There’s a game called “Mad Libs”.

I think you’ve hit on how obscure and unremarkable film reviewers do their columns.

Plug the name of the film and the actors into Mad Libs and see what spews out.

I never see a film based on what reviewers say. Heck, around here the pundits can’t even spell.

I remember him reviewing a lame Kevin Kline movie called The January Man. He said he wished they’d called it the February Man because at least it would have been shorter.

Book blurbs are the same way. (I’ve wondered about some of the shorter blurbs Miss Cellania mentioned – sometimes I make a game of seeing how I can put a new context around a blurb and make it negative. Anyhoo…) Something I learned recently was that authors often write the summaries/reviews on the inside jacket cover – so you’re allowed to be suspicious when it describes the author and his book using a great list of long praising adjectives. I’d give an example, but I’m not up to finding one right now.

Siskel and Ebert pointed out in one of their old shows that most of these reviewers (that you never heard of) are given the red carpet treatment, flown out to Hollywood, given access to the stars and treated with parties, etc with one caveat: If they don’t give a good review, they will never get invited back.

That’s heady stuff for a reviewer from Des Moines or Lubbock.

Re: Gene Shalit, now that you mention it, I’ve never heard him give a negative review. Good call …