I look at movies like terminal illnesses. If you don't screen for them early, they can have dire consequences at later stages.
The tradition of movie critics everywhere is to see a film before it has a wide release to audiences. This way, they can form an opinion for their respective publications and let people know if this movie is worth their time and hard-earned money.
When studios decide not to screen their films to critics before their release to general audiences, something is clearly amiss. It seems that they might have something to hide. More often than not, they know they have a flop on their hands.
So far this year, there have been four movies not screened for critics. "When a Stranger Calls," "Underworld: Evolution," "BloodRayne," and "Grandma's Boy."
These four films are a microcosm for what is wrong with movies today. One remake, one sequel, one film adapted from a video game, and lastly, another film for Adam Sandler to drive the nails deeper into his proverbial coffin.
Looking at the list, it's fairly clear that these films are not screened so that the studios have a chance to turn a profit and run before the film leaves the local megaplex and before the critics start tearing them apart.
This is not a new method of releasing movies by any means, but one that is becoming more of a necessity with the god-awful releases the studios attempt to pass off.
To give some insight into why this might be the case, Kevin Smith, when faced with the decision to screen his film "Jersey Girl" before critics, declined, saying his film was "not for the critics."
Apparently he was right. Steven Rea from the Philadelphia Inquirer thought that "Smith's story is like a nightmare amalgam of decades of single-dad sitcoms: mawkish, cloying, and essentially bogus."
"Jersey Girl" was horribly received by many major critics and for Smith to say it was "not for the critics" sounds like he is putting himself on a pedestal out of the critics' reach.
This attitude places the blame on the critics and not on the filmmakers who seem to like to torture audiences with bad films. Movies are not released to critics to review beforehand under the auspices that they will not be fairly reviewed.
That's all fine, but unfortunately, that's not the movie studios' decision to make. They cannot control the negative perception of a film that is generated by bad acting, a rushed script and shoddy camerawork.
Quality over quantity is the issue here. There are so many movies to choose from, but so few that are worth watching. We have more entertainment options than ever before, but fewer films of note.
People have opinions, and oftentimes they can be quite negative. But by passing to excuse a film that should not have been released in the first place through is not going to stop the word-of-mouth onslaught that a disenfranchised audience will have after seeing the first showings of a waste of celluloid.
Studios don't seem to mind when critics hype up a movie so the public at large absolutely has to see it. They just don't like when it doesn't work in their favor.
The best defense against a bad reception of a movie is for the movie to never leave the cutting room floor. Leave them where they belong, in the minds of pretentious, but misguided film students and studio execs hoping for that next cash cow.
