The Hot Blog

Those critics are out of touch!

(sorry, someone had to say it)

I doubt movies like "Ultraviolet" and co would've done any better with reviews, so...

Although, I must say though that while they say people are smart enough to tell whether a movie is good or not (with or without reviews) they should also not that kids are smart enough to see the movies if they are reviews and their parents object to it or something. It's silly.

One could also argue the converse: the positive reviews for SLITHER kept away fans who would rather see a trashy horror film than a good one (also likely for LAND OF THE DEAD and SHAUN OF THE DEAD, both of which underperformed). Gene Siskel once opined that the schism between critics and the public is defined largely by the fact that critics want something new and different, while the public wants the same old crap over and over again (hey there, FRIDAY THE 13th). With the studios ever more catering to the lowest common denominator, the increasing number of not-screened films is really no surprise at all.

Whether or not the box office is lead by movies with good reviews is irrelevant. First of all, the top grossers, at least the first week-end, are the movies that generated the most hype, the most excitement. Since the reviews arrive at the release date, most moviegoers have already made their minds before critics had their say. Secondly, critics always assume that moviegoers disagree with them when actually, most people don't bother reading them at all and are unaware that a film has had bad reviews.

Instead of aiming for the top and complain when a film they hated outgrossed the ones they liked, critics should be happy that small budget movie like Crash and Brokeback Mountain became financial success because of them.

It's not supposed to be a competition. Not from our side anyway.

That was a good point about the reviews coming too late i.e. on the date of release. Perhaps if the reviews came out earlier like they do in the blogosphere, then the papers might have greater impact. After all, who invented the rule that you can only review something coming out that day?

Also I find that most negative reviews sound the same. They wonder how this trash could be greenlit. They do a stupid pun regarding the title (Star Wars...more like Star Bores, etc.). They make vague comments about how awful something is without really giving any compelling reason. I think people are not affected by a review they've read before written by a critic who they rarely agree with in the first place.

Unfortunately, this is the one area (ok, maybe not the only one) but the main one where the studios have control over the critics. With their embargoes, the studios instruct the local publicists to make sure they are enforced.

If you break an embargo - chances are you will be removed from their lists. I once posted a negative review of The Real Cancun online at 7:30 pm the night before it opened. (Because I was leaving for a trip that night.) On Friday, I was informed by the local publicist that I was being taken off of New Line's list. (Turned out to be a 6-month suspension basically) The funny thing is that the Chicago Tribune's Metromix website had their negative review up at 2:30 pm the very same day and AICN had theirs up two days earlier.

The studios keep a leash on the legit critics, but allow junket whores like Earl Dittman, Shawn Edwards, Paul Fischer, etc... early access to get their hyperbolic white gravy all over the ads the week before or earlier.

Great reading about the "quote whore" phenomenon here:

http://www.efilmcritic.com/feature.php?feature=712 (Even has a quote from David P. while he was at a previous outlet/column?)

What's strange is that at one point, they had a great interview with someone who cuts commercials and they explained the whole process for putting quotes in commercials...and that interview is mysteriously gone.

I'm kind of surprised that David never gives quotes, actually... not saying that negatively, but he does seem to see movies early which would make me think that studios respect his opinion.

That interview was temporarily taken down (and will be back soon) because our whistle blower (after a year of the article being up) was exposed and then fired by his company for spilling the secrets - not about the quote whores - but about giving away the trade secrets of how a trailer is edited. (Yeah, right!)

We took it down briefly out of respect so he could get back on track and make sure his family didn't starve. We wish him the best of luck and will continue to put a foot in the ass of those utilizing such practices as making up quotes and using Earl Dittman on their ads.

Since Dittman was the biggest "star" of this article - his quote total is quite down this year with only 4, including this week's Lucky Number Slevin "the best thriller of the year."

We just had some mysterious idiot on our list make up a yahoo account just so they could e-mail us and blast our entire quote whore venture. So we must be doing something right.

