you know what? i’m convinced that all those newspaper movie advertisments are boldfaced lies that no one ever thought to look into. and the public just buys it…eats it right up, and nobody ever stops and wonders about it.
case in point, the weekend section of today’s Globe. a huge ass full-page ad for the in-laws. — a movie whose very existence i find offensive since it’s such a blatant rip-off of a classic old-school comedy, and no doubt 50% of the general public has no clue about that fact, but i digress — so this ad for the in-laws, the top headline thingy reads: “A rollicing ride. hilarious!” — thelma adams, us weekly. uh…is that seriously all she said about this film? jim ferguson of fox-tv apparently said “nonstop fun and laughs.” uh-huh…sure…
turn the page and you see an ad for the matrix, with things like ‘astounding’ – tom long, the detroit news. wtf. who are these people? how are their one-word, stilted phrase summaries/statements supposed to entice us? and yet they do.
when really, ms. adams’ full quote could be something along the lines of ‘most definitely not a rolicking ride…’ or jim’s quote could really be ‘this movie is utterly lacking in nonstop fun and laughs.’ and as for the matrix, it easily could’ve been ‘astounding in it’s ability to bore and drag on.’
how do we really know?
we don’t. and as the ads for kangaroo jack — the most wretched movie to ever grace the silver screen even though i’ve never seen it (previews were awful enough, thank you) — have shown, people always plaster their movie advertisments with glowing praise. glowing, one-word praise. bah.
in other news, i think we’re going to see bruce almighty today. weee!
