The Hot Blog

Uh, can you get rid of that South Park thing plz. It's in every entry.

I don't know why critics are complaining about not being able to see movies. THe studios are right when they think critics will massacre them. So why would critics wanna sit through them if they themselves also think they will hate them (they know they would). Like, they complain about all the bad movies they are forced to see, so what's the problem with some studios not letting critics see them.

Wasn't Day After Tomorrow a Fox release?

In answer to the previous comments, some critics are complaining because it makes their job more difficult. That isn't the studio's problem, but it is a fact. If Sony doesn't schedule a press screening, the local print critics will then still need to see the film when it opens and write a review, usually for Saturday publication, because they want to be on the record.

This of course raises a separate question: If publicity is the only currency the studios understand, why not refuse to cover unscreened films in any way? No wire pieces, no reviews, no nothing. And maybe the editors of the film sections can have a memory longer than 30 seconds, and tell the publicists to go screw themselves when they start pimping hard to get in a story on their latest film when they hid their last film from you. Everyone plays nice, everyone is happy.

A lot of critics actually do that. Ebert never reviews a film that isn't screened.

So that means they screened Basic Instinct 2? You'd think that would have been a sure thing to not be screened.

You want to know the quickest way to end this "We won't press screen" bullshit? Easy: Major news outlets (including, yes, trade papers)start offering a bounty to anyone who can provide the first review of a non-press-screened release. Unless studios decide to end ALL promotional screenings for certain films, they will have to deal with the possibility that their films will be reviewed by people who are (a) not easily controlled, and (b) eager to make a name for themselves by torching any movie they review.

Critics do not have a god given right to be invited to courtesy press screenings by the studios -- especially when the studios know that there's a very strong chance the critics will come out against the film. Why would a studio that has invested millions of dollars into the making and marketing of a film set themselves up for negative reviews from critics - many of them whom take a certain delight in sharpening their knives at the expense of the studio. I have read so many reviews over the years (many of them for films I ended up enjoying quite a bit) where the critic takes pleasure in eviscerating a film he/she didn't care for with extreme cruelty. Even on this website when Poland tears into someone like Eli Roth, he obviously cares very little that there's a real human being behind that name and a thousand other people who worked to bring that film to the screeen, and these people and their friends and families are hurt and disturbed by the vitriol displayed in these reviews and in many of the comments on this board. If a critic wants to tear into a film, he shouldn't expect to do it at the studio's expense, is what I'm getting at here. There's such a sense of entitlement in this business that it constantly amazes me. Every film that is produced is a small corporation. Millions of dollars have been sunk into it and on the first day of the product's debut to society, a hundred critics around the country are spewing venom and trashing on it -- and, yes, sometimes it sticks and has a negative effect on box office. It also becomes record on the internet and in the archives of these newspapers and magazines. I don't think anyone sets out to make a bad movie (well, maybe a handful of filmmakers do) and when an artist stumbles, the media descends on him like a pack of jackals. I see it time after time. I guess this is a round about way of saying that I could give a shit that a critics are denied press screenings of vulnerable movies.

The Newark (NJ) Star-Ledger ran the Roger Moore review of "The Benchwarmers" yesterday. Gave it 1 star.

And critics are complaining about not seeing The Benchwarmers why? It makes their job "harder"? aww, boohoo. They get to miss out on a horrible-looking "comedy". It's not like the target audience of that movie read the New York Times or whatever.

Last time I checked, the studios were the ones making the bad movies. By eliminating the critical response, they can still open big before people can realize it's crap.

Critics trash the horror movies but they continue to do well. And then even when critics fawn over something like King Kong, it was still seen as disappointing at the box office. So what is the real impact of critics?

I think the people critics affect most are the inner Hollywood circle, who use them to boost ego or tear someone else down. Hence, the pressure to curb their privileges on bad movies with big stars.

The answer is shockingly simple: quit making crappy movies. Not screening a film is a tacit admission that the film blows. Nobody makes BASIC INSTINCT 2 or BENCHWARMERS expecting good reviews unless they're totally detached from reality.

If Cronenberg had made Basic Instinct 2, it probably would have gotten good reviews. Unless it was in the vein of his version of Crash (which I love) but he probably would have gotten fired first.

Quit making crappy movies? That's your solution? Not screening a film isn't an admission that it blows, it's an admission that critics won't like it. If you think that's the same, calculate the number of films every year that you think are way overrated or way underrated. Critics are a good measure to see if people will like it but it's not the only one.

It is true that good movies might get bad reviews, but it's extremely rare for lousy movies to get good reviews, at least by legitimate critics. I repeat: if you don't roll the dice, it's an admission of zero expectations.

Lawnorder - I'm all too aware that there are human beings behind every movie. Been there, worked that. The same is true with journalists with websites.

It is an odd balance. Yes, it is hurtful to be told that you have worked really hard to make a bad movie. There is no doubt that Eli Roth and most of those involved with Hostel thought they were making something they could love.

But however unpleasant that may be, these are not Vietnam veterans returning from a war that they didn't have any say in and being shunned because of the unavoidable politics. These are professionals who demand and are paid significant amounts of money to create a product that they hope will earn many millions in profit and allow them to continue to earn large sums of money themselves.

I agree that many critics are reacting to this growing studio phenomenon like children being refused candy. I felt much the same way about the "screener debate." But let's not turn Eli Roth or other hacks with great skills in self-promotion into a victimized class either.

I put myself in the line of fire, offering my insights and opinion, pretty much every day of the year. Sometimes the criticism is fair, sometimes not. I can't expect the benefits without any of the shit that comes with it. Either can Eli. Either can Sony. And either can critics.

And Cadavra - Why would anyone who made something that targets an audience that is looking for something that is inherently disgusting to most of the people in the group that will review the product publicly offer it first to those who will hate it?

The tradition of criticism says otherwise. But "crap" or "not crap" remains subjective. If I loved Harold & Kumar or quite enjoyed The Real Cancun, does that make me "wrong.?"

There weren't zero expectations for The Benchwarmers. They expected at least $15 million worth of tickets to be sold. And choices that lead the film towards the success of that goal is what Sony is trying to make.

The truth is, the movies with the lowest commerical expectations are the ones that rely the most on critics.

Sad, but true.

It is as rare for great movies with great reviews to make a lot of money as it is for lousy movies to get good reviews from legit critics.

Dave Dave, Dave;
Wipe your mouth after going down on your good friends at Sony, why doncha? My God, such a piece of whoring/trying to curry favor with studios. Learn some shame, you silly twit.

"And Cadavra - Why would anyone who made something that targets an audience that is looking for something that is inherently disgusting to most of the people in the group that will review the product publicly offer it first to those who will hate it?"

Well, of course they wouldn't. But my point is: why make "something that targets an audience that is looking for something that is inherently disgusting" in the first place? Can't we do better?

In light of the fact that your histrionic attack on Roger Moore was based, at least in part, on his daring to give decent-or-better reviews to movies that the majority of critics sampled on Rotten Tomatoes liked less, I find it more than a little amusing, David, that you would say this in your comment:

-- But "crap" or "not crap" remains subjective. If I loved Harold & Kumar or quite enjoyed The Real Cancun, does that make me "wrong.?" --

Um. No. Apparently, it just makes you a hypocrite. With a really fascinating take on punctuation.

This dude's name is really Roger Moore? Wow.

It's not good movie. It is true that good quality movies might get bad review.
________________________________
Matt
Wide Circles

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: