Comments on: Comments on 8026

Post number 8026

BGM — Sat, 02 Jun 2001 23:43:32 -0800

Columbia's movies suck so bad they had to make up their own critic! Newsweek has discovered that a "gushy" critic who has been quoted in Columbia's movie ads for almost a year is an invention of their advertising department.

By: capt.crackpipe

capt.crackpipe — Sun, 03 Jun 2001 00:32:03 -0800

"I LOVE THIS LINK!!! END TO END ACTION!!!" — Jeff Craig, 60 Second Preview

By: gyc

gyc — Sun, 03 Jun 2001 01:05:32 -0800

I was always wondering how even the most awful movies I've seen contained positive reviews in its ads. I guess I know now.

By: raysmj

raysmj — Sun, 03 Jun 2001 01:25:24 -0800

Kaycee gives it a thumbs up!

By: elle

elle — Sun, 03 Jun 2001 02:29:11 -0800

their movies may suck, but they still have coffee, weed and coke. (seriously, i thought columbia's movies meant movies from columbia, i just saw blow today... and i'm sleepy.)

By: Mark

Mark — Sun, 03 Jun 2001 03:03:08 -0800

I always thought it was common knowledge that movie companies fly in critics to the set of movies, give them free gifts and what not, but making up a critic, that's a little bit sleazy.

By: dong_resin

dong_resin — Sun, 03 Jun 2001 05:00:05 -0800

They've just found the one, then? I'm still trying to figure out who makes "Everybody Loves Raymond" a hit.

By: dong_resin

dong_resin — Sun, 03 Jun 2001 05:00:45 -0800

"The Animal'' hailed as `another winner!'' That musta been the tip-off.

By: tranquileye

tranquileye — Sun, 03 Jun 2001 06:56:12 -0800

Maybe we should set David and Kaycee up; they'd make quite a couple.

By: jpoulos

jpoulos — Sun, 03 Jun 2001 06:59:39 -0800

seriously, i thought columbia's movies meant movies from columbia For future reference, the country is Colombia, with two o's. :-)

By: ParisParamus

ParisParamus — Sun, 03 Jun 2001 07:16:30 -0800

I propose amending the U.S. Constitution to make it illegal for any Saturday Night Live alumnus to star in any motion picture.

By: clavdivs

clavdivs — Sun, 03 Jun 2001 07:55:58 -0800

i need a job

By: dogwelder

dogwelder — Sun, 03 Jun 2001 11:31:53 -0800

ParisParamus - can we amend the SNL ban to permit Bill Murray to make films?

By: SpecialK

SpecialK — Sun, 03 Jun 2001 11:50:54 -0800

I just liked seeing mary catherine gallagher in a little skirt...

By: kindall

kindall — Sun, 03 Jun 2001 11:53:20 -0800

Oh please. Do you really want to do away with The Blues Brothers? Or Ghostbusters?

By: ParisParamus

ParisParamus — Sun, 03 Jun 2001 12:03:45 -0800

Oh please. Do you really want to do away with The Blues Brothers? Or Ghostbusters? Oh please. Of course the Amendment would not be retroactive. Although It should be, back to, say 1986.

By: dogwelder

dogwelder — Sun, 03 Jun 2001 13:04:10 -0800

1986? So we don't get Rushmore? Groundhog Day? Kingpin? Jimmy Fallon as Dennis Hope in Almost Famous? Janeane Garofalo in anything?

By: dogwelder

dogwelder — Sun, 03 Jun 2001 13:05:26 -0800

Hey! Ben Stiller was a post-1986 cast member, too!

By: jragon

jragon — Sun, 03 Jun 2001 13:11:44 -0800

Hell, even Duece Bigalo was a big hit.

By: ParisParamus

ParisParamus — Sun, 03 Jun 2001 14:02:40 -0800

Hey, in my benelovent dictatorship, you'd have to content yourself with other stuff; I'm sorry. The amendment would have the additional advantage of keeping talented sketch people (at least some of those you mentioned) from thinking they could be talented film people--which they definitely aren't. And by the way, Mike Myers has never made a funny film.

By: ParisParamus

ParisParamus — Sun, 03 Jun 2001 14:06:47 -0800

P.S. I think if you left SNL before 1986 you'd have free reign; it's only fair. So Bill Murray would be OK. Still working on a way to negate the the Coneheads film, however...I should have taken an extra semester of constitutional law in law school...

By: kindall

kindall — Sun, 03 Jun 2001 14:27:13 -0800

On the plus side, it might be worth it to get rid of Scrooged.

By: Satapher

Satapher — Sun, 03 Jun 2001 15:22:12 -0800

real critics give bad movies good reviews too... anyone else see the 3 and half hour p.o.s. called Pearl Harbor?

By: baylink

baylink — Sun, 03 Jun 2001 16:20:41 -0800

And by the way, Mike Myers has never made a funny film. Ah. You haven't seen Shrek yet, obviously.

By: shinji_ikari

shinji_ikari — Sun, 03 Jun 2001 17:29:38 -0800

Shrek's not really the example I'd use to prove that point. Now, "So I Married an Axe Murderer" is another story entirely...

By: ParisParamus

ParisParamus — Sun, 03 Jun 2001 17:32:27 -0800

I was referring to Austin Powers. I would love to see Shrek. Are you his agent (Myers, not Shrek)?

By: ktheory

ktheory — Sun, 03 Jun 2001 19:12:05 -0800

Night at the Roxbury is the funniest SNL-based movie ever.

