Criticwatch Strikes Again

Erik Childress is a bit of a watchdog when it comes to how studios handle the critics, and how critics handle films.  He's also quite verbose, and you should only read the entire article if you are passionate about this area (or skip to the bottom, where he just slams some quote whores relentlessly).

But if you want to see a new level of depravity in how studios are handling critics, check this out.  It's one thing to not show a film to critics, so that they can't review it in their Friday papers.  It's quite another thing to show it to them, but then tell them that even though they've seen it, even though the film has opened and random strangers on the street have sen the film, they still are not allowed to break their embargo and write about it until the Saturday after the film has opened.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Crank, distributed by Lions Gate Films... breaking new ground in public relations disasters.

Through April, there were 14 films kept from the non-junket press. This summer, including Snakes, there have only been five. And based on the eventual critical response – See No Evil (6%), Pulse (15%), Zoom (0%), Material Girls (6%), only Snakes had any serious backing. It was also a hype film, much like the sequels (Big Momma’s House 2, Underworld Evolution, Madea’s Family Reunion), remakes (When a Stranger Calls), video games (Silent Hill) and familiarity (Date Movie, The Benchwarmers) that turned any decent bank despite the non-screening strategy and the only title of the 19 to pass the 30% positive barrier.

Sept. 1 will mark the date when the “not screened for critics” banner hits the “three times as much as 2005” status as The Wicker Man, Crank and Mike Judge’s rampantly-delayed Idiocracy (which will be Fox/Fox Searchlight’s fifth no-show of the year ahead of Sony/Screen Gems pace-setting six.)

Crank is being screened for the junketeers, but issued a strict POST-RELEASE DATE embargo where attendees were not allowed to post their reviews online or in print until Saturday, Sept. 2. Quite a change from the studios utilizing junket whores to get their blurbs into print the Sunday before release.

Comments

[Jim Gleeson]

If I were in the film industry, I might do the same thing. I mean, the way the industry is made up these days: it is in the business to make money. If that means cobbling together a teaser trailer that will bring people to the theaters; then so be it. If that means not allowing critics to lambast their movie, their crappy movie out of the water, then you have to respect that if you don't agree with it. If you are a critic you should enjoy it as well because at least you get to go to the junket, enjoy the perks and you get to do this while having to wait till the movie actually screens.

The film critic does not matter so much any longer. Let's face it. With the advent of blogging anyone can critique a movie: I know I do. And for the most part its arbitrary. I didn't like Wicker Man because I am tired of the type of endings it has in common with others in the horror genre. Others do not share my reasoning for that. Of course that is simplistic as to the reasons I didn't like "Wicker Man" but I can assure you others can give equally compelling reasons "not to like" the movie.

Film, like any other form of art, is largely dictated by taste. Apart from technical gaffs it really comes down to if you like it or didn't like it. The best thing to do then is to support the reasons for not liking or liking something that will connect with the masses.

While it does seem to be a bad policy to put a gag order on the critics to prevent them from spreading their opinions before a film screens, most people who see movies on opening day don't listen to the critics anyhow. I know I went to see " Wicker Man" on opening day complete with the realization that it was not going to be that great, but still full of hope that something might be offered.

[Craig]

Critics don't typically go to junkets. Those are usually entertainment "journalists" or crudely called "junket whores."

The life of a movie critic isn't nearly as glamorous as you seem to think it is. Now, the one thing they had (going to press screenings ahead of time so they can make it to print for Friday's paper) is being taken away more and more frequently.

Yes, it is within every studio's right to do so, and the point I've been making all along is that we've finally started to enter a time where studios are using reviewers as part of their marketing strategy.

If they have a film that will attract audiences regardless of what reviewers say, then just don't show it to the press. Why deal with the bad reviews on opening day? Hey, I know I wouldn't slam my hand in a car door repeatedly...

However, if the studios need the critical acclaim for their "Oscar-worthy" film, then they'll be courting the critical community for all their worth. It's funny to watch the hypocracy of the studios as they ignore the critics slamming their crappy films, but adore them when the reviewers love their Oscar front runners.