Notice: Bypass Block(ed)busters

This year, an unprecedented number of films—11 at last count—have been denied advance press screenings. This can only mean one thing: studios are ashamed of the rubbish they’re foisting off as entertainment. Just not ashamed enough to stop filming.

It’s likely that the studios hope to bilk a few extra dollars from unsuspecting moviegoers by evading the press; by the time critics are able to turn their acid pens on Hollywood’s latest trash, the damage to film fans’ wallets will already be done. Critics lose. Moviegoers lose. Studios win…maybe.

Savvy cineastes already know that films withheld from critics are usually terrible, and avoid them accordingly. Fans disappointed by this season’s batch of un-reviewed movies—including stinkers like the Comedy Central spin-off “Larry the Cable Guy: Health Inspector” and the Mo’Nique star vehicle “Phat Girlz”—have learned an expensive lesson: never judge a movie by its trailer.

Predictably, the studios feign innocence. In an interview with Associated Press film writer David Germain, Dennis Rice—Disney’s publicity chief—argues that studios are looking out for their audiences’ best interests: “If we don’t think [press screenings will] help open the movie or if the target audience is different than the critics’ sensibilities, then it may make sense not to screen the movie.”

Are we really to believe that Hollywood is preventing critics from reviewing films because their “sensibilities” don’t match up with those of the film-going public? Rice’s first explanation—that studios don’t screen films if they believe the reviews might hurt their opening box office—seems far more likely.

But it’s troubling that Rice tries to champion anti-intellectual animosity toward critics by suggesting that they are out-of-touch with average moviegoers.

Of course, film critics have their biases. Indeed, certain movie genres, namely horror and comedy, are perennially panned. Unsurprisingly, a majority of this year’s unscreened films fall into one of those categories.

In particular, Adam Sandler’s production company—Happy Madison Productions—has blighted the cinematic landscape twice this season, with puerile ensemble farces “Grandma’s Boy” and “Benchwarmers.” Both movies suffer from hoary plots, cut-rate production values, and the bleached non-acting of washed-up Saturday Night Live alums.

Yet these faults seem unlikely to alienate the films’ natural audience of frat boys and stoners. These movies are essentially “critic proof”—withholding them from reviewers was completely unnecessary.

Similarly, the two horror movies that have been denied advance screenings—the second installment in Kate Beckinsale’s vampire franchise “Underworld Evolution” and a remake of the 1979 thriller, “When a Stranger Calls”—hardly relied upon the press for commercial success.

Horror films are guaranteed an audience of genre aficionados who can be relied upon to turn out en masse for opening weekend. Disparaging word of mouth between fans, not hostile reviews, is what sinks fear flicks.

By withholding these films from critics, the studios make it difficult for casual filmgoers to decide where to spend their ticket money. Then again, that was the point.

Surprisingly, the response of film critics to these outrages has been muted. For a brief while, Ebert and Roper issued un-screened movies a “wagging finger of shame” rather than their usual “thumbs up” or “thumbs down.” However, they stopped the practice as the number of press-prohibited pictures multiplied.

It is no small irony that critics—men and women who make their living expressing being opinionated—have yet to voice one on a matter that threatens the heart of their livelihood. Perhaps their silence indicates a dwindling faith in the importance of their vocation.

Regardless, their silence means that it falls upon film fans to reverse this disturbing trend. Don’t see movies that have been withheld from critics, and discourage your family and friends from patronizing these studios.

You can’t count on Hollywood’s movie-houses to do what’s right, but you can bet they’ll do what’s profitable.

—Staff writer Bernard L. Parham can be reached at parham@fas.harvard.edu.