ROTTEN TOMATOES: Breaking News: Movies Not Screened For Critics Aren't Very Good

Breaking News: Movies Not Screened For Critics Aren't Very Good

by Tim Ryan | April 05, 2006

Discuss Article | Blog Article | Email To A Friend

After some furious debate over David Germain's discussion of films "not screened for critics," RT takes a look at the Tomatometers and respective B.O. performances of the flicks withheld from critics so far this year.

Films Not Screened For Critics In 2006:
------------------------------------------------
29% -- Tyler Perry's Madea's Family Reunion (Feb. 24)
17% -- Grandma's Boy (Jan. 6)
16% -- Underworld: Evolution (Jan. 20)
10% -- When a Stranger Calls (Feb. 3)
9% -- Ultraviolet (Mar. 3)
8% -- Date Movie (Feb. 17)
7% -- BloodRayne (Jan. 6)
6% -- Stay Alive (Mar. 24)
5% -- Doogal (Feb 24)
4% -- Larry the Cable Guy: Health Inspector (Mar. 24)
Average Tomatometer not screened for critics: 11%

As Germain noted, this is becoming a common trend; in 2006, 10 films have already been withheld from those mean old scribes, with "The Benchwarmers" and "Phat Girlz" joining that illustrious list this week. Apparently, the whole of the studio system is terrified that the following exchange will take place within the coveted teen and young adult demographic:

Teen No. 1: "Man, am I ever stoked to be first in line to see ("Date Movie"/ "Underworld: Evolution"/ "The Benchwarmers," etc.)! This film will certainly be off the chain! Oh look, there's my friend!"

Teen No. 2 (running, looking frantic): "Bad news, homie. David Denby, Andrew Sarris, AND Stephanie Zacharek all dissed ("Date Movie"/ "Underworld: Evolution"/ "The Benchwarmers," etc.). They say it's really stupid."

Teen No. 1: "Curses! I'm getting out of the line for this movie, and I shall not be seeing it on its opening weekend. Dear fellow, perchance is 'The Best of Youth' still playing in the local arthouse?"

The phrase "critic-proof" has entered the lexicon for a reason: it perfectly sums up a certain type of move, one that the studios still feel is necessary not to screen.

And what do the critics have to say about these films? Unsurprisingly, the average is an 11 percent on the Tomatometer. Of the twenty worst reviewed wide releases of the year so far, these ten films occupy the top slots. Still, that doesn't mean too much; "Big Momma's House 2" was screened for critics, got a six percent on the Tomatometer, and still made a lot of money. So while the films that aren't screened are by no means cinematic gems, there's an excellent chance they will make lots of money regardless.

When the staff of Rotten Tomatoes is not meticulously analyzing the films of Bergman, Ozu, and Bresson, we've been known to watch (and unironically enjoy) such critically drubbed flicks as "Stealth," "Black Knight," and the collected works of Jean-Claude Van Damme. Some movies aren't "good" per se, but that doesn't mean they don't have potential audiences. Studios should know this better than anyone; they made the movies.

See Also:
"Not Screened For Press" Trend Growing in 2006

Related Items

Movie:	Madea's Family Reunion
	Grandma's Boy
	BloodRayne
	Date Movie
	When a Stranger Calls
	Doogal
	Ultraviolet
	Stay Alive
	Larry the Cable Guy: Health Inspector
	Phat Girlz
	Underworld: Evolution
	Big Momma's House 2
	Stealth
	The Best of Youth
	Black Knight
Critic:	Stephanie Zacharek
	Andrew Sarris
	David Germain
	David Denby
Celeb:	Ingrid Bergman
	Yasujiro Ozu
	Robert Bresson
	Jean-Claude Van Damme

(1-16 of 16 posts) | Reply

Kosmo_Kramer writes:
on Apr 05 2006 08:27 PM

Perhaps a bias enters the mind of a critic when advanced screenings are not provided? Just a thought...

(Reply to this)

ArmyofJuan writes:
on Apr 05 2006 11:29 PM

Well i saw Grandma's Boy and fucking loved it. I thought it was hilarious. But i guess most film critics are far more cultured than most people to enjoy a film LIKE Grandma's Boy. Because you know, they've never smoked pot before in their life or have actually had a childhood that provided them with humor.

(Reply to this)

aconline writes:
on Apr 06 2006 06:00 AM

[b]Stupid Consumers[/b]
I hate to agree, but to not show it in hopes of making more money has always seemed sketchy to me. I am sorry that ArmyofJuan went to see Grandma's Boy. Let's not forget that Aeon Flux started out this way too. Of those movies listed above, only about 3 or 4 made their budget back. Bottom line: Studios are trying to hide that fact that they are making crap, and if customers are too stupid to believe it, then shame on the customer. You won't see Superman Returns not show for critics. Or X-Men 3. Or Miami Vice. But I must admit, I did watch Underworld and thought it was eh; and Ultraviolet and thought it was the biggest waste of film since.......I can't even think of a movie that bad.