David Germain should probably have done a little more research - as he would have discovered that there have already been 11 not screened this year. The Benchwarmers and Phat Girlz make 13. Silent Hill will make 14. And we're not even mentioning the kind of half-assed Hostel screenings where select people got invited in December and then it was never screened again in some markets.

Now, if there was such a strategy to get the radio/internet (fan boys) on board - consider that they may be even harsher than the print critics. Again, the Tomatometer reflects a majority of online critics who got their reviews up on the films not screened for press.

Larry the Cable Guy: Health Inspector (4%) - $11,828,128
Doogal (5%) - $7,410,149
Stay Alive (6%) - $17,798,532
Big Momma's House 2 (6%) - $69,264,175
Bloodrayne (7%) - $2,405,420
Date Movie (8%) - $47,903,617
Ultraviolet (9%) - $18,500,966
When a Stranger Calls (10%) - $47,860,214
Underworld Evolution (16%) - $62,318,875
Grandma's Boy (17%) - $6,090,172
Madea's Family Reunion (29%) - $62,861,357

Now, how bad is it when the friggin' Tyler Perry is the BEST reviewed out of the previous 11 and even THAT didn't crack the 30% barrier - which is half to RT's standard "fresh" recommended territory? 5 of those films went on to be reasonable moneymakers for their studios. THREE of those were sequels to hits. A fourth was a remake with a tag line everyone knows. The fifth was a parody of various hits. The other six didn't manage to hit $20 million.

These are all facts to our advantage that the sky is not necessarily falling. The studios are just making some incredibly shitty movies - and more often than usual.

Do you know that Silent Hill won't be screened or is that just a conjecture? It looks much less schlocky than several recent horror movies.

I live in Milwaukee jeff, and my boss at the daily paper here told me on Tuesday that Silent Hill will not be screening for critics here.

The system is definitely not fool proof. I'm thinking about the poor moviegoer who just feels like seeing sci-fi action and who's standing in front of Ultraviolet trying to remember if the reviews were positive or negative, not knowing that he never read any. Earl Dittman can become the greatest critic in the world if no one else reviews the movies...

Same thing here. The only screening we know here of Silent Hill is going to be the evening before it opens. Can you remember the last time a two-hour plus movie was NOT screened for critics?

And it seemed like Silent Hill had a higher pedigree for the genre. Roger Avery and Christopher Gans may not be the most brilliant filmmakers working today, but I think they have both done interesting work in the past and I have been expecting SH to be a good flick.

Silent Hill you say?

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7669/1922/400/SilentBirthHill-1.jpg

The Gilded Moose is gold.

Sheesh. Someone saw Dante's segment of Twilight Zone: The Movie.

Um, isn't that poster a Katie Holmes joke?

I am genuinely surprised that "Silent Hill" won't be screened for critics. Seriously. Just a few weeks ago, Roger Avary was doing advance interviews for the film. (I talked with him for MovieMaker Magazine.) I had assumed they weren't screening the movie for me only because it wasn't finished yet.

Underworld: Evolution made 62 million dollars? Hopefully 3 lives up to the pedigree of 1 and not 2. That aside, Screen Gems really gains nothing from screening Silent Hill to critics. Be it stated sentiment or widely conjectured sentiment, a large portion of critics remain the audience least likely to appreciate a film such as Silent Hill. When you are a company, that can honestly assume that a screening or a junket would really not help the film. Of course, you are going to want to, limit such situations from occuring. Even if, in this business, it's better to show a film, then hide a film..

There's a problem like this where I live and it has to do with upmarket/arthouse fare.

The (Newark) Star-Ledger runs ALL movie reviews when the picture open in New York -- mainstream, upmarket, arthouse, whatever. If an arty picture plays in New Jersey it isn't usually until 2-3 weeks after the New York release. For this the Star-Ledger should hold the review until the picture opens in New Jersey. By running the review day-and-date with the New York release, the paper may actually hurt New Jersey box office on arty fare.

FWIW "Silent Hill" is a TriStar release per the trailer.

Yes Bob, that poster is a Katie Holmes joke - why would i post a link to a poster that everyone's seen?

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: