Screen pass

Movie critics are being shut out of more and more films as studios forgo advance screenings of flicks they expect reviewers to trash – figuring they stand a better chance of success with no reviews rather than bad ones.

So far this year, 11 movies have not screened for critics ahead of time, including the Rob Schneider-David Spade sports comedy “The Benchwarmers” and Mo’Nique’s fashion comedy “Phat Girlz,” both opening today.

During the same period last year, just two movies did not screen in advance for reviewers.

The practice does not sit well with critics, who either must do without or scramble to catch the movie on opening day and dash something off. (The Spokesman-Review’s weekly entertainment section, 7, posts late reviews when they become available on its Web site, www.spokane7.com.)

But it makes business sense for studios, which may presume the drawbacks outweigh the benefits if critics are likely to hate a movie.

“If we think screenings for the press will help open the movie, we’ll do it,” said Dennis Rice, publicity chief for Disney, which did not show its fright flick “Stay Alive” to critics before it opened in March.

“If we don’t think it’ll 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.”

Movies that do not screen ahead of time generally are genre flicks such as horror stories or youth comedies whose audiences pay little heed to critics.

“Like ‘Benchwarmers,’ if some kid really wants to see that, I don’t know that bad reviews are going to stop them from going,” said Paul Dergarabedian, president of box-office tracker Exhibitor Relations.

Actually, one critic – Roger Moore of The Orlando (Fla.) Sentinel – wrote an advance review of “Benchwarmers” after the movie was mistakenly screened for media there, according to the newspaper.

After it was distributed to other newspapers nationwide through a wire service, distributor Sony immediately launched a campaign to persuade papers not to publish it. (The review appears in today’s 7.)

Television’s “Ebert and Roeper and the Movies” had started adding a jab at Hollywood whenever a studio did not screen a flick for critics. Along with their traditional “thumbs-up, thumbs-down,” critics Roger Ebert and Richard Roeper included a “wagging finger of shame” for films they were not shown.

They have discontinued that. Ebert got tired of it, and Roeper said too many movies were not screening in advance.

“Studios are trying to separate a moviegoer from his or her money before not only critical word but word of mouth comes down on (a film),” Roeper said.

Ebert said he is puzzled by Hollywood’s notion that negative reviews would damage a movie’s box-office potential. He recalled a conversation he had about five years ago with a studio executive who told him he loved it when the show trashed movies, particularly horror flicks.

“The target audience didn’t care that we hated those movies because they just expected us to hate them,” Ebert said. “If we reviewed them and showed clips and said they’re stupid and awful and violent, that’s a selling review for that audience. So the studio head told me, ‘Publicity like that can only help us.’ “

Of the films that have not screened for critics this year, three debuted at the top of the box office: the vampire sequel “Underworld Evolution,” the fright flick “When a Stranger Calls” and the comic drama “Madea’s Family Reunion.”

Results have been so-so for other movies that did not screen, including the action thriller “Ultraviolet,” the animated tale “Doogal” and the comedies “Grandma’s Boy” and “Larry the Cable Guy: Health Inspector.”

Steve Bunnell, head of distribution for the Weinstein Co., which released “Doogal,” said that movie was not screened for critics because it was “literally being edited up until the last minute.”

Executives at other distributors that decided against critic screenings, including Sony, 20th Century Fox, Lionsgate and Fox Searchlight, either declined to comment for this story or did not return phone calls.

“It’s telling that most of them won’t even comment about it, because it’s obviously something they’re not proud of,” film critic Roeper said.

“But audiences are smart. They know if a movie isn’t being reviewed, it’s not because the studio thinks it’s great.”