 "Photo: Photo Courtesy Walt Disney Motion Pictures")
Every so often, movies come along that are so poorly contrived, so badly written and so shoddily directed that there’s no way to put a positive spin on their release. Instead, critics get their jollies raining criticism down on the film, while snarky film aficionados quote each other’s scathing critiques of the film. Even I have fallen victim to this vicious cycle, as I was once quoted on various websites in a review of 2008’s “Disaster Movie” as saying “the mere fact that this movie (and its predecessors) exists at all boggles the mind.”
Was I a bit harsh? Not really. But it certainly seemed like the type of quotable people could easily use when describing the film. And in some critic’s minds, having those standout quotes that will stick in people’s minds is what matters in reviewing. Take last week’s release of the Disney comedy “Old Dogs,” for instance. The film was universally reviled, receiving a 6% on Rotten Tomatoes and inspiring a legion of hilarious quotes about the film.
Drew McWeeny of Hitfix.com wrote, “If ‘Old Dogs’ were a person, I’d stab it in the face.” Kyle Smith of the New York Post wrote, “‘Old Dogs’ does to the screen what old dogs do to the carpet. It’s unfortunate that only the latter can be taken out and shot.” Even Rogert Ebert, perhaps the most esteemed American film critic today, said, “‘Old Dogs’ seems to have lingered in post-production while editors struggled desperately to inject laugh cues. It obviously knows no one will find it funny without being ordered to. How else to explain reaction shots of a dog responding to laugh lines?”
The thing about making negative quotes about films is that while it may help a critic become popular in the blogosphere, it certainly won’t win them any friends in film studios. On the other side of the coin, however, are the critics who write eminently quotable and positive reviews about terrible films to get exposure by getting their name plastered on every movie poster and trailer. In the case of “Old Dogs,” the only positive review came from a quote whore repeat offender, Pete Hammond of Boxoffice Magazine.
Hammond calls “Old Dogs” “an often riotously funny slapstick farce that ought to appeal to moviegoers of all ages.” Is that enough to sell you? What if Pete told you that the film “effortlessly mixes over-the-top comedy with heartwarming moments that [Robin] Williams in particular seems to have trademarked”? Still not enough? What if Pete were to compare the film’s horribly inadequate and over-the-hill stars to comic legends? Because Pete did that too, writing, “Robin’s in great form and has terrific chemistry with [John] Travolta as they manage to recall a modern-day Abbott And Costello.” That’s right, ladies and gentlemen. Robin Williams and John Travolta are the new Abbott and Costello.
Hammond used to pen reviews for Maxim before he was fired for exactly the type of quote whoring he’s still practicing now. While no specific instance is cited, the worst case was when Hammond wrote that 2007’s “Hannibal Rising” was “the most terrifying thriller of the new year.” That wouldn’t be that bad if a) it wasn’t being released in February, and b) the following hadn’t happened: Harvey Weinstein, head of Miramax films, thought audiences might be put off by the word “terrifying” and didn’t want audiences watching the trailer during the Super Bowl to be turned off. So the studio approached Hammond and asked him to amend the quote to “the most electrifying thriller of the year,” omitting “terrifying” and “new.” And he did it. He revised his review at the request of a studio executive, and in doing so took a crap on the concept of prior review and wiped his ass with the First Amendment, all so his name could be in the trailer of “the thriller of the year,” something Hammond felt confident saying despite it being released the first week of February.
This kind of lip service is much worse than writing exceptionally harsh reviews, but they cut to the same issue of writing for effect rather tha for thoughtful consumption. Writing in an outrageous style is an easy trick to catch a reader’s eye—admit it, you’ll remember this review for the “wiping your ass with the First Amendment” analogy—but it doesn’t provide any substance. If critics banded together and adhered to a strict code of ethics, critics like Pete Hammond wouldn’t have a place to work. And while movie trailers and posters would lose some of their selling power, people would be able to judge the merit of films based on how they look, and with the help of a levelheaded, jargon-free review. It would be so spectacular; it could easily be the most phenomenally extraordinary move of the millennium!
Think Kevin’s column was a thrilling roller-coaster ride the whole family will love? E-mail him some accolades he can put on his resume at kevslane@gmail.com.
Be the first to comment on this article!