What are his other "typical" reviews like?
Maybe he knows his audience and knows that's what they like?
I'm in no way saying he's right to say those things, but I'm wondering if it's another one of these "shock radio" type things.

He's probably doing this to hide the fact that he has no credibility as a reviewer.

Mario

filmy, you're likely doing what you need to do; seeing a lawyer, and venting. Both are probably best courses.
However, as someone in the entertainment business...you probably already know that they can say nearly anything they want to, and there is not much you can do about it, unless you can show that they had an agenda that would profit them, or profit someone tied to them.... Sucks, but for the most part, it's true. If they accuse you of theft, plagiarism, copyright violation, derivative work, then you've likely got a strong leg to stand on. Otherwise, it's just some putz who sees you as a fun target. I've somewhat been there before, and learned the hard way that National Enquirer and their ilk can just about get away with murder. Worse, even if you are the target of some writer's wrath and bad hair day and they've stepped way over the line...there isn't much the courts will do about it either.
Most publications will allow for a rebuttal letter... My first step would be to call the guy and ask what his beef is. Nicely.
Then call his boss and ask the same question. But be nice. You can always get pissed later, but it's hard fixing the hole that anger leaves behind. Trust me, I've tried to fix hundreds of them.
Sorry to hear it. It always sucks when someone beats on something you've worked hard at, and worse when you're beat on for someone else's work.
Worse, the guy doing the beating has probably never shot a decent photograph, let alone a home video and shouldn't be reviewing flea circuses, let alone creative works.

>>> What are his other "typical" reviews like?<<<

I have read some of his other "reviews" and one of them he uses as an example of in the "review" of the film in question. In this one he mentions the director maybe 3 times and at no time does he ever make a threat against the guy. It is mostly about how bad the film is - all clearly opinions and "what ifs" type of thing - as in "That really does not make any sense, give me a break." Etc) The irony is there, it is in other things I have seen by him as well. Except the direct and repeated attacks on one person is not in any other "review" that I have seen yet.

Thanks Spot. :)

My main concern wasn't the fact that the film is being trashed, or even if some of the info (ie the "facts" as the reviewer sees them) is wrong. But the use of my name over and over in the context it is being used in and *really* the threats of physical harm has me a bit worried...this I would think is way out of line. It is one think to spout off to someone "I hate you man..I wish you were dead" but another one to say, in a very public location, that their dream or wish is to see someone put in a coma. (And I am not talking about where the relative of a rape/murder victum is saying that in a public place)

Is there somewhere we can read this dork's review? Maybe hassle his editor en masse?

>>> Is there somewhere we can read this dork's review? Maybe hassle his editor en masse<<<

I would say yes however I don't wan't to cause concern on their part yet...until i get a firm grasp on what my legal options are. Also I checked out the "legal" section and overall they don't seem to take the threat of any legal action too serious. But I want to be 100% sure before I try to send the Vegas masses over.

And FWIW I kind of feel that people who make these kind of severe critics (Slander and threats aside) probably have never worked on any form of real production and I mostly find it amusing. But this time it's personal! (um..er...yeah, you know what I mean)

How/When/Where can we see this film?

Filmy, sorry about your problem. I would like point out that any response, like shock radio, may increase this reviewer's value to the paper. You should get a list ad'ors in the paper, an approach them,( all vegas, maybe) about using/buying their products. Let them pressure the editor.

The real power in publishing mag/papers is the Ad'ors dollars.

I definitely would go Spots' route. Be very diplomatic and point out to the reviewer and editor that personal attacks of this nature are unprofessional and especially, parts of the movie you had nothing to do with, erroneous. And if that doesn't work, find him and beat the stuffin' outta him! Sometimes fists can only say what words can't!

Victor

"... has anyone here, for any reason, read/heard/seen some sort of review that is really a rant about how much hatred the "reviewer" has for you and how the "reviewer" would like to do harm to the person reviewed?"

hmmm, Filmy, you are not in reality Michael Moore are you, and the reviewer in question BILL O'REILLY? Seems like I saw this scenario played out a few weeks ago during the Democratic Nat'l Convention on TV, the Bill O'Reilly Show! No seriously though, hope you get some justice your way.

