Why is it that most movies are not screened for critics?

Question

I see this happen a lot in a movie site called rottentomatoes.com. Almost all the movies that aren't screened for critics usually get bad reviews, yet they achieve some kind of success on the box office.

Shouldn't there be a law to let all movies to be screened for critics or is that considered unfair to some degree?

Answer 1

Most movies *are* screened for critics. It's only when a movie with big names or a big budget isn't screened that it becomes a big deal. If you can attract investors who are willing to kick in millions of dollars to make a movie, but know that letting people review it before the public can see it is a *bad* thing, then you're in serious trouble.

Answer 2

Really the big reason that this happens, and even through I am not a professional movie critic, it happens when a studio knows that a movie they made is bad, they can decide not to screen it in advance for the movie critcs, cause they will pan it the papers, TV, radio, etc. But still they are in a no win soulation, cause some critics, maye not the major ones will see the movie and still pan it anyways. If you remember the Santa Clause 3 wasn't screend in advance for the movie critics, so it didn't get as many bad reviews as it would have if it was screened. There seems to me that there is no law that they have to be screened for the critics, but this is just what they can do.

Answer 3

How could there possibly be a law that would make a company have advanced screenings of their movies for critics? This makes no sense at all. It's the company's movie and they can show it whomever and whenever they want.

Answer 4

The other's explained the "whys" of it pretty well. I just wanted to toss in that it's getting harder for them to do this. A lot of web critics (myself included) will run out and see these movies on opening day, then quickly post a review.