NOW PLAYING: 'The Great Hollywood Bait and Switch: How Hollywood is Above the Law'

Sorry to all fans of pony-tailed, doughy and aging action stars, no remake news here. Nope, unfortunately this is going to be more about how mega-rich Hollywood is stealing from Joe and Jane Moviegoer. I have little doubt that I will hear opposition on this but the facts are hard to argue. Drive and Straw Dogs, last weekend's new releases, are the latest examples of what it becoming the rampant and almost standard false advertising practices of the film industry. Other industries are limited in getting customers through the door, much less to buy things, by the law(s) prohibiting the misleading of consumers about a product being sold...what a silly thought that you should make money of off working hard on a product that people will still buy if they have all of the facts. These laws don't seem to apply when it comes to the film industry, at a minimum they aren't enforced.

The quality of the movie shouldn't be a factor either. Imagine if The Shawshank Redemption was sold as a film about a prison break. The movie itself is still amazing, that doesn't mean you haven't been thrown a curve ball on your purchase.

Find out why after the link.......




For an industry that inserts morality PSA's into their DVD's about how piracy is wrong they certainly don't seem as keen on that moral/legal high ground when it comes to stealing from you, the average income and hardworking, movie patron. We've all noticed it at one time or another, you see a movie and then later see a trailer on TV that had a scene or two not in the movie. Now this I can understand, are you selling something that you're not giving me? Yes. Is the product what you told me it would be? Debate-able, but generally the movie is still what you saw on the advertising it's just missing a scene or two. My problem is not with this, that can be explained by changes to the final cut after trailers were sent out. Where I take issue is a poster, trailer, voice-over, that is vastly different than what plays on screen.

Take the one-sheet for last year's Unknown for example:

The studio was blatantly attempting to piggyback on Neeson's previous hit Taken, selling this film as a movie in the same vein. So when you buy your $9+ ticket and get a movie with a wussier, talky, non-ass kicking Liam Neeson you end up pretty pissed off and you dislike the movie more because of that, but at that point your money's spent and you have no recourse but to tell your friends. The studio can say they weren't attempting to deceive until they are blue in the face and it wouldn't change my mind. Let's look at what any reasonable person would take from this (bear in mind also that Taken was making the home video runs when this poster was up). Ok, we've got Neeson holding a gun and looking angry. We've got a quote saying "Take Back Your Life", implying a need of force to reclaim what someone has taken (See: Taken) and then a picture strip depicting two beautiful women and a car flying off a bridge which are both staples of high-octane action thrillers. First of all the gun is an outright lie, at no point in the movie does Neeson come anywhere NEAR holding a firearm and past that only weilds one weapon for 20 seconds during the film's climax. Everything else does appear in the movie, however not in the way you probably would think while buying your ticket. But John, how is it the studio's fault that I took the wrong impression from what I saw? Well, if you were the sole person who thought this than it would be on you. Based on what EVERYONE I talked to about this film said....you were not alone. For the same reason that a store can't advertise something that they don't have to get you in the door buying other things, a studio shouldn't be able to get away with this.

Here are the basic's as published on the FTC's official site (FTC.gov):

What truth-in-advertising rules apply to advertisers?

Under the Federal Trade Commission Act:

• Advertising must be truthful and non-deceptive;
• Advertisers must have evidence to back up their claims; and
• Advertisements cannot be unfair.

Additional laws apply to ads for specialized products like consumer leases, credit, 900 telephone numbers, and products sold through mail order or telephone sales. And every state has consumer protection laws that govern ads running in that state.

What makes an advertisement deceptive?

According to the FTC's Deception Policy Statement, an ad is deceptive if it contains a statement - or omits information - that:

• Is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances; and
• Is "material" - that is, important to a consumer's decision to buy or use the product.

Based on this I think it's fair to say that Unknown was likely to mislead consumer's into thinking they were getting something more like Taken.

Now let's take a look at two movie's who take this, possibly illegal, tactic to a new level, Straw Dogs and Drive. Straw Dogs, which some will argue is exempt as it is a remake, presents itself to audiences as a movie about a couple who has to fight back after their home is invaded. Nothing crazy, something we see on film all the time. What we are given is a movie centered around extremely disturbing act(s) including but not limited to: graphic rape, a cat hung by a necktie, and the abuse of a mentally challenged man. Not really things that make the average American run to the box office. It's like expecting to be slapped but instead taking a right cross from Tyson in his prime. "Well, I'll just walk out if I don't like it, no one's MAKING me see it", true, but by that time your money's been spent, and on something that it wouldn't have been otherwise. People would be irate if, say, True Blood, ran their standard 'N' for nudity warning before a show featuring graphic porn sex. This is, in my opinion, no different...save for the fact that you paid specifically for the movie so 'no different' becomes worse.