(Reply to this)

jarek writes:
on Apr 06 2006 09:54 AM

Yeah, I agree with the guy that said Grandma's Boy was hilarious. Sure, it was juvenile, but I went to laugh, and it made me laugh. Underworld: Evolution was at least better than the first one, and I know that's like saying a lobotomy is better than a vasectomy, but it at least afforded me some pleasure. The rest of the movies on that list I don't care about in any way.

(Reply to this)

RoadDogXVIII writes:
on Apr 06 2006 10:12 AM

"The Benchwarmers" should've been screened for critics. It looks like a funny movie, even if it's one of Adam Sandler's movies that stretch boundaries and boundaries of reality. And it's rated PG-13, so Rob Schneider won't be downright annoying.

(Reply to this)

RockinTheFro writes:
on Apr 06 2006 01:04 PM

I don't go see a movie because critics love it. I don't ignore a movie because critics hate it. I go see what looks to interest me. Anybody who doesn't do that is a brainwashed film nerd. So, really, who cares?

(Reply to this)

sorjue writes:
on Apr 06 2006 02:32 PM

Honestly I don't care if the movie is screened or not. I'll see it if it looks interesting. There are many movies that are "rotten" that I end up enjoying. I like reading movie reviews but usually I'll only get swayed if I wasn't planning to see it and everyone says it's great.

But in the end, who cares if they screen it or not? The only people who really lose out are the critics who may have to see it when everyone else gets to see it.. boo hoo.

(Reply to this)

killthemall4444 writes:
on Apr 06 2006 06:52 PM

I didn't know Underworld Evolution wasn't screened for critics i thought it was an awsome movie. Otherwise everything else on that list is a steaming pile of crap.

(Reply to this)

arpeggio191 writes:
on Apr 06 2006 09:56 PM

[b]no shit.[/b]

(Reply to this)

ArmyofJuan writes:
on Apr 07 2006 12:32 AM

In reply to this comment (#833305)
Im sorry you lack the ability to judge movies for yourself and have to be told what is a good movie and what isnt.

Movie critics are the worst critics in the world because they always have huge expectations that have to be met, are already biased towards a certain genre/director/actor and therefore any film in/by that genre/director/actor they're already going to hate and a whole list of other excuses.

They can never just say, if it's a comedy for example, "Did this movie make me laugh?" Yes or no. It's not that hard. You don't always have to compare every film that comes out to all these classics of the past because peoples idea of things changes with each generation.

And why are you sorry that i went to see "Grandma's Boy"? I enjoyed it, therefor nothing to be sorry for. Have you even seen the film? Who are you anyways to judge someone on what films they see? What are you, some great film god?

(Reply to this)

Senh Duong writes:
on Apr 07 2006 01:03 AM

In reply to this comment (#833309)
I think we were trying to be funny with the headline. Everyone knows they're bad, it's just a matter of how bad. Turns out, they're the very worst reviewed films of the year.

(Reply to this)

LimpytheTurtle writes:
on Apr 07 2006 05:51 AM

Listen; the people who say they don't care what critics think are being silly. Why come on a website devoted to movies and movie reviews then? Anyway all the movies on that list looked awful in the trailers! So you know right off the bat whats gonna be shit and what might be worth while.

(Reply to this)

omilio writes:
on Apr 07 2006 07:04 AM

In reply to this comment (#833310)
[b]Load of crock!!![/b]
No my dear dear rottentomatoes friend. We the consumers are also screwed if we pay 10.75 a ticket (from new york peoples) and the movie sucks beyond any point of insanity.

(Reply to this)

omilio writes:
on Apr 07 2006 07:17 AM

In reply to this comment (#833313)
[b]More Crock[/b]
I do agree that in the end, it's my descition to view what movies I feel is interesting to me. About roughly 70% of my descition though, is swayed by what the critics have to say on the given movie. You can't be so black and white on the matter at hand-"does it make you laugh..yes or no?" because 99% of comedies I see these days make me laugh and at the same time, 99% of these same comedies suck. It's a matter of inventiveness, originality, cleverness and how frequent I laugh in that movie. It's not solely based on comparing todays comedies to historical classics, and by the way, they'rs nothing wrong with that, comedic directors have to simply step up their game and stop the constant recycling...bottles, glases and styrofoam are enough. That's like telling some pro golfers to take it easy on thier swing, just as long as it looks good while Tiger Woods continues to whip everyones #$$ on the links.

(Reply to this)

RockinTheFro writes:
on Apr 07 2006 08:02 AM

In reply to this comment (#833315)
"Why come on a website devoted to movies and movie reviews then?"

For the movie news and the forums.

(Reply to this)

killthemall4444 writes:
on Apr 07 2006 10:42 AM

Heh heh Larry The Cable Guy health inspector is the worst movie not be screened for critics.

(Reply to this)