Attack of The Blurbmeisters

By Richard Zoglin

Jeff Craig, 38, is the shadowy king of radio reviewing. From his base in Westport, Connecticut, he produces and distributes three daily review features, one each on movies, videos and CDs. But although his movie segment, Sixty Second Preview, is heard on 225 stations nationwide, chances are you know Craig better from the bold-faced blurbs that trumpet his opinions in countless movie ads. Craig, for example, called Passion Fish "a triumph," Shadow of the Wolf "spectacular," Love Field "fabulous" and Amos & Andrew "a hilarious & provocative comedy."

Actually, Craig didn't see any of those movies. Though he provides the on- air voice for Sixty Second Preview and sees a couple of films a week, he freely admits that his reviews are largely researched and written by a staff of six. Not that it matters much to publicists for the Hollywood studios, who have made Craig as ubiquitous a brand name in the movie world as Dolby Stereo. He is probably the most prominent of a new crop of movie blurbmeisters: critics and critic-wannabes who seem to exist mainly to service the studios with glowing quotes to hype their latest releases.

Raves from respected print critics, as well as popular broadcast reviewers like Siskel and Ebert ("Two thumbs up!"), are still prized by movie marketers. But in the scramble to fill up ads with gushy testimonials -- especially for films that haven't opened yet or have drawn tepid reviews -- publicists are turning increasingly to a cadre of lesser lights, mostly from radio and TV, with seemingly boundless enthusiasms. Susan Granger, who reviews for Connecticut's WICC radio and is now syndicated on about 100 stations, has lured moviegoers with passionate quotes for everything from Consenting Adults ("spine-tingling, disturbing, sexy, seductive!") to Forever Young ("a heart grabber that lifts the spirit"). Joanna Langfield, whose radio feature The Movie Minute is carried on 75 stations, is not far behind her in fervor and omnipresence.

Still, these at least are legitimate critics. More and more blurbs are coming from broadcast reporters who do not review films at all, but happily provide quotes for the asking. The trailblazer for these troops was the late Jim Whaley, host for an Atlanta public-TV interview show whose effusive quotes were a movie marketer's dream. Today some of the most popular blurbers are entertainment reporters like ABC radio's Bill Diehl ("inspired, fascinating and profound," he cheered for Swing Kids) and Hollywood interviewer Jeanne Wolf ("one of the great classic romantic adventures," she raved of Sommersby). The message is that boffo quotes are more important than the source: a "Brilliant!" or "Hilarious!" looks just as impressive coming from the Satellite News Network, the Interview Factory or K-whatever radio as it does from the New York Times.

Using rave notices to sell a movie, of course, is nothing new, and even the most thoughtful critics can sound woozy when their adjectives are taken out of context and reproduced in 80-point type. What has changed is the aggressiveness of the studio publicity people and the willingness of many critics to cooperate with them. Publicists used to wait until reviews were actually printed or aired before picking out quotes. Now they call ahead to get the reviews faxed or excerpts read to them. Some critics will provide blurbs on the spot -- either on the phone or at junkets where the films are screened in advance -- and only later incorporate them into a review. One well-known TV reviewer, according to a studio source, often calls to ask for guidance: "What do you want me to say?" No one accuses these critics of changing an opinion to help advertise a film, but it is clear that they are increasingly willing to tailor their quotes in order to get their names into the national ads.

With that kind of competition, it is no surprise that blurb inflation is spinning out of control. Superlatives, even when they mean little, are tossed out indiscriminately ("best comedy of the year" in February). A reference to the new decade always sounds impressive ("the love story of the '90s"). Gary Franklin, of Los Angeles' KCOP-TV, grades films on a 1-to-10 scale that can no longer contain his ecstasy. Chaplin and Alive! recently got a 10+, and Beauty and the Beast even managed an 11. Pat Collins, who reviews for New Jersey's WWOR-TV, gushes that Falling Down is "the first real movie of the '90s," thus raising the question of what she considered A Few Good Men (other than "brilliant") and Forever Young ("forever romantic").

A number of critics are annoyed at colleagues who supply blurbs in advance. "It fuzzes the line between the critic and the publicist," says New York Post reviewer Jami Bernard. "Crafting a sentence that would read well on an ad is not the kind of sentence that would look good in a review. It just brings shame on us all." WCBS-TV's Dennis Cunningham, one of the more restrained broadcast critics, blames the movie companies for "letting it be known that they want wretched excesses or nothing. There used to be people at the studios who wrote ad copy. Now alleged reviewers do it."

Critics more willing to play along defend their actions as perfectly ethical. Granger says she supplies copies of all her reviews in advance because the studio publicists would not be able to see them otherwise. "I feel I owe them a review, bad or good or mediocre," she says. "I don't consider it a problem because I treat all films the same way." Langfield insists that it is the studios' publicity tactics, not her reviewing, that have changed since she started in 1980. "Back then you never got a phone call from a publicist asking what you thought of the movie, or whether you had a review you could send over. Now it's a whole different process."

Craig, for his part, defends the practice of taking on-air credit for what are frequently the opinions of others. "It's a team effort," he says. "Bill Clinton doesn't write all his own speeches. Billy Crystal doesn't write all his jokes." Half his reviews, he points out, are unfavorable, and he sees nothing wrong with drawing attention to the raves. "I have no problem, and neither do the people who work with me, advertising the fact that we like a movie, putting it out there and receiving some publicity."

Our appraisal? "Smart! Innovative! Fine performances all around! A scam for the '90s!"

With reporting by Georgia Harbison/New York