen; you can't change the punctuation from the official transcript (so we couldn't say, for example, "Genuinely funny!" with an exclamation point).
Years ago, through a friend, my producer knew socially a woman who was an entertainment reporter on network TV. The weekend before a print campaign had to be finalized, my producer called her up:
"Did you see [such-and-such movie]? Did you think it was funny?"
"It was funny, sure."
"Would you say it was hilarious?"
"Sure, it was funny, I guess."
That Sunday, the double-page LA Times ad read, in 200 point type, "HILARIOUS! -- [her name]".
Man, he caught some shit from her for that. But the movie opened huge, and she got over it, I guess.
ERIK: Could you spot a quote you know is phony (i.e. made up by the studio or "attached" to a critic by their choice) if you spotted it?
DAN: All the quotes that you listed were on the list of quotes that the studio supplied us. The quotes they supply us with are generally more than the two words that make it into the ads, so context gives us some clues as to who's being sincere.
For example, "I thought it was funny, clever, beautifully animated, and great fun. I enjoyed it as
much as The Incredibles, one of my favorites this year" (Gerri Miller, scholastic.com), sounds like a reasonable sentence from a reasonable (i.e. non-hyperbolic) review.
Contrast that with, say, "Robots will go down as an animated classic, this one [sic] of the most ingenious and fun-filled animated films since Shrek and an absolute must see" (Paul Fischer). It sounds made-up and hyperbolic.
So context is key; I could pull "funny, clever, beautifully animated and great fun" from Gerri Miller and you wouldn't know the difference between her review and Fischer's.
Typically there's a sort of curve, on both sides of which you should watch out: "Fun! – Omaha Sentinel" means that the movie probably sucks. "Funny, charming and heartwarming – Washington Post" means that it's probably okay. "The best film of the past twenty years! See it or die unhappy! – MovieBeat Dallas" means that it sucks.
ERIK: How often would your people take a camera crew out to the streets or into a theater to film audience reaction? Is that usually a week after the release and the film is a HUGE hit or just a marginal hit that the studio is hoping to increase?
DAN: This is rarely done anymore, and it's normally done (at least in my experience) when there aren't many reviews to be had, largely because it's complicated and expensive. It used to be a big deal but since the Sony fiasco with Manning, it's come under increased scrutiny. (I believe it was Miramax that originated the practice.)
In the case of Ella Enchanted, there were special free preview screenings that were set up specifically to get the reaction footage afterwards. Camera crews were set up outside special screenings of the movie, and kids were asked their opinions of the movie. There were two crews at two different theaters. (Since they were free, a homeless guy wandered into one, and dutifully stood in line to give his opinion. For about two minutes he talks through his missing teeth about how much he liked the special effects.)
One crew used a lot of leading questions. "What was your favorite character? Did you like the snake? Did you think the snake was funny? Would you say the snake was hilarious? Can you say, 'My favorite character was the snake because he was funny'? Can you say 'I loved the snake, I thought he was hilarious'? Can you say 'Ella kicks butt'? Can you say 'Ella rocks'?"
I kid you not. After cutting it down, we had 10 minutes of little girl after little girl saying, "Ella rocks! Ella kicks butt! Ella rocks! Ella kicks butt!"
Whereas the other camera crew used no leading questions at all, in what you might call a more honest approach. They'd say, "What did you think of the movie? Did you like it?" Out of that group, we got a lot of one-word answers, fragments, and stuff like "Yeah. It was good. Yeah. The elf. Yeah. When she jumped up and froze. Yeah." In other words, stuff that you could never use in a commercial.
ERIK: Isn’t this the worst possible way to utilize word-of-mouth – by turning citizens into hyperbolic zombies?
DAN: For a movie like Ella that would live and die based on word of mouth and moms taking their kids, it was a big deal to get moms and kids on camera showing how much they liked the movie. Moms are the demo least likely to believe reviews, research shows, and the most likely to trust friends' opinions. We had shitty reviews for that movie anyway, so we did the special shoots (at the studio's behest) and the footage was so useless that we had to do another one the following weekend. Even then I think maybe one :15 second spot ever aired, and it had (I recall) two audience shots, both of them of people cheering.
ERIK: I believe it was Sony (again) that got caught faking these segments by using studio employees to fake the "man on the street". Have you ever been privy to this? Anyone you know or worked with ever been one of the "men on the street"?
DAN: People will say anything when prodded to by a man with a TV camera, so we've never had a need to step in front of the camera. I wasn't involved in the Sony deal nor do I know much about it, except that it resulted in a steep drop-off in these types of shoots.
ERIK: You mention the ranking of the various quotes. When you start with your Dittmans and Clay Smiths, only to later get Eberts and major critics, will you immediately dump the junket whores and replace them in the next week's ads?
DAN: Yes, assuming that the Ebert quotes are sufficiently positive, and that the studio has enough faith in the movie to spend more money on recutting the spots and re-airing them. If a movie opens poorly, usually the studio will simply cut their losses and stop spending money on advertising.
ERIK: Will you still go with a mixture of the two, which I've seen and don't quite understand. If you get Two Thumbs Up, a nod from NY, one from LA and then the legit entertainment mags, what's the purpose of continuing to include Mark S. Allen or Dittman?
