criterionforum.org

As mad as this sounds, reviewers sometimes go from the original press release rather than from the disc in front of them.

This was most graphically demonstrated when someone once “reviewed” (as in passed critical judgement on) an extra that didn’t actually exist - it had been announced in the original press release but had to be cancelled thanks to interviewee ill-health. I’d long suspected that this guy didn’t review the discs properly and was only doing it for advance freebies, but that was the absolute clincher.

I usually go from the PR sheet or the website's details and C+P those into my reviews so that I don't have to type them again... but since I then check the extras individually (to add their precise duration, their language and if they're in HD or not), I'm likely not to miss whatever difference there is to catch (whether the disc has less or more than what's advertised, and whether I watch these extras or not - which in all honesty I rarely watch nowadays).

I guess that's the issue here : Svet probably either used an older spec sheet or the extras features list but forgot to add the audio commentary that is listed in another page of the disc menus because he hasn't made such an individual check.

Eureka haven't paid AM yet!

https://twitter.com/AdrianMartin25/stat ... 2847002624

... and apparently he did a commentary on top of Linda Manz' voice-over in Days of Heaven (Via Vision).