DVD reviews that get their facts wrong (2 Viewers)

[Thomas T]

I suppose DVD sites don't have fact check editors but am I the only one irritated by all too common comments like this in DVD reviews? This is from digitallyobsessed review of Billy Rose's Jumbo:

"Stephen Boyd is another strong point, too. Who would have thought he'd possess a terrific singing voice on par with Howard Keel ...? (Metro evidently thought so by giving him a shot two years later in Debbie Reynolds' The Unsinkable Molly Brown, another failed studio musical that deserved a much better reception."

1. Stephen Boyd was dubbed, he was no Howard Keel.

2. That was Harve Presnell, not Boyd, who was Reynolds' leading man in Unsinkable Molly Brown.

3. Molly Brown was hardly a "failed" studio musical. It was a big hit at the box office with a favorable critical reception and earned Reynolds her only Oscar nomination and the film also received several other nods.

 

[ArthurMy]

Actually, I don't believe Molly was a "big" hit - it was a moderately successful film in its release - even the Oscar nom didn't turn it into a big hit. During the weeks preceding the Oscars you could only see the film in neighborhood theaters.

Otherwise, yes these "reviewers" are sometimes completely hopeless.

 

[LaurenceGarvey]

My fave is the reviewer who talked about the Japanese slurs in BATMAN AND ROBIN (1949), obviously referring to the 1943 version. It's kind of helpful, folks, if you watch a DVD before you review it...

 

[Aaron Silverman]

We have much higher standards around here! Just kidding -- no dis intended to any other site. Nobody's perfect! I'm sure that that reviewer would appreciate a polite email pointing it out so he can correct his error (I know I would).



I only heard that story secondhand, but wasn't it a review of something else? (i.e., he was just making a reference to something other than what he was reviewing and remembered it wrong.)

 

[Scott Kimball]

Or copy editors, or any kind of editor that you might find in a print publication...

That said, if I don't have the time to check facts that I'm unsure of, I leave that info out of the review. Better to be incomplete than wrong. Still, I've had a factual error creep in on occasion. Having written over 150 reviews for this site, it would be impossible to not have had one or two errors slip in.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Writing is a tough job when you do it for a living just ask Mitch Albom of the Detroit Free Press, but it's moreso when you do it as a sideline without pay. The time constraints for those that provide such a service while making their living at something else can be rather difficult. I am more inclined in cutting dvd reviewers some slack for mistakes than people who are professional writers due to obvious reasons.





Crawdaddy

 

[Mark Zimmer]

That reviewer was me. If you read that thread, a commenter made reference to Japanese slurs being cut out. I didn't realize he was talking about the 1943 Batman serial rather than BATMAN AND ROBIN, so I responded that if there had been slurs in the later one they certainly didn't appear on the DVD. Specifically, I said "I can't say anything definitive about whether it's cut, but there were no references to "Japs" that I recall from my review of it. So if they're supposed to be there, they've been cut out." I did indeed watch every single episode of BATMAN AND ROBIN, thank you very much. I just didn't catch that the commenter was talking about an entirely different serial. And Laurence, I see that several people, including me, corrected that after your mocking post there, but you continue to choose to disregard that so the only thing I conclude is that you have some kind of vendetta against me and/or digitallyObsessed. Whatever. :rolleyes

Here's the thread in question: http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...hreadid=222562

 

[LaurenceGarvey]

That reviewer was me.

No, I was not referring to you. I was referring to a "review" that a friend sent me from another site, Netflix, I believe.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Well, let's stay cool about this please.

 

[Jeffrey]

In response to Mr. Thomas T., let me just say that in the 200 plus reviews I've written for dOc, this is only the second occassion that I can recall being told that I had my facts wrong...and for that, I apologise. But, 99 percent of our readership is classy enough to respond with a polite, kind and considerate e-mails...and not a blatant public slam in an otherwise classy forum like this.

Secondly, "Molly"'s box office reciepts were so pitiful, Metro did not attempt another musical along those lines for many years. It's a fact. End of story.

Jeffrey

 

[LaurenceGarvey]

I am cool, thank you (and I have no idea what Digitally Obsessed is, anyway).

I asked my pal if he could send me the text of the Netflix review, and he responded:

Alas, no can do. I chided Netflix and they removed the damfool thing. And of course I hadn't copied it. So now there are a bunch of follow-up comments inexplicably stating that this isn't the racist BATMAN.

