Like most Americans, I purchased a Sunday paper this weekend, read the comics, and threw the rest of the paper away. However, I couldn't help but notice Steven Spielberg on the cover of the USA Weekend insert, along with a blurb mentioning his new "hit" movie War of the Worlds. I was just wondering how a movie could be considered a "hit" if it hasn't even been released yet?

I see this happening all the time in entertainment journalism, and it needs to end. How many times have I seen the adjectives "controversial" or "blockbuster" applied to a movie that no one has actually seen? Are these journalists brain damaged?

Yes, some of them most likely are, but I think we've gotten so used to formulaic flicks custom made for substantial monetary returns that we automatically praise them as a huge success without really giving them the critique they deserve, or even bothering to see them. Yes, with Spielberg at the helm and Cruise starring, War of the Worlds will most likely be huge, but let's not count our blockbusters before they hatch.

categories Cinematical