DISQUS

Cole Abaius · 1 year ago

Not screening films for critics makes sense for the genres that usually don't get screened - which is also why I don't think the same assumptions apply. Since most horror movies aren't screened, I think most fans realize that it's not because the individual films suck. But you're right about letting critics see thos genre films now with the onslaught of specialty sites where horror fans can get a good grip on good and bad horror.

I don't see a problem in not screening films. It's a marketing strategy that comes in response to the critic industry - and it's often less about a movie sucking and more about knowing ahead of time that most critics will rail against a film that otherwise some people might go to and enjoy. Basically, critics aren't technically owed anything.

What I absolutely hate is when a handful of critics (Lyons!) are given a screening because the studio knows they (he) will give a rave review even if the movie is a turd. I suppose, technically, he's not a critic. He's a tool, a mouthpiece for the studio's marketing department that happens to work freelance. But because of this, I think it's more realistic to say that if a movie isn't screened at all for critics, it might be good still, but if it's only screened for a couple quote whores, it's definitely going to suck.

Chris · 1 year ago

If anything, critics saying a film is beyond terrible is a reason for me to see it (been roped into a whole buncha crap that way. Battlefield Earth? I'm lookin' in your direction)! I like going to films I want to see, then reading a critic's (be it from the internet, or print) response, and seeing if I agree or not. In being a horror fan like I am, you get used to critics dumping on the films you like, so I've gotten used to the scathing reviews.

The fact that a lot of films aren't screening for critics just saves me the fifty cent cost of the local newspaper.

Will C · 1 year ago

The critics rarely influence me to see a film, sure I like someone's opinion, but hey I have opinions too, and one mans steak is another mans maggot filled puke platter.

Going with what you said about seeing a film with low expectations, Roger Ebert panned Eagle Eye to the point of making it sound like it was written by a third grader, so when asked to go see it, I had low expectations, but it turned out to be (for me anyway) an enjoyable film.

I agree more films should get screened, the more varied an opinion on a film that is out there, the better. Everyone has different tastes, so a broad spectram of thoughts on a film is always better.

Cameron A. · 1 year ago

I've always felt that a review sells the writing talent of a critic as much as, and sometimes more than, it does a film. Critics don't influence me, seeing as how film reviews are advertising with delusions of objectivity.

For genres like horror, specialists trump the generalist leanings of mainstream newspaper critics - it's just common sense. Compared to a generalist critic that thinks all horror is crap, the specialists actually have to sit through the crap.

David G · 1 year ago

mmm..maggot filled puke..yum.phutpuhtphutphut.

Quarantine Sucks Ass · 1 year ago

I just watched about 40 minutes of this movie and I could not stand it. This movie really is that shitty. Not completly unlike Cloverfield, which also sucks really hard, the camera work is terrible. Always shaking and for some reason they felt they had to keep focusing and un-focusing the camera. Makes for a awful camera work. Anything designed to be scary or suspenseful was predictable and simple. Ugh, what a waste of time and money.