Boiling Point: Screen It!

Posted by Robert Fure (robert@filmschoolrejects.com) on October 6, 2008

Boiling Point: Why Won't They Screen Quarantine?

Critics are always quick to point out that certain films aren’t shown to critics — often the first signal that it’s going to suck. I understand the idea behind hiding films away so as not to let bad reviews scare off theater-goers in that all important opening weekend. But it does suck.

If studios are going to spend millions making these movies, they should first try to make them good. Half the crap they think is good ends up being crap anyways, so why hide the crap they know is crap when it’s obvious that even crap makes money. Follow that line of crap? Most often the kinds of films that aren’t screened are the ones many critics don’t enjoy – horror films and raunchy comedies. But in the days of prominence of the internet, where more people with varied views are equally respected, there are a lot of people who love horror flicks and sex comedies who would probably give more positive reviews.

What inspired this is Quarantine, an upcoming horror flick starring Dexter’s Jennifer Carpenter and based off the well respected Spanish horror film [REC]. This film is being screened for very few critics, which is bologna. Why not give people a look at it? If it’s bad enough that you don’t want anyone to see it, why is it going to theaters? That’s almost underhanded. Like, “This movie is terrible, so don’t let anyone know so we can trick some fools into coming opening weekend and make some bank.” I’m not entirely certain there are all that many critics who speak the gospel. If Ebert says to me “Quarantine sucks” and I see a trailer that looks good, I’m going to see it anyways.

So Hollywood, take a fucking chance. You want my money, let a few people get a look and put the word out. If the trailer and premise sounds good, I’m coming anyways. Hell, if I hear the movie is shit and then come see it with low expectations, I might like it a bit more. So while I’m not sure that this bothers everyone, but I think Hollywood should screen the stuff they expect us to pay for. When Hollywood plays games and tries to stonewall us away from hearing just a little bit more about a movie before we throw down our wallets, it pushes me past my boiling point.

Does the practice of not screening films bother you? Can the word of a critic stop you from seeing a film?


Read more articles by Robert Fure

« Previous Article | Next Article »

Related Topics:

Boiling Point, Site Features, , , , ,

Related Reading:

Your Ad Here

Comment Policy: No hate speech allowed. If you must argue, please debate intelligently. Comments containing selected keywords or outbound links will be put into moderation to help prevent spam. Film School Rejects reserves the right to delete comments and ban anyone who doesn't follow the rules. We also reserve the right to modify any curse words in your comments and make you look like an idiot. Thank You!

  • 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
    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.
  • 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.
  • 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
    mmm..maggot filled puke..yum.phutpuhtphutphut.
  • Quarantine Sucks Ass
    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.
blog comments powered by Disqus