Slog - The Stranger's Blog

Line Out

The Music Blog

« Jason Travers | A weekend in South Park??? »

Friday, April 7, 2006

On Not Reviewing Phat Girlz

Posted by on April 7 at 16:43 PM

The P-I carried a brief AP story today about the many movies this season that studios are deciding not to screen for critics.

Since we’re a weekly, AP’s description of “scrambling” to write a review the day the film opens doesn’t really apply to us. (We have more problems with the big movies that studios choose to screen for critics the week of the opening, with a theater packed full of revved-up fans.) In fact, on occasion we’ve given a long review to one of these blind openers the following week—such as my essay on the fascinations of Tyler Perry.

Do people care about this critic fatwa? Would it actually be better if movie reviews came out the week after the film opened, like it works in theater? The phenomenon irritates me in some ways, but in other ways it’s all right. Did you really need someone to tell you that Doogal was gonna suck?


CommentsRSS icon

Wait, so I sat through Doogal for nothing? (Well, besides the paycheck.) I'm still trying to shake off the wary anti-ped rays shot my way by all the parents in the audience.

Thanks for pointing out the PI article. I've been meaning to post something about this for a while, actually. As a critic, it obviously messes with my wallet and opportunities for expression, and doesn't exactly give me a positive vibe for when I finally see the product. (The first non-screened movie I can personally remember was Van Sant's Psycho. At Friday's first matinee, the only people in the audience were, you guessed it, critics, none of whom seemed to happy to be there on their own dime.) As a reader, it bums me out that the studios seem to be lumping legit critics in with the spoiler-happy, not to be trusted, internet folks, or possibly giving them even less respect. When Harry Knowles has the only day and date review of a film, something's deeply awry.

On the other hand, David Thomson once quite reasonably pointed out that film criticism was the only reviewing faction where EVERYTHING that came out was supposedly due an analysis. Scads of albums, books, and plays are allowed to fall through the critical cracks every week; should, say, Benchwarmers be any different? I'm conflicted, as usual.

Why would anyone want to read a review of a movie like Benchwarmers? What's the point? You pretty much know ahead of time whether you're the type of person who's going to like it or not. We're not talking Cries and Whispers here.

And serious movies don't need to be reviewed on that timely a basis.

Really, I don't see what the fuss is about. The whole point of the movie-review business is to advertise corporate product.

I don't think ANY critic of ANYTHING should get in free, ever. It's commercial back-scratching, and if you're going to do it, it's like you're on the payroll. Do restaurant reviewers come in on paid visits all at one go?

Do restaurant reviewers come in on paid visits all at one go?

No, but a mediocre/bad movie like the Benchwarmers isn't going to suddenly going to become better only in the presense of critics because the studios want to get good reviews.

Critics are great for the marginal movies... movies that are probably good/great but have awful/misleading/boring previews. Or movies that look great in previews but turn out to be crap. So while I was never going to attend Benchwarmers, it *could* have turned out to be a *good* fun dumb comedy ala Something about Mary. Of course, the presense of Rob Schneider pretty much kills any chance of anything good happening.

The best critics, like Roger Ebert, aren't there to tell you whether a movie is good or bad, but rather they're able to describe the movie in such a way that you'll be able to determine whether it's a movie *you* will enjoy.

Actually, I *did* need the reviews of Doogal. Yes, I figured it would be bad, but the Magic Roundabout connection made me think that, despite the awful computer animation character design, it might be worth taking my godchildren to. Luckily the reviews stopped me in time, and I took them to Duma instead.
...However, I really like the Tsui Hark movie with Rob Schneider and that kickboxer. It was released without reviews, and so I went completely unprepared and my goodwill towards Tsui made sure I had a good time, even though the next day all the reviewers told me I shouldn't have had a good time.

I like to read reviews of movies such as Benchwarmers not because there's any chance I'll actually see the movie, but it can be entertaining to see someone complain about how bad it is. So it doesn't make any difference to me whether the review comes before the movie opens or not.

From the studio's perspective, it costs money to hold the screenings. If they know that the reviews are going to be irrelevant to their success - we all know that Benchwarmers is going to suck, but still make a lot of money - there's really no point in spending the money on screenings, is there?

FNARF: You raise an interesting point, but there's a huge difference between restaurant reviews and film/play reviews. At a restaurant, the chef and server can--if alerted to the presence of a critic--special-tailor the dining experience for that table. Having restaurant critics pay for their meal (and then get reimbursed) is a matter of blending in and being treated as a regular diner. A movie, on the other hand, is going to be the same product no matter whether you buy a ticket or not. (There is an experiential difference between seeing a movie with an excited preview audience or just with other jaded critics, and the studios do manipulate that.) If performers perform a play "better" for critics on opening night than they do on any other night (which would be ridiculous), the entire opening audience would experience that difference. In any case, reviewers would be reimbursed by their papers and magazines if movies/plays were not free, so from the critic's perspective, the ultimate balance sheet would be the same. For plays, especially, I think it's good for the reader that the reviewer has no contact with money. They're able to judge a $50-ticket production on the same level with a $10 one.

catalogood

catalogood

Look now

worldpharmacy

worldpharmacy

worldpharmacy

amiloride-5ity.blogspot.com

amiloride-5ity.blogspot.com

worldpharmacy

Best in the best

Look now

Look now

Look now

Look now

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).