The Hot Blog

interesting read. my personal opinion is that the web and modern criticism is all shennanegans.

The studios can get whatever quote they want through whatever outlet they deem fit, adjusting the size of the font so that the less recognizable outlets i.e. westwood one and every internet site are barely able to be seen.

If the internet blew up tommorow, and the subsequent fallout ended up wiping out every print critic left, movies would still be released, films would still make gobs of money, and perhaps the studios helacious level of spending to appease the numerous amounts of critics and entertainment journalists.

The film industry doesn't need you as much as you need them. That's not an insult. Just reality.

They don't need the press as much as they think they do. It's only tradition and the inability to deviate from the way it's always been that prevents the studios from pulling the plug and ending the era of journalistic appeasement.

Bad reviews don't kill movies. Critics matter a lot less than they believe, and the combined opinion of every film critic in this country and film website doesn't drive as much traffic to a movie as a single airing of Entertainment Tonight, Access Hollywood, or Extra.

The internet has done a fine job of giving people an inside look at film, but the net ain't driving asses to seats. Booking movie tickets online has done more to improve the cinematic experience than the 100,000 sites reporting the same 4 stories they cribbed from Variety.

And this is from a guy who spends a lot of time online talking about film. What i've learned is that while there's some passionate film people online, the infinite well of information pouring out from the net isn't improving anything.

Embargoes are an outdated concept. Once again, something kept from the old days. The studios have never figured out the net and they have 2 solutions:

1. Try to apply the old rules to the new media.
2. Throw money at it.

I get your point Dave. I just think that the rules are forever broken, and I can't figure out if you're such a stickler for the rules out of respect for them or because you're stubborn. The boat is sinking and your time is spent pointing out the holes.

It's like the relationship between the Papparazzi and the Celebrities. Everyone says that it's just part of being a celebrity. Real stars don't need tabloid coverage. No matter many Perez Hiltons and TMZ's believe that they are part of the industry, they are not. They require celebrities to exist. Celebs don't need all that press, and in fact have to now fight to keep their image under control so that people don't get burnt out on them and stop caring about the films they're putting out. The websites and tabloids has, in fact, become more detrimental to opening a film.

I'd say at this point, the web film community and film critics are all but irrelevant to the process. Every so often you get a good spoiler coming down the pipeline, but it's not like the old days where the floodgates were open and "spies" were dishing out great stories.

The Internet was a great opportunity for the industry, and 15 years later it's little more than flashing banners on websites, interviews you used to read in a magazine (and are barely edited), and a thousand sites where you can argue if Greedo shot first.

Here, here. Dave. Here, here!

"Bad reviews don't kill movies."

Agreed, to a point. But completely unanimous panning from virtually all critics can hurt a movie unless it's something like Prom Night where almost the entirety of its grosses will be opening week from people who never read reviews.

"Critics matter a lot less than they believe"

If we mattered a lot, more of us would still have staff jobs.

there hasn't been an "alt-weekly" in Houston for several years, and the New Times rag doesn't count

Hmmm....looks like DP and Jeff Wells didn't get to see a movie in a timely fashion and as a result, are both high and mighty on the process. Jeff has a similarly worded bitch-fest on his site about MAMA MIA.

Wow, is this post titled after the theme from "Branded?" Cool. But it should be "SCORNED as the one who ran." Not that anyone but die hard fans of Chuck Conners and/or Busta Rhymes will get the reference. :)

Waaah, Waaah!
I get to see movies for free before anyone else does but I have to wait before I can write about them.
Waaah, Waaah!
Do you know how much money I'd save if I got to see all the movies all you guys got to see for free???
Grow the fuck up and obey the rules of the people that let you see movies for free before anyone else.
It's that simple.

For what it's worth, David, I agree that there should be one hard embargo date that is the same for everyone. Enforced for everyone. Period.

But if there's not, then I don't have any problem in making my case for when I want to write. And even the best relationships with a studio guarantee nothing. I saw WALL-E a month early. I saw it twice pre-release. I loved it. And even so, I was embargoed until day of release. Because of the embargo, I didn't get around to writing about it until about ten days after it came out, because other things came up that I could write about, and I put those first. So in that case, the embargo meant that the studio controlled me pre-release, but they didn't get the review they wanted when they wanted as a result. That was their fault completely.

I've never had any problem with the idea of an embargo. Of course, my feeling remains the same today, that an embargo is only valid when the person who showed you that movie places it on you. If the studio shows me something, of course they have the right to tell me when I can discuss it. If they don't, and I see it on my own, then it's not their embargo to set anymore.

Control is fine. But it's not absolute. And I wish more critics had the balls to do what they think is right and accept the consequences. Every now and then, it chaps my ass when I can't review a Fox movie in a timely manner, but considering the alternative is hand over editorial control and tow the party line, I'll live with the idea of paying to see their films and being able to continue to write exactly what I want.

Uhhh...Drew....couldn't you have, you know, wrote the review and just sat on it until the embargo date? I get indie screeners all the time and watch them, review them and then wait until they premiere (per filmmakers request) before we run them.

The corollary to this is on the arthouse side and affects suburban moviegoers.

For example, Northern New Jersey gets arty films anywhere from 1-4 weeks after they open in NYC -- yet the Newark Star-Ledger publishes the review based on the NYC release date. The paper's website keeps the reviews free for 14 days before they move to a paid archive. Thus if you want to read the Star-Ledger review of, say, "The Visitor", you would have to pay extra for it in the archive or try to find the paper in your local library.

I love the hypocrisy of someone from AICN waxing philosophically about embargoes.

Good lord, who needs to read the Newark Star-Ledger review of The Visitor? I could probably write it myself.

Don - I have no idea what Jeff is up to. I don't read him, don't talk to him. Last time I heard about him, he was still banned by a bunch of studios for incredibly bad behavior.

Someone told me he was kept out of the Mamma Mia screening… which he was guaranteed to hate (women and gay). No idea. I was in the densely packed theater. I was more surprised to see him walking into Meet Dave, since he must have known he was going to hate it (Edie Murphy and humor for kids)... but maybe that's why he went. No idea.

The only movie I have been irritated by lately is Dark Knight dragging its feet weeks after the junket and reviews all over the place in mainstream media. I can tell you that I am not alone in this. Certain members of mainstream media were also irritated. In addition, the studio was playing a game, which was different depending on who you spoke to on what day, about seeing the film on the lot or in IMAX or whatever. So that limited options as well.

But honestly, I have pushed hard to see a total of zero movies this summer. I don't care about being first, though I don't like seeing a movie that I feel is important to see and write about after the well has been poisoned or sweetened. This has happened a few times this summer and it irks me, but I haven’t been paying much attention, so aside from a snarky e-mail or two after the fact, I just haven’t been pushing.

And make so mistake, it is a pushing issue. The trades push. The web folks push. Everyone but a handful of majors and the non-LA/NYers push… and that last group doesn’t push because there is no pushing. They are the most aggrieved, managed by companies hired by the studios, usually one or two companies handling all the studios in a market, and are most likely to be controlled like animals being herded as those hired publicity companies have little power and are just trying to serve their paying clients without asking too many questions. (Nod to those who work for these companies who are completely smart and human and get it… and still just have a job to do.)

As for your wah wah, Seymour, I hear you. But you know, this is my job. Access and embargoes and all of that are part of the work process. The central point of this piece is that "playing by the rules" is problematic when the rules keep changing, on both sides.

A baker gets to eat cake all the time, if they want. But if the competition sets up shop in front of the baker’s door, he isn’t going to sell anything. And while eating cake is nice, it doesn’t pay the rent. So he asks the cop on the beat to move the guy who is now blocking his business.

But the cop says, “I don’t know. That guy draws people who have money falling out of their pockets that I think I might be able to pick up and you only give me free cake, so I am going to let him block your door at the best times. And oh yeah… if you try to get in front of him blocking your doorway, I will hit you in the head with my club. And if you don’t work as hard as he does during the slow times, I am going to shoot you in the kneecaps. And those other guys over there, the ones who sell freelance pies… I’m going to let them get some of the action too, because I’m afraid that if I don’t, they will throw the pies at me. But we’re still friends, you and I… cause you know, no one is buying baked goods these days anyway, right?”

My profound desire is to have rules in place that allow, in any job that is not one of the few where reviews are published Friday, period, the work to be done and no need for any whining about access at all.