Drive is being lauded by many as one of the best films of the year. It is currently holding a 92% 'Fresh' rating on rottentomatoes.com. A random sampling of the review quotes give you terms like "adrenaline fueled" and "ultra-violent fun". The trailer's depict a movie about a stunt man by day, wheel-man by night who get's wrapped up in a job gone wrong, which is correct but very incomplete. Add to this the scenes they use which are all full of driving, action, mobster tough guy talk, and a cool but verbose main character. The radio spots, which obviously can't show the action, supplement by filling any silence with the sound of squealing tires. The truth of the film is that of the 1hr 40min run time less than 30min includes anything they promised you. The film is packed not with action, but mundane tasks and silence. Those "pulse-pounding" driving scenes? There's three of which only the films opening is of any note. The remaining two are very standard and very short highway chases. Though I will give credit, the opening scene was an awesomely shot cat and mouse game between the LAPD and the driver, as a short film that scene alone would be awesome. Only, it's not a short film, this just made it worse as now I thought not only was the movie going to be fun, it was going to be a new, more intelligent take on the police chase. Nope, after that scene all the chasing that remains is a logic-free and very plain Jane vanilla chase down a highway (NOTE: logic-free refers to the fact that a 5.0 Mustang driven by an experienced driver could never be walked down by a Chrysler 300 luxury sedan). All that escalating violence you've been hearing about and have caught glimpses of on TV? There ends up being maybe 4 scenes of violence, the most important of which is shown in the dark and at a distance before the camera cuts away. Yes, the violence in the movie is more graphic than is usual but it seems alien to the rest of the film. Now before any critics who made read this begin lambasting my credibility for going against the grain on this one, be honest....will the casual film goer really dig this? Based on exit polling and me personally asking patrons exiting the showing I attended, the answer is a resounding "No". Awkwardly long shots of two people just looking at each other with no expressions have their place (seriously, it's awkward and weird, Gosling seems more 'Rain Man' than wheel man.). Artsy type movies that want to use symbolism as a manner of storytelling can be amazing. Admittedly I unjustly downed movies that involved critical thinking in order to enjoy them until I started having to see everything that came out. They can be enriching and even feel more like an experience than a movie, but you can't trick people into the seats. It's not right, and it's only going to make them hate everything of it's nature. Speaking from experience there's no quicker way to the 'not worth the time or money' column than through building a false expectation.

I won't say any thing further about this flick, but seriously, watch the below clip and explain to me how what they present can be argued as what is delivered.



Now, remembering those scenes, would you be surprised to find that most of the movie is more like this clip?



Look, I'm not attacking anyone's taste here. If you liked it, great! Lord knows I should be the last one calling someone on their taste. I'm simply saying this movie was sold as something totally different, something that if it were any other product would be illegal. We let it slide because we don't think of movies as tangible products but preference based entertainment making it our fault if were unhappy with what we get. Most of the time this is true, in the examples I've given, it is not.

If you are thinking I'm blowing this out of proportion, just imagine if the roles were reversed. On any given day the film industry is filing hundreds of piracy lawsuits en masse with no thought given to conditions surrounding the case. If I'm running a multi-state piracy ring I deserve every penalty that accompanies the crime. If I'm a senior citizen who's grandson was messing around on my computer and downloaded 4 movies, three of which I own copies of, I honestly don't think I should be having MPAA lawyer's file lawsuits and threatening me with over $600K in fines. It's ass backwards, not to mention that last I checked the average income in the 90210 was just a touch higher than average. How dare you play the role of moral and ethical superior while involved in actively stealing from Americans who's wallets are having enough trouble.

Moral of the story: Until someone holds them accountable for their actions as they already have in the video game industry (ever notice those 'Not Actual Gameplay' disclaimers on game ads?) we'll have to rely on our own legwork to really know what a movie's all about. Make sure to check out not just headlines but what the author liked/disliked to make sure it's in line with your brand of whimsy. 

DISCLAIMER: These are the thoughts and opinions of one man and do not represent the views or standings of PunchDrunkCritics.com as a whole.

(See Hollywood, disclaimers are pretty damn easy to do!)