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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.