The real problem is that publicity – which is what reviews are - and marketing – which is what pull quotes are – have blurred in a fine paste and studios and journalists alike are endlessly trying to separate them with all kinds of crossed motives. If you don’t think that is an issue, then you are either in a small group of elite critics who are never touched by this and are fed anything they can consume by the studios or you have never played the game. Assuming you are the latter, I have no problem with you not caring. But don’t mock. You’re wrong to mock.

As if the professionals in this business are in it just to see free movies.

What irks me most about the embargo thing, which I've written about before and god knows I've gone to bat for on behalf of not just myself but several others in Chicago - is that the studios or their reps (whomever they say is making the decisions THAT day) - don't treat critics as individuals. They would rather lump into categories and then blow us off with excuses that don't mean shit anymore. Universal told us flat out that you can't trust onliners because "sooner or later they all break embargoes." How would you like to be told that? We could be trusted with an earlier than usual screening of Wanted but not with Mamma Mia, which they've invited onliners out here to a night before only screening. Apparently not a national policy either. Just here. In the city where the respected online journalists would respect the embargoes in place even if it wasn't part of our by-laws.

Like David said, there are certain critics that should be calling "BULLSHIT" more often. And the studios and their reps (whomever they care to blame THAT day) need to understand the benefit in being able to see something early (maybe even twice) so that they may write up something substantial. Even a negative review might have a few more positives with a couple extra days to think about it. If you're screening it and you're inviting one critic - invite everyone. What's the harm? You're not just inviting film critics. You're inviting good will.

Krazy Eyes, do you even know what an embargo is?

Based on your comment, I'd wager you don't. You think you do, but you're wrong.

Because we've never ever broken an embargo. Ever.

And if you think we have, tell me when and what. Because I'd be fascinated to hear you explain it.

Who needs embargoes when studios invite you to sit in the editing room of a movie, which is soon followed by a glowing review of the same movie. Of course despite that anyone who dares to question your objectivity is way out of line.

Hey, Stella, have you stopped beating your wife yet?

It must be nice to not have to have any original thoughts for yourself and just regurgitate nonsense like that. I've given plenty of bad reviews to films I visited in post, but it's easier to just keep beating the same factually-inaccurate drum, eh? And if I say anything in return, like "Well, that's not factually accurate," then it's hyperdefensiveness, right?

The difference between you and me is I am more than happy to stand behind my record, while you hide, as always, behind the anonymity of the internet, never having to back up anything you say or do, never having to demonstrate any track record of your own.

Again... your comment is inaccurate. It's sheep-think, and it's also the sort of knee-jerk comment that sets up an unwinnable conversation. Well-played. And totally off-topic. I'm impressed.

I'm pretty sure Stella's identity has been mentioned several times here and he has an easily traceable set of writings out there in the tubes.

God, find me a terrible movie that Drew loved because he visited the editing room. It doesn't exist. I've loved the same movies and I never sat in the editing room. He's a trustworthy guy. As is Beaks.

But it's really hard to make an argument for Harry.

"If you're screening it and you're inviting one critic - invite everyone. What's the harm? You're not just inviting film critics. You're inviting good will."

That's it in a nutshell. In terms of rhetoric, this seems to be a situation best regarded as a progressive stance, not a matter of fairness. The difference between "It ain't right that..." and "Wouldn't it be better if..." can speak volumes.

Though not exactly a politically-correct term...

Though it works in the context of the movie we're discussing...

Dave, you got "Greeked."

I bet Nicol approves of your outrageousness, Mutiny.

Wasn't intending to mock, but admit it was a brash immature post on my part. I meant no real disrespect.
It can get very inside baseball here and I think sometimes people lose a bit of perspective. Most of you guys get to see movies for free way before anyone else. Sometimes in pretty cushy screening rooms and without all the crap that most of us deal with at the movies. A lot you guys take for granted how lucky you all are. And I know and respect that most of you worked your asses off to get where you are, but at the end of the day you have a pretty sweet job. You get to see movies for free before anyone else and steer the conversation about those films. Who gets to be first and who gets to be second just doesn't seem like the biggest issue out there at the moment.
I agree it's not really fair for the studios to play games with different embargo dates for different people or letting some break with no consequences. It sucks but these studios have massive amounts of money invested in these films and they're trying to manage their product the best they can. It sucks but you kinda have to play by their rules. I mean, what are your other options? They should have specific rules set down, but you'll end up with the same problem. People will break them and not get punished. And we end up back here. I don't think it's really in the studios interest to have a fair system either. And I think they know that. But who knows, maybe I'm wrong. This is just my outside opinion looking in.

But I don't read you because your first or not. I generally don't rush to read the 'first' reviews anyways because most of the time I've noticed the 'firsts' are hacks who the studio's know are a safe bet. And in their jump to be first they usually don't give a film the proper time to settle in and they often rush to hyperbole. I read a review of a particular critic because I want to read their insight and their take on a film. I don't care if it's a month before a movie opens, the day it opens, or two weeks after it opens. You could be the last guy in the world to review a film and I'd still wait to read your take on it because I want to know your thoughts on it. Yeah the competition isn't playing fair, but I think a fair number of us aren't interested in that level of competition. You're bringing your insight, thoughts, and skills to your reviews. Beat them on that playing field. Not who gets to see it first and who gets to write about it first.

And Erik, then what are they in it for? I never implied that they were in it only for that. But it's a pretty nice perk of the job, agreed? I just get annoyed sometimes of that being taken for granted. That's all.

agree with much of that, seyour. stop whinging about movie reviewing like petulant children. 20,000 actual children starved to death today

Yeah Seymour - it's a perk. When the movies are good. Is it a perk to know how shitty The Happening is four days before anyone else can see it? And let's not pretend that all of us see the movies for "free." There's travel, parking, time, etc...at least two things the actual consumer usually doesn't have to deal with considering the majority probably have some theater in relative driving distance. They would save the time to if they just listened to us once in a while too. Not to mention the cash.

Maybe the lot of us are in it because we love film and the art that goes into it and can come out of it. I might satisfy your argument as one to make with your average quote whore, so giddy to get a free lunch and 10 minutes with a big, big star that they'll say any adjective that comes to mind. Of course, they have no business being in the business in the first place.

Did Drew just make a domestic violence joke or am I missing something?

I have a weekly column that goes on live on Tuesday (much like the weekly newspapers) and about 75% of my reviews are part of that column so when I'm told I can't review a movie until opening day, it basically means none of the people read the column on Tuesday will ever see it except maybe via RottenTomatoes (if that). That's why I've gotten into the habit of posting "Review Held Until Friday" whenever there's been a case of a studio demanding an opening day an embargo and so far, EVERY SINGLE TIME, someone has commented assuming that the movie is no good because of the embargo. So really, the studios are damned whatever they do.

BTW, I do agree with Dave (at least I think we're agreeing) that the studios who don't want reviews before opening week should really set an example. Cut one of the critics who constantly breaks embargoes like Emmanuel Levy off their screening list. Stop inviting them to movies. It's obvious that all of his site traffic comes merely from always needing to be the first person to post his reviews with the most ridiculously long pull quotes on RT possible. There are other culprits as well. As I said, if I'm told to wait until opening day by a studio (like Fox, who do have an implied opening day embargo for EVERYONE AND EVERY MOVIE), then i hold it until opening day.. if not, it's usually opening week. If I've seen the movie and I have time to write the review beforehand and I see that no one else is following the embargo, then I'll post my review, too.

And of course, film festival screenings are open game but I'm only going to post it during or shortly after the fest if I'm at the fest, not going to use that as an excuse to post early if I see it afterwards.

If studios/publicists are really worried about negative reviews getting out early, they should just TELL everyone invited to screenings not to post reviews before opening day and then set an example if they disobey. (see above)

Jeff, if you want outrageous, read some of these comments: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/mamma_mia/comments.php?reviewid=1739004

'they would save the time if they just listened to us once in a while too. not to mention the cash.'

good grief, erik, that's arrogant. so us ignorant bumpkin consumers should just listen to you lot as arbiters of what's worthy and what's not? does it occur to you that i might like something you don't? hell, even people i actually trust and respect don't necessarily have the same taste as me in movies. reviews are subjective and best taken with a grain of salt. 'critics' aren't more expert or discerning about movies, they just think they are :P (ducking beer bottles and rotton tomatoes)

or rotten tomatoes...

In fairness, Erik said "listened to us," not "agreed with us."

You can, in theory, listen to him love a film and realize based on what you know of his prior work that it nonetheless isn't for you. You don't have to listen to critics as arbiters of taste -- just maybe to learn more about the movie, free of charge, before deciding whether to see it.

