Another interesting perspective from our film studies friend Dodd, known as “moviedodd” on Spout.

Friday means different things for different people, from getting out of town to hitting the bars for a long stretch of “unwinding.” For movie-lovers, it’s the ripe time to hit Rotten Tomatoes and check for reviews on the latest weekend releases. Usually everything seems in order, as most of the major releases have been branded positive or negative. However, there is sometimes one major release with nothing next to it. Despite the heavy promotion for weeks–sometimes months–on end, not one major critic has given his or her two cents. Have you ever noticed this?

I’m sure that by now most moviegoers are familiar with the films that are not screened for critics. Sometimes these are flicks that have been shelved for years. Other times they are fresh off the studio lot. It was recently announced that the long-delayed Ghost Rider will not be screened for critics. The action film features Nicholas Cage as a rough-around-the-edges biker with a CGI flaming skull for a head. Not screened for critics? Imagine that.

It seems quite clear why critics are forbidden to see these films. If a release has “disaster” written all over it, then it would be poor publicity to release it upon the masses with stamps of disapproval from the nation’s trusted film experts. However, people are beginning to get what’s behind non-exhibition for the critics. Roger Ebert and Richard Roeper even bestowed The Wagging Finger of Shame upon these films to indicate the foul smell they emanate.

While some may immediately recognize a dud, the tactic is certainly not flawed. Epic Movie recently debuted in the number one spot despite not being screened for critics and blatantly presenting itself in previews as one of the most awful things to hit screens this year. However, the unscreened comedy Let\’s Go to Prison was a monster flop in 2006 (this goes without mentioning possible box office competition).

As a self-proclaimed movie aficionado, I see this restriction as a kiss of death. On rare occasions, some titles are worth the blind venture into the multiplex. You better believe that a critical ban did not stop me from checking out Internet phenomenon Snakes on a Plane. However, it is easy to recognize when a movie studio is so ashamed of a picture that they keep it hidden from the press.

What is your take on the black sheep of the box office? Do you decide to go see if there’s potential in a film not screened for critics, or do you see a toe tag that might as well be marked “Dead on Arrival?”