Movie reviewer blurbs
I was reminded of the old Spy Magazine feature when I saw the two positive blurbs for Gigli, now ranked by the IMDB as the worst movie of all time.
Other people were reminded of the same thing, as, with the advent of the mass Internet, everyone with an opinion about a movie and access to the Internet can become a reviewer. Studio PR departments can find someone, somewhere to say something positive about the worst film, and a blurb is a blurb, regardless of whether it comes from Ebert or the most obscure small town journal.
The WaPo article, however, doesn’t delve into the motivations of those who give glowing blurbs to bad movies. The reporter tried to contact the two who gave a thumbs-up to Gigli, but they were unavailable to defend their blurbs. Brave souls bucking the conventional wisdom? Possibly. I think it’s more likely that they were gaming conventional wisdom. A soon-to-be-released movie universally disclaimed as horrible and the expected desperation of studio PR to find someone to say something positive about it: what better opportunity for an obscure columnist to get his name in newspapers all over the country than to give the movie a thumbs up? Unlike Ebert and any other widely recognized reviewer, the potential cost in reputation to the guy giving the rave review is relatively minor compared to the benefit of potentially greater name recognition. After all, from his point of view, a blurb may be a blurb, but it’s a blurb with a national advertising budget behind it.
August 14th, 2003 at 2:01 pm
As someone with thrity years experience in the movie biz, I can say absolutely right. These more obscure reviewers are giving plaudits to gain name recognition for themselves. Movie makers know about this and will seek these people out when they (we) know we have a turkey… Whether “Gigli” is the worst movie of all time is another matter. It has plenty of competition.