Film Critics Shut Out of 'War of the Worlds'

[Hlao-roo 388]

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/articl...t_id=1000967320

Some film critics are up in arms over Paramount's attempt to quash pre-reviews of the new Steven Spielberg/Tom Cruise blockbuster “War of the Worlds,” which has a gala premiere in New York City tonight. This morning The New York Times appeared to join in the fun.  

Theories about why Paramount has taken this unusual action (rare for a Spielberg-type film), range from the film is a stinker to anger over the excessive coverage of the Tom Cruise-Katie Holmes romance and its Scientology link. (You might call this Cruise Control.) Another rumor is that the Times has been particularly singled out because of its trashing of Paramount's recent flop “Sahara.”  

Film critics attending early screenings have been asked to sign agreements saying they won't review it until it opens.  

This morning, in the Times' quasi-gossip column, Boldface Names, writer Campbell Robertson noted that he had not been invited to the “War of the Worlds” premiere, and then composed a poem based on Yeats. It includes:

“Things fall apart; the center cannot hold;

Mere Scientology is loosed upon the world,

The squirting microphone is loosed, and everywhere

The memory of BRAD and ANGELINA is drowned;

The press lacks all conviction, while TOM CRUISE

Is full of passionate intensity,

Really, really passionate intensity”

And:

“A gaze blank and jovial as the sun,

Is holding a press conference, while all about it

Reel shadows of the indignant Star reporters.

The darkness drops again; but now I know

That two months of interminable news coverage

Were vexed to nightmare by a publicist's confirmation,

And what vapid interview, its hour come round at last,

Slouches towards the Ziegfeld to be born?”

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,251]

I signed an agreement not to state my opinion on this matter

[TIEfighter 0]

Where´s the usual "I don´t care what the critics might say, I´ll watch the movie and decide for myself whether the film is good or not" statement? 8O

[John Crichton 4]

I don't care what the critics might say, I'll watch the movie and decide for myself whether the film is good or not.

[TIEfighter 0]

thank you, you saved my day! 8O

Alex - preparing for an important maths test tomorrow banghead

[Mr. Breathmask 480]

I'm seeing it on opening day anyway. I'll pick up tickets tomorrow.

- Marc, in his third week of his three-month vacation. 8O

[Jeshopk 8]

Critics should not ever be allowed to see movies in advance of the public. If people want to review test screenings, that's different, but I disagree with critic screenings. If people can't see a movie until they've read the reviews, they can simply wait until after the opening day.

[AC1 3,565]

If the critics say it's a stinker, then I'm not going.

[bondo 33]

If the critics say it's a stinker, it should be great!

[QMM 4]

I'll be away at music clinic, but I'll see it anyways on opening day hopefully.

[AC1 3,565]

If the critics say it's a stinker, it should be great!

Says he who likes Van Helsing, Battfield Earth and so on.

Bondo, all your favorite movies ARE stinkers.

He who is born with bad taste is usually no friend of the critics.

----------------

Alex Cremers

[Morlock 9]

I've never seen Battlefield Earth.....but the recommendation of someone who liked Van Helsing is not one that'll have much positive effect on me.

[bondo 33]

If the critics say it's a stinker, it should be great!

Says he who likes Van Helsing, Battfield Earth and so on.

Bondo, all your favorite movies ARE stinkers.

Oh really, and what do you base this on? Oh that's right, nothing.

Van Helsing and Battlefield Earth are terrible films. The very fact that you're comparing a Stephen Sommers movie and a Scientology movie to a Spielberg film (that you haven't seen!) is quite ridiculous.

And I was joking... do I need to spell that out as well? :roll:

You go ahead and take your cues from critics, because hey - their opinions matter more than our own, apparently!

I'm just kidding, you're right of course - Psycho and Gladiator WERE stinkers, and box-office flops! 8O

[AC1 3,565]

Were you joking, bondo? I mean, after seeing your favorite movie list I'm not so sure. So you got bad taste, so what? It's okay, stinkers need an audience too.

PS: I'm not saying Van Helsing and Battlefield Earth are on your list. But in your line of joking, they are great movies because critics think of them as stinkers.

8O

[HPFAN_2 0]

I don't care what the critics might say, I'll watch the movie and decide for myself whether the film is good or not.

AMEN! Brother Crichton!

[bondo 33]

Were you joking, bondo? I mean, after seeing your favorite movie list I'm not so sure. So you got bad taste, so what? It's okay, stinkers need an audience too.

Taste is in the eye of the beholder, surely you know this by now... 8O

There is no "bad taste", only "personal" taste

[HPFAN_2 0]

Were you joking, bondo? I mean, after seeing your favorite movie list I'm not so sure. So you got bad taste, so what? It's okay, stinkers need an audience too.

Taste is in the eye of the beholder, surely you know this by now... 8O

There is no "bad taste", only "personal" taste

AMEN! Brother Bondo.

[bondo 33]

You're on a roll today, Brother HPfan!

[tpigeon 3]

Critics are not meant to be objective or the be all authorities on film. They are meant for those who have a keen interest in film, not for people who care only about their own opinions. You know, who cares what anyone thinks about anything by that standard? What's the point of even having opinions since so many people form their own and don't care in the slightest about anyone else.?

Film critics (good ones) love film, and it is their job to share that with those who care seriously about film. I don't go to read reviews to agree with them or disagree with them. Part of the beauty of film, or art for that matter, is that there is no laid down authority. People all bring their own beliefs, attitudes, memories and experiences to a film. Of course we all have different opinions. That's the whole point.

A critic is a person whose job it is to study film in every manner. Yes, they are an authority in a way, because studying and analyzing film is their job, as well as understanding cinema. One doesn't have to agree with a critic to understand their purpose.

Someone who isn't interested in intelligent discourse puts out for the world to see how little they know. This is the kind of person who usually doesn't know a damn thing about what they so strongly voice their own opinion about without regard for other. We aren't supposed to learn the right or wrong answer from a particualr critic, as Roger Ebert said, they are meant to guide those with an interest in film in their endeavors.

True critics love movies, and those who love movies understand their significance.

Ted

[TheRuleOfThirds 0]

Roger Ebert's one of the best. I think about the only time I've disagreed with him recently was with Sin City. He loved it, I thought it was mediocre.