By
Graig Uhlin
Arizona Daily Wildcat
I never saw "A Knight's Tale," that feel-good teen romance starring Heath Ledger, even though David Manning, film reviewer for The Ridgefield Press in Connecticut, declared the Australian actor "this year's hottest new star."
I never saw "The Animal" either, even though Manning hailed it as "another winner!"
And "Hollow Man"? Well, I missed that. "Vertical Limit?" Yeah, that one too.
But Manning loved them all.
Has my taste in movies been so soured that I'm wasting my $8 to see "Memento" and "Moulin Rouge" when I should be viewing the wacky antics that ensue when comedic genius Rob Schneider channels the spirit of Flipper? Does David Manning simply know more than me about what makes a good film?
Um, no.
And do you know why? Because he doesn't exist.
As revealed last week by Newsweek, Sony Pictures Entertainment (parent company of Columbia Pictures, the company that released the films above) made the critic up in order to give its lackluster slate of films some positive PR, using his quotes on promotional posters and newspaper advertisements, leaving real reviewers and moviegoers hating Sony almost as much as they hate its films.
Two outraged moviegoers even filed a class-action lawsuit against Sony because they claim that Manning's heaps of praise duped them into seeing "A Knight's Tale." And while the plaintiffs in this case will most likely not even see - rightfully so - a free popcorn coupon from their suit (I simply think it's funny that a movie can be so bad as to inspire litigation), the Manning creation marks a new low in movie promotions by the industry.
Of course, the studios were already resting at a pretty low point in that regard. One new favorite tactic of theirs - which Columbia did with "The Animal" - is to delay or cancel advanced press screenings of films so that a movie's opening weekend gross won't be harmed by possibly scathing reviews. It is interesting to note that despite New Line's similar efforts to bolster box office receipts by keeping the critics at bay, its recent release "Town & Country" became one of the biggest flops of all time.
Still, this probably just demonstrates to studio executives all the more the need to seize control of the word of mouth for their films. And since you can't control what film critics are going to say (they are, after all, known for being a surly bunch), the studios hide their films from them or simply make up their own reviewers.
Perhaps though, despite whatever class-action lawsuits may be filed, the public simply doesn't care about the movie industry's more underhanded promotional tactics. The press cares obviously. It is the one being screwed here. I care, but then again, I'm a film reviewer.
But the public is going to see Rob Schneider make an ass of himself simply because they like to see Rob Schneider make an ass of himself, not because Roger Ebert thought they should. I don't feel that I hold much sway over what films people go to see. Despite a readership of 40,000, I still think that my mother is the only one who takes my recommendations.
Reviewers do serve a purpose, though. We get to see the film for free so, bad or not, it makes little difference to us. But the public has to pay - and pay an ever-increasing price of admission. Now people don't have to follow our recommendations (I generally don't follow anyone's opinion but my own anyway) but the idea is that we're here to save you a few bucks. The studios are after the opposite goal, and that is why David Manning is so repulsive. He is an underhanded encroachment and cheap exploitation of what I see as a public service.
So listen to what your friends say about a film. Listen to a 500-word review. But don't listen to David Manning and don't go see any movie because of a sound bite. I don't think any of you actually do but as a film reviewer, I can't help but give my advice.
