Putting a Bag Over Your Movie's Head

There's a column in the Los Angeles Times today, about the fact that moviegoers care less and less about what critics say. The piece cites a stat that only 3% of moviegoers between the ages of 18-24 consider reviews the most important thing about determining whether they see a movie.

In the same column, the writer mentions that 2006 is setting a record pace for movies not screened for critics in advance.

The problem is, that these two facts contradict each other. If critics have less and less power, then why would studios care if they saw the movies in advance or not?

The irony is that not screening your movie for critics should be even a bigger red flag than the movie getting a bad review. All movies get bad reviews in places, but not letting critics see it? It's essentially saying "We know it sucks, and we're trying to trick you into going to see it before you find out just how bad".

It's like a blind date making you buy her dinner, before she takes the bag off her head.

As much as I rant against a lot of movie critics nowadays, at the same time they do perform an obvious service. They are the taste-testers, the ones who wave the white flag when a movie is really bad, or bring attention to the gems that might otherwise be missed. Sure, critics get it wrong, but at the end of the day they are much more reliant than picking a movie based solely on who is in it and what the ad says.

You don't have to see the true stinkers, because they are there to take the bullet for you.

The irony is that, for me, I'm more likely not to see a movie if it isn't screened for critics, than if it gets a bad review, because if the studio isn't willing to stand behind it, then there have to be major problems. Helpfully, many newspapers also happily list the films not screened, just so you know, and I wish more moviegoers were canny enough to realize this, and factor it in heavily.

Last weekend, "Zoom" and "Pulse" weren't screened for critics. Not a hidden gem among them. "Pulse" still made $8 million, and it's hard to think it would have made less if your local critic had blasted it, because it's a horror movie, and what the hell? And if they did screen it for critics, and it got a couple of good reviews here and there, those reviews would have been more likely to get people to see it, than bad reviews would have gotten people not to see it.

The bottom line, of course, is that this business is about money. And because of this, the studios have broken a key covenant with audiences, because they have to release a movie, even if it sucks, and they have to do what they think it will take to maximize their profits.

But wouldn't it be refreshing to have a studio that promised that they'd only put their name on good movies? A studio that doesn't try to sneak crap into theaters, by not screening them ahead of time? Instead, the studios wonder why people aren't going to the movies as much any more?

If you went to a restaurant, and the food was only good half the time, would you keep going there?

Last weekend, "Step Up" was also released. It didn't get great reviews, but the studio didn't try to hide it. And it made $21 million in its first 3 days. The people who wanted to see it went to see it, the people who didn't could read the reviews, and see it probably wasn't for them. In a perfect world, "Step Up" would have been a great movie, but here at least the system sort of works.

So I'm spreading my dogma from coast to coast. If a film isn't screened for critics, don't go see it. It's gonna suck. It's pure cause and effect; only bad movies don't get screened. They don't hide the good stuff from critics.

But it's not going to matter. Because the next movie that's not being screened for critics?

"Snakes on a Plane".

Don't say I didn't warn you.