Filmy, I beleive slander is only valid when it can be 100% proven to the contary. Such as, if someone accuses you of sleeping with a coworker and then spreads it around the office and claims you are incompetent or something of that nature. With some evidence, a witness and an avidavit by both parties, the allegaiton is then proved to be false. Then you can launch a suit to fight the defamation.

Since the review of a film is entirely objective, it would be a much harder case to prove. You would have to prove against his opinion that the film isn't what he says it is and that my friend is next to impossible.

Contact the reviewer and ask what his deal is and if he will edit the piece to something more professional and thats about all you cna do. Other than that, this reviewer sounds like he is low on the food chain and I doubt it will affect your future work. Look at the people that lambasted F9/11.

The single most important thing to do is keep your head on. As Spot says, its easier to work with people before you lose your temper than it is to repair the damage afterward.

I'd write a *polite* letter of rebuttal to the publication in question and take it from there. Ask why in the reviewer felt it neccessary to make such disparaging remarks about your character and abilities, and ask whether it is really warranted to wish physical harm upon anyone as the result of a review. Throw in a few comments about how "disappointed" you are at the apparent "lack of professionalism" and "loss of respect", and you're done. Remember to extend the olive branch though -- you are of course interested to hear their side of the story.

Also consider -- is the reviewer just making himself look like an idiot? Do you NEED to respond to it...?

"... he would like to hire someone to kick me in the groin so hard I pee out my nostrils and, in the final summary, he says he would like to find the screenwriter and use him to beat me into a coma..."

Legal or not, this guy has just plain poor taste. And I agree that this guy probably didn't create anything resembling art at all in his life. Like the sayin(s) go...

"Those that can, do. Those that can't ....teach" ( or critique )

Or as Woody Allen said...

"Those that can, do. Those that can't, teach. Those that can't teach, teach gym."

Sorry about that review Filmy, that was harsh man.

As semi-suggested earlier, the editor of the publication is the one who is ultimately irresponsible for allowing such non-professional journalism to pass through on his watch.

I suspect that the publication in question is probably a local free "city-paper" -type rag of sorts, many of whom thrive on publishing tantalizingly offensive or borderline- inacurate text to stir the pot and generate a healthy letters to the editor section.

Writers are often encoraged to explore the outer limits of taste or be "edgy," but to allow the things you quoted from the article to get into print suggests the editor simply did not read the piece or, worse, condones the language and tone used in the article. Either way, the buck stops at the editor's desk.

I can't comment on the legal aspects, and I don't agree with the "approach the ad'tisers" tactics. In this case, my belief is that rational adults should be able to make up their own minds about the paper/writing style -- if they don't like it, don't read it. Very similar tactics were used in blocking M.Moore's film from being shown in theaters....if you don't like the idea of the film, don't go see it, but why is it necessary to tell other adults what they can and cannot see?

Bottom line: go for the editor and the publisher (10 to 1 the publisher has no idea about that article and will be alarmed at its content).

My personal opinions only....

Best of luck,

Steve

S_murph, M.Moore's film is not a good example there. I know M.Moore and his group and they planned and created the news' events to create headlines, They knew Disney would not pay for the film before production started, but still expense it out on the books. M.Moore then created headlines with disinformation about Disney's refusal to release the film, but he knew the anti Bush crowd would response. M.Moore used Disney's problems as well as current political hot buttons to make a profit, which he doesn't believe in,hahaha. There was no real afford to stop M.Moore's film being distr, except M.Moores news releases stating so. There is no way it could get into theaters so fast.

But your right about Spot's approach vs. war of words. If this is going to destory Filmy;s business, then a business approach is required, public war of words or behind the scene warfare. niether is pretty. But any editor who let that article be pulbished, isn't worth time and probably doesn't have any readers.

Filmy,
First the disclaimer: I don't know your market. I don't know the publication in question and what kind of readers it's supposed to have. I don't know how highly or lowly American readers generally regard reviews they read.

But from the look of it, you may be one of the very few people who take this person (and what he writes) seriously. Anger and disappointment aside (you can live with those), are you really sure you should do anything at all? Wouldn't you just be feeding this person's self-esteem?
edit: ...and draw attetion to his "work".
Tor

Filmy,

If I were you, I would go spend a day at the beach or in the mountains. Somewhere relaxing and peaceful. Then ask yourself at the end of that day, if a lawsuit is going to be worth it. If the reviewer works for a respectable outfit, perhaps writing a letter to the editor will work. But if it's not for a respectable or widely read outfit, you should probably just shrug it off. Laugh if off if you can.

I am proud to offer this link:

http://www.unrealisticexpectations.com/reviews/ViewReview.asp?ReviewID=131

as the worst review of any film I have ever read, and I was the editor! I laughed my ass off despite the fact it involved over 6 months of my life. Does the film suck, probably, but someone who took the time to review it has given me a wealth of quotes and a good slice of humble pie. Take it easy, I don't know the details of your involvement in the project but live and learn. Hey, these guys sit around and write reviews but you actually go out and make movies. Good for you!!!

- R

apit...
I'm sorry, I wasn't clear about the MMoore thing: I didn't mean the distribution of the film (in which a good part of the hubub was p.r. driven), I meant at the local level where there were many instances of groups picketing theaters and in some cases threats against theater owners.

Neither here nor there...I just don't think that type of behavior reflects rational or liberal (as in "Liberty" not the political leaning) thinking, that adults are free to change the channel, not see the movie, or not pick up certain newspapers without someone else making that choice for them.

Back on topic, as we agreed, the editor was irresponsible in allowing such substandard wrtiing to be printed as a review.

cheers,

smurph

>>> I am proud to offer this link: [SNIP] as the worst review of any film I have ever read, and I was the editor! I laughed my ass off despite the fact it involved over 6 months of my life.<<<

The HUGE differance between that "review" and the one in my case is the lack of personal one on one type attacks. If you take the above review and place your name into it every few lines, and ONLY your name, and take every chance to compare something bad to you and include threats of bodily harm if they ever find you...would you take it in a different light?

In reading the responses overall - thanks all for the time to share the thoughts. Just to clear up a few things -

The film is not any sort of political film. It is not any sort of "message" film. It is not a documentary. It is a silly low budget film that was, in parts, made to be slapstick and 3 stooges-ish. In other words it isn't something that should warrent the type of attack that it just recieved. Which is part of my puzzlement of it all...again, not the "this is a bad film" routine, but rather "Who is this person? Do I know him?" because of the nature of it all.

One of the huge reasons I have not posted the link here or mentioned the actual reviewer or even the film is because I don't want to suddenly give this more "credibility" so to speak. My main thing was to see if anyone had had this happen and had any sort of legal solution come of it.

I am aware of what part of this review is "opinon" verses what looks like a personal attack on me. That being said the 2 direct statements that threaten me with harm are in fact, at least according to the law here, threats that are illegal. If I knew who this person was I could have the right to have the police issue some sort of warrent I guess - not too clear on how this would go down because, again, I have no clue who the person who wrote this is. And it isn't like it is the guy next door so it would involve a detective trying to track the guy down, most likely in some other state. So I have to ask my self do I want to press charges...at this second I dunno.

One part of this review is the unathorized use of frame grabs from the film. The studio is also checking into that side because it is unclear, due to the nature of this "review", if pulling frame grabs off the DVD is considered "fair use".

As for the other things ity is a bit more of a grey area. On the one hand the person would have to watch the end credits to see the other directors names and scenes they directed, without that than it could be the person honestly just didn't know. However if the entire "review" was read it would be clear that the person not only took the time to watch the entire film but to even take frame grabs along the way. It is almost a shot by shot breakdown complete with dialog snippets. So it could also be felt that due to the nature of the "review" the entire film, including end credits, was viewed. Also because of the lack of other crew members listed it is easier to view this as a personal attack. But this would have to be argued in court. Possible argument - "How many people ever read end credits?" other sides argument "The producer, screenwriter and the DP all get head end credits, why not be mad at the producers for producing the film? Why not be more mad at the screenwriter? Why not go off on bad camerawork?" In other words it is not clear cut...at least not at this point.

More details as they come in.

argument "The producer, screenwriter and the DP both get head end credits, why not be mad at the producers for producing the film? Why not be more mad at the screenwriter? Why not go off on bad camerawork?" In other words it is not clear cut...at least not at this point.

I blame Andrew Sarris and the auteur theory.

Reality check: Look what the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are getting away with despite media reports of Navy records showing probable deliberate falsification. No lawsuit or threat of lawsuit.

As a writer/director/filmmaker, I have to say that if I were reading a paper and saw that review, I would immediately consider it so over the top that it can't be taken seriously.