 

[Thomas T]

Dear Jeffrey,

I apologize if I've offended you which was not my intention but ... if I may be so bold as to correct you again.

"Secondly, Molly's box office receipts were so pitiful ... it's a fact. End of story"

Actually, it's not the end of the story. In fact, Unsinkable Molly Brown was the third highest grossing film of 1964 outgrossing The Pink Panther, A Hard Day's Night, Dr. Strangelove and From Russia With Love. This information is from Reel Facts: The Movie Book Of Records.

MGM was so pleased with the results they quickly signed up Debbie Reynolds for another musical, The Singing Nun.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I don't know if Unsinkable Molly Brown was a box office failure or not, however, I have a book titled Book of Box Office Hits from The Hollywood Reporter that doesn't list Unsinkable Molly Brown in the top five films in box office receipts. So depending on what source you're using there seems to be some discrepancy about the box office numbers.






Crawdaddy

 

[LaurenceGarvey]

Ya'll might find this link interesting (of course, I'd be more interested in knowing what the net profit, rather than the grosses, were), but anyway, it's interesting.
http://members.aol.com/mgmfan4/boxoffice.html

 

[Thomas T]

For the record, herewith are the highest grossing films of 1964. The grosses may not be impressive by 2005 standards but please remember this was 40 years ago so take inflation into account. Adjust for inflation, Brown's grosses remain impressive.

1. The Carpetbaggers $13,000,000.
2. It's A Mad Mad Mad World $10,000,000.
3. Unsinkable Molly Brown $7,500,000.
4. Charade $6,150,000.
5. The Cardinal $5,275,000.
6. Move Over Darling $5,100,000.
7. My Fair Lady $5,000,000.
8. What A Way To Go $5,000,000.
9. Good Neighbor Sam $4,950,000.
10 Pink Panther $4,853,000.
11 Viva Las Vega $4,675,000.
12 Sword In The Stone $4,500,000.
13 Hard Day's Night $4,473,000.
14 Dr. Strangelove $4,148,000.
15 Night Of The Iguana $4,000,000.
16 Misadventures Of Merlin Jones $4,000,000.
17 From Russia With Love $3,849,000.
18 Love With The Proper Stranger $3,500,000.
19 Seven Days In May $3,400,000.
20 The Prize $3,400,000.

For those who might point out that Charade is actually a 1963 release or My Fair Lady made more money than that; Charade was a Christmas 1963 release and December is always included in the 1964 box office year and the bulk of My Fair Lady's grosses were reaped in 1965.

 

[Aaron Silverman]

Heck, try doing both!

 

[Robert Crawford]

The book I have lists The Carpetbaggers having over 15M in box office receipts while My Fair Lady drew 12M and From Russia with Love 9.9M Where's Mary Poppins on the above list?

 

[ArthurMy]

These lists are hooey. Every list is different, and there is no getting a straight story.

 

[Thomas T]

Robert,

When a film is released late in the calender year (October to December), its income is reported in the following year's compendium, unless the film made a particularly fast impact. Thus, Mary Poppins is listed as the highest grossing film of 1965 since it was in release in only two months of the 1964 accounted period (October 1963 to September 1964).

Dr. No and From Russia With Love were only modest hits here in the U.S. and it appears your source includes total box office accumulation, not the initial gross. Once Goldfinger opened in December 1964 and went through the roof, From Russia With Love was reissued and benefited from Bond-mania sweeping the country and added healthily (as you can see) to its initial gross and continued to be re-issued several times, each time adding to its gross. The same thing with My Fair Lady, your source appears to have the total box office gross which includes earnings from 10/64 right on into 1965.

I certainly didn't mean to start an out of control fire here but the simple point I wanted to make was that no way could Molly Brown be considered a flop, a failure or what you will. It was one of the hits of 1964. Not on the level of a Goldfinger or Mary Poppins but a hit nevertheless.

 

[Jeffrey]

I stand by my source for the box office take for "Molly Brown", Thomas (which in fact, is the book that Robert mentioned).

True, you did start an "out of control" thread, but I'd like to be the one that puts it to sleep. All I wanted to do was to convey my enthusiasm for a terrific little underrated musical and help introduce it to those in our readership that haven't discovered it as of yet...and in the end, that's what should hook you about any review.

So in the words of Lennon and McCartney, let it be.

(Oh, I beg your pardon, it was Paul that wrote that song all on his own, right? It was just their songwriting partnership that caused it to be credited to both. Thought I would save you a little time to avoid playing nitpick about that in the Music section).