Thanks to the many people who offered suggestions for “Eric’s Bad Movies” when I put out the call last week! There were some excellent recommendations that I have added to my Netflix queue. The people at Netflix, meanwhile, must think I’ve recently suffered brain damage, or married someone stupid.

By my count, you suggested a total of 177 different films. Many of those had to be eliminated because I’d already reviewed them (including three that were the subjects of “Eric’s Bad Movies,” AHEM), or because they are unavailable on DVD (including “North” and Michael Jackson’s “Moonwalker”), or because I consider them too obscure. I might get to the obscure titles eventually, but for now I think there are enough suitable candidates that are well-known.

I also had to eliminate some for not being bad enough, or, in some cases, for not being bad at all. A few more, like “American Psycho 2,” were disqualified for being direct-to-video films. At least one film had to be disqualified for not existing — unless the person who suggested “Daisies” meant the 1966 Czech film by that name, in which case it’s disqualified for being obscure, as well as for being actually rather well-regarded by those who are familiar with.

Some people freely admitted that the films they were suggesting were ineligible, yet suggested them anyway, presumably because they like to hear the sound of their own voices. You see that a lot on the Internet: “I have nothing useful to add to this discussion, but I must speak anyway, lest others be deprived of my words!” So if someone really, really wanted a forum to post their list of least favorite movies, most of which aren’t eligible for this feature, then I guess I’m glad I could provide an opportunity.

But I wound up with about 30 titles that I’ve added to my list, including several that made me say, “Oh! Yes! Of course! How could I have forgotten ‘Inspector Gadget’?!” (for example). Between those and the ones I’d already come up with, we should be set for a year of “Eric’s Bad Movies.” And that’s if I hold myself to only one Stallone movie! If I cover each of his cinematic offenses, we’re set until the year 2014.

Rotten Tomatoes, now celebrating its 10th anniversary, operates on a simple concept. It looks at all* the movie reviews on the Internet, translates each into either “Fresh” or “Rotten” (i.e., positive or negative), then tells you what percentage of critics liked a particular movie. If the percentage is 60 or higher, then the film is considered “Fresh.”

“WALL-E” is the “Freshest” movie of the year so far, with a current Tomatometer score of 96% — that is, 147 out of 153 critics reviewed it favorably. Those other six critics … well, they’re in the distinct minority.

And so I got to thinking: When have I been in the distinct minority? What is the “Freshest” movie that I’ve ever given a “Rotten” rating to?

Each individual critic’s page at Rotten Tomatoes (here’s mine) actually lets you sort his or her reviews by Tomatometer, making it easy to check: It was “The Pianist,” which has a 95% Tomatometer score. I gave it a C+, which is just barely on the “Rotten” side, but “Rotten” nonetheless. I’m one of only eight critics (out of 165) to review it negatively.

Continue reading…

(This post contains minor “WALL-E” spoilers.)

Many of you saw “WALL-E” over the weekend, and no doubt some of you noticed biblical themes in it. You can’t name a main character “Eve” without invoking the Garden of Eden, of course; nobody could miss that. But what about all the humans living on a ship and waiting for an envoy to return with a plant as proof that it was safe to go home? Did that remind anyone of Noah’s Ark and the dove?

In my review, I mentioned that there were biblical allusions along with the cinematic references like “2001: A Space Odyssey” and Buster Keaton. (I didn’t mention it, but writer/director Andrew Stanton is a Christian, and he discusses how that influences his work in this interview.) My review prompted a Methodist minister to write to me:

I have read 7 reviews so far all by the “top” critics, and while they are all excellent writers, they all, until you, have missed the biblical narratives so skillfully woven into the story. Thanks for having the guts to mention it.

Continue reading…

For readers unfamiliar with the saga of the Paramount ban, I will recap it briefly before moving on to the surprising recent developments.

In July 2006, I went on an all-expenses-paid press junket for the film “World Trade Center.” I then wrote a column making fun of the whole shady practice, in which “journalists” are essentially wined and dined in exchange for fluffy, favorable coverage.

Paramount got mad at what I wrote and banned me — not just from future junkets (which I had no interest in anyway; this was a one-time thing), but from its press screenings, too. Press screenings are held, for most films, a few days before they open theatrically. All film critics in the major U.S. markets are invited to attend them. I was now removed from this list.

Now, the way these press screenings work is that they are handled in each market by a local public relations or advertising agency. In Portland, where I live, Paramount is handled by the Seattle office of Allied Advertising, which has branches around the U.S., most of which focus on film publicity. No one from Paramount ever contacted me directly. Instead, they had their Seattle publicist at Allied tell me I’d been banned. It was this Seattle office that had set up the junket I attended.

This Allied publicist also said that, in solidarity with Paramount, they were banning me from their other clients’ screenings too. Luckily, besides Paramount, Allied in Seattle only handled the Weinstein Company and Miramax. The other big studios were handled by other Seattle agencies, and none of them cared. (One of the other publicists even called me to say how funny and dead-on she thought the article was.)