DAN: Sometimes certain quotes (like "more incredible than The Incredibles") have a bit of iconic quality and help to brand your movie. Any movie can be "two thumbs up", but if you remember that "incredible" quote and you're at the theater looking at the marquee, there's only one movie that it could pertain to. It's just a matter of how much the studio thinks that the quotes brand the movie with their specificity. Also remember that the public doesn't think to discount a quote because it's not a NY Times quote. Sometimes it's easier to stick with what you have.
ERIK: Personally, do you feel that either helps legitimize the whores or, at the same time, lessens what Ebert says because they are now in the same camp on Garfield or Tomb Raider?
DAN: It legitimizes the whores inasmuch as they see their names on TV and feel like they're accomplishing something, and this encourages them. Joe Public will never think of Earl Dittman on the same level as Ebert just because he will never learn Earl Dittman's name (usually the whores have their names smaller in the TV graphics, too, to make them harder to read). But inasmuch as it legitimizes the whores to themselves, and encourages them, yes, I think it does.
ERIK: How can the studios be made aware that they are doing damage to their films by giving them credibility?
DAN: Studios won't change their practices because it will put them at a competitive disadvantage. Until your cinephile minority becomes a hundred times more vocal, turning away audiences and affecting box office, studios won't care.
ERIK: What if studios were compelled to leave the quotes off the films that are “critic-proof” and use them exclusively to encourage people to see smaller films or award-worthy films?
DAN: In a perfect world, the quote would be the last resort, the kicker to give smaller films that extra boost. But the reality is that its bad movies that need the most boost, so that's where the demand for quotes comes in, and the demand breeds the supply: the junket whores. You really have to change the whole paradigm of movie marketing, either from the ground up (change the buying habits of the consumer, to drive change in the industry) or from the outside in (introduce a new and better system of movie marketing).
Unless there's some indie studio out there that makes it a marketing gimmick to only use legit reviews in their ads -- like a restaurant saying they only use USDA beef or whatever. But the only reason a studio would think to do that is if there was a huge stink made about the junket-whore practice and it would serve their interest to distance themselves from it. Like how McDonald's stopped offering super sizing after Super Size Me came out. Fast food, man, that's a problem that's real and ten thousand times worse than movie reviews, and we're still decades away from that being resolved. All I'm saying is, don't hold your breath for the movie review revolution. The practice won't change until the consumer won't tolerate it anymore -- you have to start with the consumer and work backwards.
ERIK: So what can be done to educate the public about this?
DAN: It took several decades of a massive government-mandated marketing blitz just to create what's now the accepted public understanding that cigarettes are bad for you. That's the kind of effort it takes to educate the public about something.
ERIK: So, where do we start raising public interest in the subject? Is Criticwatch on the right track?
DAN: The problem is that the movie business advances in savviness at roughly the same rate as the culture, and often is a propelling factor. In this age of blogging and Google and blah blah blah, ordinary people – like you -- are becoming activists. Media power is decentralizing. Some marketing institutions will likely stay ahead of the curve, surviving to pull the wool over the eyes of another generation, while others will no doubt be left in the era of Marlboro-sponsored quiz shows.
Advertising is becoming more about meaning and less about style. Knowledgeable consumers respect advertisers that tell them the truth, and they're beginning to vote with their wallets. TiVo is making traditional advertising models obsolete. Smart companies will adapt; behemoths like movie studios will likely offer an extra-large heaping pile of more of the same.
I think there is a wellspring of outrage among the moviegoing public that can be tapped into. People are becoming increasingly savvy; most reasonable people now are generally intolerant of mudslinging political commercials, and are becoming intolerant of prescription drug advertisements. Movie ads can't be far behind.
ONLY YOU CAN PREVENT QUOTE WHORES!
We would like to thank Mr. Otumba for taking his time to talk with us about this matter and he brings up an interesting point. We are doing our best at Criticwatch to educate the public on the rampant whoring and suspicious activity out there in Movieland. If you’re using the information as your guideline to pinpoint which critics you can trust, that’s great. If you’re taking it a step further by disassociating with the whores we expose, even better. But we’ve only just begun.
In 2001, a group calling themselves “Citizens For Truth In Movie Advertising” filed class action lawsuits against the studios responsible for “buying” these blurbs from the whores accepting free flights and hotel accommodations in exchange for them. It was a noble effort that didn’t bear much fruit as two of the defendants named in the suit, Earl Dittman and Jim Ferguson, were our whores of the year in 2004. It’s about time the word got out again.
HollywoodBitchslap and eFilmCritic have created a petition entitled “The Boycott of Quote Whores”. In it, the undersigned pledge to steer clear of any film which utilizes the praise of any slap-happy junket whore, bought and paid for by the movie studios. This list includes all of the following whores
Ain’t It Cool News.com
Mark S. Allen
Jeffrey K. Howard
Chuck “The Movie Guy” Thomas
We are sticking specifically with the junket crowd here. Softball critics such as Peter Travers, Kevin Thomas, Jeffrey Lyons, Joel Siegel and others are clearly caveat emptor as we will continue to be overly critical of their wiffle-ball like opinions.
This is just the ground level people. Our own government has used the twist of media to garner favor from the public, watching positive spins on their policies and allowing “plant” journalists to ask softball questions at Presidential press conferences. The quote whores are no different. It’s time to get back what we’ve lost.
IT’S UP TO YOU!
Sign the Petition Today
link directly to this feature at http://www.efilmcritic.com/feature.php?feature=1811
originally posted: 04/29/06 00:50:27
last updated: 06/06/07 22:57:44