Though I would add that if more of the general public listened to Erik, they would be aware, for instance, that an Earl Dittman rave is meaningless.

lyt,

to paraphrase erik: 'they (movie consumers) would save time and cash if they just listened to us (critics) once in a while' says to me that erik thinks consumers should heed a critic's negative review and save themselves a trip to the cinema. that's how it read to me, not that we should listen and assess, cause how will that save us time and money? it sounded like people should give a movie a miss based on a critic's opinion, and i find that a bit self-important. maybe i got it wrong and i'm just being a dipshit, it's been a long day

If you had a close friend whom you trusted and they told you that a movie sucked, a TV show blew or this milk tasted sour - would you ignore their opinion? My point is that critics can be like trusted advisors. Yes, it's only an opinion but if percentages mean anything, over time you could probably save yourself a little time or money if you paid attention to one critic or 100 at Rotten Tomatoes. If more moviegoers would find a critic or two that they, at least, trusted - that would be a step in the right direction. There's a reason our whore of the year award is named after Peter Travers. Of course, not everyone is a "whore." Some just have incredibly poor taste in film - and those are the ones that the consumer need to weed out.

But back to the way studio reps handle certain critics - it's crap.

Note to Chucky: The situation you mentioned in your post re: old reviews applies, I think, just to the regular newspaper archives. If you visit

http://www.nj.com/entertainment/whitty/

and click on reviews, the clips go back more than a month...

erik, to answer your question: yes, i would ignore their opinion and often do, because my dear friends and i sometimes wildly disagree on whether a movie is good or not. so there you go.

critics aren't 'trusted advisers', it's just one person's opinion! if, like you say, a film has a high score on metacritic or tomatoes, of course i take note, but i know from experience that it doesn't guarantee i will like a movie; or conversely, a low score would make me more wary but i'll make up my own mind based on the film itself, i don't let 'critics' do that for me.

and milk having gone off and tasting sour is a fact of nature; an opinion about a film is purely subjective. huge difference.

Leah, how about this: maybe critics aren't useful in telling a viewer what movies to avoid, but surely they're useful to tell people what movies to seek out? There are so many small films with small publicity budgets competing with the studio megaproductions that we need somebody to let us know when a gem is playing and being ignored.

i hear that, jeff, that's a valid point. for small films, just getting a review out there is a coup, getting the name in print. for instance, i saw a small review of 'the station agent' in the newspaper and it sounded interesting; i found out a bit more about it, took a gamble and went to see, and the rest is history because it stole my heart. so point taken.

but i still take any review with a grain of salt because i know in my heart that each person's reaction to a film is completely personal, individual, emotional and subjective. in a way, it's a meld of the film and the viewer that completes the movie experience. i like hearing what other people think of a film mostly just out of curiosity, but this idea that film critics think they should influence what people see or don't see is repugnant and rubs me up the wrong way (as you can plainly see!)

Well, in theory the whole point of becoming a film critic in the first place is because you love movies and want to spread the word about the good ones and get people to not waste their time at the bad ones. Beyond that it's all a matter of individual tastes, sure, but that's the underlying idea.

If your point is that it should be a conversation and not a top-down lecture/command from on high, I don't disagree.

well, i don't think anyone should ever miss a movie they think might be their cup of tea because a critic/critics didn't like it, for the reasons i've previously stated. if i did that, i would have missed out on some of the movies i really love. every time you walk into that theatre (or rent that dvd i guess, to a lesser extent) it's a roll of the dice, a calculated risk. no-one else brings what you do into the darkness.

personally, i just want a succinct review including an overview of the plot without spoilers, who made it and who's in it, whether the reviewer thinks it worked and why. a lengthily barrage of personal opinion is unnecessary and pointless. i just want a feel for the movie, not a dissertation, because i don't care that much what they think...experience has taught me not to.

that's just one girl's opinion!

Ha, that's funny because when I read a critic, _all_ I want is personal opinion. That's why I only read reviews after I see the movie. I don't need a plot summary because that's what I watch the movie for.

"i just want a feel for the movie, not a dissertation, because i don't care that much what they think...experience has taught me not to."

leah: This is when we get into the difference between a film reviewer and a film critic. One is essentially a consumer guide - is this worth my time and money? where's the letter grade? the star rating? - while the other is driven to (and, in this day and age, arguably entitled to) offer a significantly broader sense of insight.