So ever since then, my understanding has been that Paramount was mad, and that Allied in Seattle had removed me from their press list entirely. I kind of assumed that Paramount had strong-armed Allied into the latter decision.

But now new facts have come to light.

Continue reading…

It’s common enough for the majority of critics to have the same general opinion of a movie. But what about when they use the exact same words to express that opinion? That’s what we call a freaky coincidence. And readers have alerted me to three examples where my description of a film was echoed by other reviewers (or, if you prefer, where other reviewers’ descriptions were echoed by me).

“Daddy Day Camp”:

I neglected to make a note of who brought this to my attention (sorry!), but I wrote:

“The screenplay is attributed to three writers. That means if the film’s funny parts were divided evenly among them, they each wrote zero.”

Kyle Smith of the New York Post wrote:

“The movie has five writers, so the number of funny jokes they each came up with, on average, is exactly … let’s see if I can do the division in my head … oh yeah, zero.”

Continue reading…

I watched two movies on April 1, “Nim’s Island” and “Super Mario Bros.” They are very different films, yet I just noticed they have two major things in common. One, they both feature characters who are germphobic (Jodie Foster in one, Dennis Hopper in the other). Two, they were both directed by husband-and-wife teams. Isn’t it a bizarre coincidence that I should happen to watch them on the same day?!!?!!!?!???!??!

I got an e-mail containing a press release from Peace Arch Entertainment, who is currently distributing “Chapter 27,” the film about the guy who shot John Lennon. You might know it as the movie where Jared Leto got really fat. The headline on the press release reads:

“PEACE ARCH ENTERTAINMENT EXPANDS RELEASE OF CRITICALLY ACCLAIMED ‘CHAPTER 27′”

Can you spot the funny part? That’s right: “critically acclaimed.” At the moment, Rotten Tomatoes has the film at 20%, with 24 negative reviews and only 6 positive. (It’ll be 25 negative as soon as I get around to posting mine.) The average score is 4 out of 10 — which means those who didn’t like it REALLY didn’t like it. Even champion quoted whore Pete Hammond panned it, and he gives out negative reviews about as often as Paula Abdul.

So how, exactly, is Chapter 27 “critically acclaimed”? I guess it did get acclaim from six people, and those people are critics, so technically the description is accurate. But come on, publicists. You’re not foolin’ anyone.

Though I promise I wasn’t fishing for compliments when I asked for examples of movies you’d seen (and loved) solely on my recommendation, it was nice to read some of the lovely testimonials that some of you posted.

You’ve convinced me! I’m not going to give up reviewing movies after all!

Just kidding. I wasn’t considering it anyway. I was contemplating suicide, though, and you’ve talked me out of that.

Just kidding! You haven’t talked me out of it.

(Just kidding.)

I was somewhat taken aback to see how many of you claimed not to make a move, film-wise, without first consulting me. That’s simultaneously the nicest compliment and worst curse that a film critic can get. “I always check with you first! So you’d better not let me down….”

Continue reading…

Yesterday I asked you to share instances where you saw a movie solely on my recommendation — a movie you wouldn’t have seen otherwise — and loved it. Many of you gave delightful testimonials. I was especially glad to note films that were overlooked generally — “Mr. Magorium’s Wonder Emporium,” “Waitress,” and “Stranger Than Fiction,” for example — that some of you discovered because of my reviews. It makes it all worthwhile, you know? That and the money.

Now it’s time for the opposite. Now I want to hear about times when you saw a movie based on solely on my recommendation — a movie you wouldn’t have seen otherwise — and hated it. Note that I’m not talking about simply disliking a movie I liked, as that happens frequently. I’m talking about a time where you weren’t even considering a movie until I recommended it, and you trusted me against your own gut instinct … and came out of it wishing you hadn’t listened to me.

Go ahead, lay it on me.

A reader named Dan posted a comment on my review of “The Lookout” over the weekend that said, in part:

I watched this film last night, purely on Eric’s recommendation during a podcast. A wonderful film, beautifully acted and shot…. Thanks Eric for the tip.

Friends, that’s the kind of comment that does a movie critic’s heart good. The point of film reviewing (at least from my perspective) is to help people enjoy movies more. That means steering them away from the ones that aren’t worthwhile, and reminding them of the ones that are. Obviously a review can only reflect my personal opinion, but ideally you can use my comments to determine whether or not you would enjoy the movie yourself.

So when I hear that someone saw a movie solely on my recommendation, and that they loved it — well, it makes me go all warm and fuzzy inside. It’s nice to hear feedback of any kind (just so I know I’m not just talking to myself), but that kind is especially nice.

And now I hope it won’t be TOO self-indulgent (I know it is at least a little bit) to solicit more testimonials. Have you ever seen a film specifically because I recommended it — one that you probably wouldn’t have seen otherwise — and wound up loving it? Post a comment and tell us about it!

(If the opposite has happened — you saw a film on my advice and HATED it — hang on to that. We’ll talk about those later.)