No, Harry, that would've been massively geh. But hey, to each his own.

Holy crap, I didn't think it was possible to cram that many classic plant hooks into one paragraph like that. Let's see; in one paragraph (and one subject line), you've got:

1) how you saw the film (to establish credibility);

2) the initial dubiousness followed by sense of revelation that all good plant writers rely on so the audience will identify with you, especially regarding a film which has had low or negative buzz;

3) direct addressing of the negative reaction to certain special effects shots (which will probably be exactly the same as they were in the preview footage);

4) a mention of 'story' and 'character work', ie it's not just for action fans;

5) 'easter eggs for the keen eyed fans' - adds that geek appeal factor;

6) the friend who normally hates this kind of movie but loved this one, ie it's not just for geeks;

7) a statement that the film will do well (creates positive buzz).

All that in less than 150 words. I'm impressed.

I've done a quick search and he's posted a couple of times last year in a TDK and FF2 threads, a couple quick blurbs.

Plant.

If you think otherwise you're being painfully naive. Do you not remember the AvP:R fiasco where every TB was full of dickheads going "give it a chance, it's rated R which you wanted, I'm sure they delivered, it isn't based on that shitty idea you've all seen".

I wouldn't mind if they were any good at it, but they're so transparent it's insulting. How stupid do they think we are?

I think Norton has come to the realization that he should make nice with the studio, for what could be, the biggest hit of his career. It'll give him the clout/freedom to make his next three indie flicks.

I apologise if I offended you. I'm not interested in condemning the film; I was more interested in the way you wrote your initial post. Sometimes there's a fine line between plant technique and honest unbridled enthusiasm. It seems that you unintentionally pushed a lot of plant buttons when writing your review. I feel that it's useful for people to be more aware of those techniques so that they can be more discerning, both in the way they read reviews and the way they *write* reviews.

Again, I'm sorry. Since you're here now, could you go into more detail regarding what you liked about the film?

I agree that it's a sad state of affairs when boards like these become a battleground for competing PR departments, to the point where people feel like they have to take everything with a grain of salt.

The plants seem to have become so pervasive that the template for a 'glowing review' is almost exactly the same as a 'plant review'. I guess it's due to the fact that most fans out there don't quibble about the things they didn't like, because they don't want to damage public opinion of the movie. Unfortunately, plant writers have exactly the same agenda.

Thanks for the more detailed opinions on the movie, too.

You want people to believe your phony review? Then don't write it like a fucking marketing puff piece. Nobody outside of marketing whores express opinions like that.

So, tell me again Philbrick, how did Hulk "deliver"?

cocksucker.

Pity you put up a blurb-y first post.

For the record, I want this to be good. I really, really do- I just find plant posts offensive.

If you're not a plant, then fair enough. "My bad."

This is your site. Do what you want. But if you would like it to ever be more or taken seriously you can't write articles like the fluff piece above -- it's simply not professional or honest. And it actually does a disservice to the other writers by casting doubts on their motivations.