Cranky Monday: Pete Hammond Can Suck It

“The most visually inventive, trailblazing film of its kind in light years. The heart-stopping, extreme summer action movie of your dreams.”
“The most visually inventive, trailblazing film of its kind in light years. The heart-stopping, extreme summer action movie of your dreams.”

Do you know who Pete Hammond is? You probably don’t recognize his picture and he probably looks like he could be your accountant or possibly the manager of your local grocery store. But you do in fact know Pete Hammond because his syrupy, gag-me-with-a-spoon movie review blurbs are plastered over posters, ads and trailers for movies all the time. That might seem like jealousy, but trust me, it’s not. Since his days at Maxim, to his current writing for BoxOffice and, Hammond is a master craftsman at taking a big juicy turd and shining it up so it gleams like the best movie ever made. Literally, most of what he says borders on the ridiculous and frankly, I don’t know how this guy has a job.

At any rate, I’m sure he’s a nice guy, but this quote from his review of The Blind Side made my head spin:

Bullock may have found her Erin Brockovich in Tuohy, commanding the screen with grit and determination in an Oscar-worthy role if ever there was one. Her southern accent is spot-on and Hancock’s script offers her plenty of crowd-pleasing moments all of which she plays with smarts and conviction.

Listen, I love Sandra Bullock. I really do. And she is a sound actress, but her performance in The Blind Side is not “an Oscar-worthy role if ever there was one.” Not even close. Of course, Hammond drawing the comparison between Julia Roberts’ Oscar win for her role as the title character in Erin Brockovich is telling and a whole other argument, one that is easily summed up in four words: She shouldn’t have won. But, again, that’s another post.

We’ll have a review of The Blind Side on Thursday, so check back. In the meantime, just know I think Pete Hammond can suck it. He falls into a group of movie critics I absolutely despise: the ones who have a Cialis moment for everything Hollywood spits out. The other group I despise are the snobbish doucheys who only like movies with aberrant sex and subtitles. There’s a happy medium and even though we’re dealing in opinions, some seem more legit than others.

13 comments On Cranky Monday: Pete Hammond Can Suck It

  • I believe that after Friday’s opening of the movie itself, six (6) months after the fact will either prove the above is wrong or “correct”. In my personal opinion. I can’t stand the actreses acting at all. But after reviewing some of the liminted highlights of what was in the previews, I believe Sandra Bullock may have come into her day. It’s just the story line complimented with her own personna and (I believe) her own personal “nurturing” character will find her a place in the ranks of the “oscars”. She is confindent in all of her self.


  • Having seen the film, I’d be surprised to find her receiving any Oscar nomination for the performance. Not that it’s bad– it’s just nothing of note. The field Best Actress would have to be weak this year, and it’s not.

    • I respectfully disagree. I think it has been a weak year as far as female performances are concerned. Curious as to who you think should be nominated for Best Actress this year, from the films that you’ve seen so far?

      I haven’t seen “Precious”, but I have seen “Antichrist” (regretably) and I don’t think Charlotte Gainsbourg’s performance is oscar-worthy, although Von Trier does put her through the gauntlet physically and emotionally and she might get nominated. Boy, that’s an interesting film, btw.

      A favorite film of mine(on my Top 5 of ’09) “Two Lovers” features two great female performances. Paltrow is wonderful, but Vinessa Shaw steals this film. I’m hoping she’ll receive at least a best supporting nom. Need to see “An Education” for Carey Mulligan’s performance. Loved Zooey Deschanel in “500 Days of Summer”. Hard not to fall in love with her and I thought she was absolutely wonderful, but it’s a role we’ve seen her do many times in the past so I don’t know if she’ll receive an oscar nom, but hey, Jennifer Hudson and Ellen Page have been nominated in recent years for extremely over-rated performances, so there’s a chance for her. Meryl Streep was spot-on as Julia Childs in “Julie and Julia”, Meryl being Meryl- she’ll get nominated no doubt. I’ve even read on some websites that porn-actress Sacha Grey might be a darkhorse for her role in Soderburgh’s “The Girlfriend Experience”(which I still haven’t seen), but I highly doubt it’ll happen.

      Aside from that, a couple of decent performances, how can you NOT say that it’s been a weak year for performances, so far? True, the holiday movies still need to come out, but you’re implying that, with what has been released, that this year is already been strong as far as female performances are concerned.

      • With Carey Mulligan, Abbie Cornish, “Gabby” Sidibe and Meryl “Hi, it’s me again” Streep, you don’t need a long list to say we’ve had a strong Best Actress year. I’d still maintain that with four solid, nom-worthy performances and a decent string of outliers, it’s a stretch to say 2009’s got a weak field this year. In the end, there’s only five that matter and that fifth choice has a lot of strong prospects.

        Zooey’s a good choice and that would easily make a solid five to meet demand for a good year. It’s not like the previously mentioned noms would be grasping at straws, either. Add in those mentioned outliers like Penelope Cruz for Broken Embraces, Helen Mirren in The Last Station and some mild early buzz for Saoirse Ronan in The Lovely Bones and Bullock’s performance– in my opinion– still comes in as a good one, but not good enough.

        You’re spot-on with your references to Hudson and Page– and while buzz for films can wheedle a BA nom that might not be deserving, I don’t see any of that happening this year with four of the five seemingly cinched.

        So I’m kind of dual-arguing your point here. Sure, January to now hasn’t had a litany of outstanding performances, but those circling the Oscar slots are strong contenders– contenders that, as per the usual holiday “unleash the hounds” award release schedules, typically arrive late in the game anyway.

        • Valid points. I agree that there should be, by year’s end, at least 4-5 strong performances to fill out the ballots for oscar noms. They just haven’t been released between January and now, save for a couple.

  • Yeah, Solomon, I have to agree with Dan. I saw The Blind Side the other night and I enjoyed the movie a lot. I also think Sandra Bullock is a solid actress. She’s very funny and excels at physical comedy. She’s like a Lucille Ball for our day. But yeah, I’d be surprised if she got a best actress nod.

  • I must agree with both you and Dan. I’m not in any position for Sandra to get an Oscar or not. It’s just a “fuzzy” feeling down my neck that comes very rarely and have never let me down before.
    If anything else the plate for women contenders for the prize is very much apart from her. It’s just the “nurture” issue that I feel will grasp the female market for her nomination at least.

    Thanks for the reply…this is cool!

  • I DO know Pete Hammond. A number of years ago, he and I were writers together on a TV children’s series. He IS a nice guy…a very nice guy —but, he’s also literate, intelligent, and knowledgeable, and informed when it comes to movies. He LOVES film and I doubt seriously it’s a crime if he chooses to endorse movies and performances that others don’t. He has a job because he’s not snobbish and critiques like most of us do if we enjoy a certain flick. He also is negative when he feels it’s necessary. I’d choose his criticisms over most others any day.

  • I’m sure Pete is a nice guy Roger, and I’m all for going against the grain, but he also has a reputation for schilling out glowing quotes for the majority of movies he reviews. Almost like he enjoys seeing his name and blurb on the posters.

    I love film too, but just because I love it doesn’t mean I have to fall at my knees and worship or appreciate everything that streams out of Hollywood. If a movie does what it sets out to do, I’m on board. Which is why I liked The Blind Side.

    At any rate, this is tough one to debate because we’re dealing with opinions and everyone can have one. Still, I’m guessing your friendship with Pete has clouded your judgment a bit. If you know Pete so well, put him in contact with me. I’d love to interview him and find out what he thinks about the criticism on the web about his work.

  • Ok, so my maturity lost this little internal monologue I had after reading this:

    Andy: So, Pete. Before we talk about hot chicks I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to ask what you think about the criticism on the web about your work. Does being called a shill make you want to put the clobber on a few naysayers and their collective soft parts? And why do you superlatively review so many middling films?

    Pete: To be honest, I don’t really care. I’ve been in this game far too long. Sure it’s no fun to be called a shill when you LOVE movies as much as I do, but I like to keep a populist perspective and hey– we don’t always have to agree. That’s what makes movies so special. But I tell you what you can do.

    Andy: What’s that?

    Pete: You can suck it.

    Andy: Oh? It’s ON, Pete. ON!!!


  • Just noticed on the DVD cover of “The Proposal” that Pete Hammond calls it, “The year’s best comendy!!!”– right there that tells me that either A. he is a poor judge of films and should have his right(license) to critique films revoked or B. this guy has a thing for Sandra Bullock— hopefully it’s the latter. If it is, then that could tell us why he wrote such a gleaming review for “The Blind Side”

  • Wha? The Proposal WAS this year’s best comedy. Right behind The Ugly Truth.

  • Flick the bean..

Comments are closed.

Site Footer

Sliding Sidebar