Join 3,518 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Columbia's movies suck so bad they had to make up their own critic!
June 2, 2001 11:43 PM   Subscribe

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.
posted by BGM (41 comments total)

 
“I LOVE THIS LINK!!! END TO END ACTION!!!”
— Jeff Craig, 60 Second Preview
posted by capt.crackpipe at 12:32 AM on June 3, 2001


I was always wondering how even the most awful movies I've seen contained positive reviews in its ads. I guess I know now.
posted by gyc at 1:05 AM on June 3, 2001


Kaycee gives it a thumbs up!
posted by raysmj at 1:25 AM on June 3, 2001


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.)

posted by elle at 2:29 AM on June 3, 2001


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.
posted by Mark at 3:03 AM on June 3, 2001


They've just found the one, then?
I'm still trying to figure out who makes "Everybody Loves Raymond" a hit.
posted by dong_resin at 5:00 AM on June 3, 2001


"The Animal'' hailed as `another winner!''
That musta been the tip-off.
posted by dong_resin at 5:00 AM on June 3, 2001


Maybe we should set David and Kaycee up; they'd make quite a couple.
posted by tranquileye at 6:56 AM on June 3, 2001


seriously, i thought columbia's movies meant movies from columbia

For future reference, the country is Colombia, with two o's. :-)
posted by jpoulos at 6:59 AM on June 3, 2001


I propose amending the U.S. Constitution to make it illegal for any Saturday Night Live alumnus to star in any motion picture.
posted by ParisParamus at 7:16 AM on June 3, 2001


i need a job
posted by clavdivs at 7:55 AM on June 3, 2001


ParisParamus - can we amend the SNL ban to permit Bill Murray to make films?
posted by dogwelder at 11:31 AM on June 3, 2001


I just liked seeing mary catherine gallagher in a little skirt...
posted by SpecialK at 11:50 AM on June 3, 2001


Oh please. Do you really want to do away with The Blues Brothers? Or Ghostbusters?
posted by kindall at 11:53 AM on June 3, 2001


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.
posted by ParisParamus at 12:03 PM on June 3, 2001


1986? So we don't get Rushmore? Groundhog Day? Kingpin? Jimmy Fallon as Dennis Hope in Almost Famous? Janeane Garofalo in anything?
posted by dogwelder at 1:04 PM on June 3, 2001


Hey! Ben Stiller was a post-1986 cast member, too!
posted by dogwelder at 1:05 PM on June 3, 2001


Hell, even Duece Bigalo was a big hit.
posted by jragon at 1:11 PM on June 3, 2001


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.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:02 PM on June 3, 2001


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...
posted by ParisParamus at 2:06 PM on June 3, 2001


On the plus side, it might be worth it to get rid of Scrooged.
posted by kindall at 2:27 PM on June 3, 2001


real critics give bad movies good reviews too...

anyone else see the 3 and half hour p.o.s. called Pearl Harbor?
posted by Satapher at 3:22 PM on June 3, 2001


And by the way, Mike Myers has never made a funny film.

Ah.

You haven't seen Shrek yet, obviously.
posted by baylink at 4:20 PM on June 3, 2001


Shrek's not really the example I'd use to prove that point. Now, "So I Married an Axe Murderer" is another story entirely...
posted by shinji_ikari at 5:29 PM on June 3, 2001


I was referring to Austin Powers. I would love to see Shrek. Are you his agent (Myers, not Shrek)?
posted by ParisParamus at 5:32 PM on June 3, 2001


Night at the Roxbury is the funniest SNL-based movie ever.
posted by ktheory at 7:12 PM on June 3, 2001


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.
posted by keithl at 7:31 PM on June 3, 2001


produced where?
posted by jpoulos at 8:09 PM on June 3, 2001


Right here in the good old us of a. See "Drug War" for further clarification.
posted by keithl at 8:59 PM on June 3, 2001


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.
posted by Grum at 9:09 PM on June 3, 2001


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."
posted by teradome at 9:39 PM on June 3, 2001


Jesus, have none of you seen Wayne's World?
posted by zempf at 10:11 PM on June 3, 2001


Zempf, your grammar is atrocious.

Jesus is singular, so when addressing him, you should say, "Jesus, have you seen Wayne's World?"
posted by ktheory at 12:35 AM on June 4, 2001


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
posted by ParisParamus at 5:56 AM on June 4, 2001


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.
posted by zempf at 11:40 AM on June 4, 2001


No, Paris, but I wish I *was Meyers' agent; he's making a pretty decent living.


And yeah, I liked the WW movies, too.
posted by baylink at 12:25 PM on June 4, 2001


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.
posted by ParisParamus at 12:45 PM on June 4, 2001


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.
posted by kindall at 12:47 PM on June 4, 2001


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.
posted by ParisParamus at 1:06 PM on June 4, 2001


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.
posted by Kafkaesque at 4:51 PM on June 4, 2001


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?
posted by kindall at 5:47 PM on June 4, 2001


« Older Onward, Christian Guerrillas!...  |  Young Men and Fire... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments