Press ad for Stone Bros. in the A2 section of today's Age.

The Enthusiast was intrigued to discover that indigenous stoner comedy Stone Bros is being promoted with the following pull-quote from Richard Kuipers’s Variety review: “A fitfully funny ride”.

It seems that people are very proud of this quote. It appears on the press ads promoting the film, and ScreenWest, WA’s screen funding and development agency, tweeted about it. Perhaps they think that “fitfully funny” is another way of saying “in fits of laughter”.

It isn’t. To say that something is “fitfully funny” means that it is occasionally or intermittently funny rather than consistently or steadily funny. In effect, Stone Bros. is proudly promoting itself as being, well, not that funny.

There are much better quotes the promoters could have pulled from the same review. Here are some we like:

“Pacy hijinks … never short of potential laughs”
“raucous gags with meaningful asides about race relations and cultural identity”
“pure Cheech and Chong stuff, and not half-bad”

But if the promoters are picking the dodgiest parts of Variety’s review, where are their other quotes coming from? Film and theatre advertising is notorious for quoting reviews selectively and out of context in order to make a film seem endorsed by the critics. Some performers (especially comedians) make self-referential jokes about it. But in the internet age, it’s easier than ever to find the original reviews, so we thought we’d have a look at what the critics really said about Stone Bros.

Ben McEachen of Empire is quoted as calling Stone Bros. “the first full-blooded Oz comedy in eons”. He turns out to have given the film three out of five stars, and the full quote turns out to have been: “Writer-director Richard J Frankland’s touch can be too light or tacky — goanna cocking its leg = daft – but Stone Bros. is still a breath of fresh air as the first full-blooded Oz comedy in eons.” Why didn’t they mention the “breath of fresh air” bit?

Michael Bodey’s quote from The Australian in which he says, “Hilarious … the film is a delight”, is not actually from a review. It’s from Bodey’s ‘Reel Time’ film news column in which Bodey reports that because of the dope-smoking, the Film Classification Board rated Stone Bros. MA15+. Here’s the full quote, with the relevant words highlighted:

The film has an anti-drug message, he adds, although one scene in which the effects of too much dope bring hilarious results possibly weakens that argument. Nevertheless, he continues: “Instead of lowering the classification in line with public opinion they have just confused the issue and even made it worse.” Of course, there is a little self-serving hyperbole in Frankland’s comments. His comedy is released next week and the more publicity the better. And why not? The film, starring Luke Carroll and David Page, is a delight.

David Stratton, who was actually reviewing the film for The Australian, gave it three stars and said: “Stone Bros. is no masterpiece but it is easy to take and it is fun to go along for the ride, and it becomes rather more than that when Frankland imbues his comedy with something serious to say about Aboriginality and the need for personal identity.”

However, the film publicists were onto something with Louise Keller’s review at Urban Cinefile. As well as her quoted (though incorrectly punctuated) “Lively, energetic and laugh-out-loud funny”, Keller had plenty of good things to say about Stone Bros. – here are some of them:

“Deliciously simple, yet as complex and dense as the colour grades between black and white”
“laid-back, mischievous and totally endearing”
“will have audiences grinning broadly at the sheer bravado and quirkiness of the material”

However, it’s only fair to mention one review the ads are leaving out. Age critic Jim Schembri has such an ability to polarise readers with his reviews that some people view his recommendations as films to avoid, and his condemnations as movies to seek out. Anyway, Schembri hated Stone Bros., giving it one star:

“forced, malformed, try-hard”
“there’s no odd-couple comic spark or even any measurable degree of tension”
“Frankland’s attempt at a broad stoner comedy misses the mark in so many ways the film almost qualifies as a tragedy.”

Not exactly lines you’ll see any time soon in a newspaper ad.