It's all a matter of the writer's approach and where you point your browser when you want just a heads-up. Even if anyone and everyone can post their two cents, there's no need to dismiss essays for trying to make the most of a topic.

You want simple? That's out there too. Always will be.

Well said. That's why I seek out Jonathan Rosenbaum, Armond White, Manohla Dargis, even the occasional Ray Carney. Thumbs up/down I can deal with myself.

i just said i DON'T want someone telling me if a movie is worth my time and money...i thought i made that clear when i sort of tore a strip off erik...i just want a bit of insight into a film so i can make up my own mind.

and how can i put this politely...please don't make out like i'm simple-minded because i don't want to hear someone dissect a movie, look up every orifice then beat it to death. i just don't care that much what 'critics' think and i'll pretty much dismiss what ever i darn well feel like, because i think it's largely a bunch of huey. sorry if that offends.

i think that should be 'hooey', not huey, as in dewy and lewy

Fair enough, but I do like to have a critic deconstruct something, so kindly don't suggest like those of us who enjoy it are off our collective rockers. There's no 'right' or 'wrong' in all of this, just a matter of who's able to make their points the clearest and most interesting.

I think all the bases are covered now.

jeff, did i suggest you or anyone was off their rocker for being down with the critics? i re-read what i've written and i don't see that anywhere, i've referred pretty much only to myself. i said I think movie criticism is largely hooey, not that you should think it's hooey (if indeed hooey is a word). i actually enjoy reading your write-ups about movies on your blog and likewise a few other people who comment here. at least you don't take yourself too seriously.

flattery will get you everywhere.

no hard feelins, mate. i'm like a bloody stump in shark-infested waters on this one, aren't i? i think half the bloggers here may be critics, as is the host! makin' friends and influencing people, that's me! :P

yeah, i admire your spunk.
all i know is, my life is better with critics than without them.

I HATE spunk!

I'm a wife beater? Somebody better tell her ASAP!

My identity has never been a secret and I'm not hiding. Dave called me Stella's Boy long ago and I just ran with it.

The Mummy 3 looks awesome says Drew. I can't wait to read his review.

sheepish and sort of silly question for david poland:

'dave called me stella's boy long ago and i just ran with it'

that reminds me of something i've always wanted to ask you, mr. poland (as one of the few critics i've followed and read for many, many years because i like your style and you're open-minded), how did you come up with all those funny names you used to assign to the people whose comments you'd post on 'the hot button' before the blog started? (i was 'orbison's obsession', which always baffled me)

was it just random or was there some rhyme and reason to the names you gave? silly question but i've actually wondered about that for years, if you feel like telling.

no reply from the big kahuna to my post above leads me to think my earlier comments about movie criticism caused more than just a passing offence.

the last person i meant to offend was you, mr. poland, as you're a critic i have revered for a long time. it's ironic that your forum is where i should really put my foot in it.

my sentiments about the majority of movie criticism are what they are, but i do apologise for hurting anyone's feelings with what were more strongly-worded views than i intended had i not been tired and stressed from being over-worked at the moment.

i didn't set out to cause any offence, just to make my point, and then i felt a bit condescended to and went onto the defencive, which is when my tongue gets a bit too sharp, and i'm aware of that.

anyway, i didn't want to just leave things as they were with me twisting in the wind without making an honest apology for being excessively spifey, for what it's worth. i've had fun here and most of you are great, i'm in awe of your collective movie knowledge. just wanted tell you that.

and sorry for the bad grammar and typos, my proof-reading sucks at the mo

Leah, what is up, hot? You on THE SPACE? ADD THE LEX. I DIG COUGARS TOO/

YOU OWN. KNOW.

Nothing like offense, Leah - just one of those weeks.

I think that there is a wide, wide diversity in what people think of critics, criticism, and the movies we cover. It's not personal, except when it is... but that doesn't have much to do with movies. I write as I feel compelled to and for those who like it, thanks, and for those who don't, so be it. I seek not to be the most popular or the most provacative, but simply to communicate.

As for Hot Button tags, I came up with names that I thought were interesting and that the person writing would get even if no one else would.

been snowboarding. woosh.

glad to hear i wasn't in the dog house for hugely offensive idiots, i had the week from hell and i was one grumpy bugger. all better now.

thanks for letting me know about the 'orbison' thing, mr. poland, curiosity sated.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)