By: keithl

keithl — Sun, 03 Jun 2001 19:31:46 -0800

I would love to know the percentage of people who are honestly surprised when they hear this story. If it's as high as I think, it speaks volumes about the quality of propaganda produced here.

By: jpoulos

jpoulos — Sun, 03 Jun 2001 20:09:30 -0800

produced where?

By: keithl

keithl — Sun, 03 Jun 2001 20:59:49 -0800

Right here in the good old us of a. See "Drug War" for further clarification.

By: Grum

Grum — Sun, 03 Jun 2001 21:09:16 -0800

Actually, I WAS surprised by the story. I figured that there was at least a PERSON behind the name in these "always-good" reviews. I mean, I could accept it if they told me that had paid Joe Blow of the KnowNothing Times $5k to write a positive review. Straight, flat out bribing doesn't seem so far fetched. I figured that's what was happening to this Jeff Craig of the 60 Second Review. But to write your own blurb for the movie poster and then attribute it to someone who doesn't exist? That's just lazy and stupid. I pity the poor newsroom intern who is going to be assigned to look at movie poster reviews for EVERY movie in the past 5 years, searching for names that are fake.

By: teradome

teradome — Sun, 03 Jun 2001 21:39:15 -0800

Of course, reviewer quotes are only as good as the trust you have in their tastes in the first place. Frankly, I would love to know the percentage of people who will go to see a movie because some complete unknown says it's "another winner."

By: zempf

zempf — Sun, 03 Jun 2001 22:11:32 -0800

Jesus, have none of you seen Wayne's World?

By: ktheory

ktheory — Mon, 04 Jun 2001 00:35:50 -0800

Zempf, your grammar is atrocious. Jesus is singular, so when addressing him, you should say, "Jesus, have you seen Wayne's World?"

By: ParisParamus

ParisParamus — Mon, 04 Jun 2001 05:56:14 -0800

Jesus is singular, so when addressing him, you should say, "Jesus, have you seen Wayne's World?" Even great 5 minute sketches can make awful movies

By: zempf

zempf — Mon, 04 Jun 2001 11:40:43 -0800

Hey, I liked Wayne's World. The second one left a bit to be desired, but it sure beat the hell out of It's Pat, the Movie or Stuart Saves His Family. I guess it's all relative. And ktheroy, I'm sorry for not using the correct grammar for addressing Jesus' thatrical tastes. I'm willing to bet the big JC is a big Wayne's World fan anyway.

By: baylink

baylink — Mon, 04 Jun 2001 12:25:07 -0800

No, Paris, but I wish I *was Meyers' agent; he's making a pretty decent living. And yeah, I liked the WW movies, too.

By: ParisParamus

ParisParamus — Mon, 04 Jun 2001 12:45:17 -0800

Well, to be candid, I am Mike Myers agent and... To be honest, apart from how awful most SNL-progeny movies are, what I can't deal with is having, in my mind, my enjoyment of sketches destroyed by the crass marketing and commercialism of a derivative movie. And then there's the horrible thought of movie potential being considered in chosing material for Saturday Night Live. OK, obtuse rant over.

By: kindall

kindall — Mon, 04 Jun 2001 12:47:44 -0800

what I can't deal with is having ... my enjoyment of sketches destroyed by the crass marketing and commercialism of a derivative movie. As oppsoed to the crass marketing and commercialism of an extremely popular television show like Saturday Night Live, I presume.

By: ParisParamus

ParisParamus — Mon, 04 Jun 2001 13:06:01 -0800

As oppsoed to the crass marketing and commercialism of an extremely popular television show like Saturday Night Live, I presume. Well, you have somewhat of a point, but even with rehearsals and large salaries and everything, there's still something unique about sketch comedy performed live before an audience, conceived with about a week of preparation. Whatever. I've lost.

By: Kafkaesque

Kafkaesque — Mon, 04 Jun 2001 16:51:00 -0800

I can't believe people are discussing the relative merits of SNL. That show is a big steaming turd, and can only be mildly amusing if one of two things occurs: a. You are on mind-altering substances when watching it. b. Christopher Walken is hosting. that's it. Yes, I remember when it was funny, but in my opinion it stopped having any redeeming features when Norm MacDonald stopped doing the news. As far as the movies go...some of the actors, like Myers, are funny enough to make their own movies. Most of them are not. Maybe if the public at large didn't like crap like Night At The Roxbury, they would stop making crap like that. Someone must be watching that twaddle. Maybe those movies are the ones that should be picketed and protested. I can see the signs now "Have a little self-respect! Don't watch 'The Ladies Man'!" On the subject of sleazily-used reviews...I love it when "MUST SEE!" comes up in huge letters on the screen, and in leetle teeny tiny font at the very very very bottom of the screen it says something like "Ed Pudwhacker -- Outer Hebrides Movie Minute" or something. The only truly reliable way to use critics' opinions is to find the most horrible, pandering, smarmy critic you can and see all the movies he hates.

By: kindall

kindall — Mon, 04 Jun 2001 17:47:35 -0800

there's still something unique about sketch comedy performed live before an audience, conceived with about a week of preparation. Oh sure, there's something unique about it. But still, it's network television. At least when I go see a movie, the movie is the product. The money I pay goes (more or less) to the people involved in producing and showing the movie. It is very straightforward: I give them money, they give me the experience of seeing the movie. But when I watch network television, I am the product. The advertisers pay the network to expose me to their commercials. I am not involved in the transaction at all except as a commodity being bartered. So, really, which is more crass and commercial?