The not screening for critics thing is pretty ridiculous for films like this, because the target audience isin't going to read the reviews anyways. It made sense to not screen for something like Alexander, where the reviews are critical to the films success and the film is atrocious - but when dealing with a film like Boogeyman, might as well let it be screened so the "uh-oh, this is gonna be really bad" thoughts don't start brewing and bite the bullet when the reviews are less than glowing.

=D> I agree with ya.. As a matter of fact, I'm gonna laugh at all these film snob critics when this movie makes about 25 Million this weekend on a shoestring budget like it has.. I mean, if it does make that amount, what does one say to something like that when a film is assumed bad if they don't screen it??? Personally, I think all these critics have there heads in their ass over this whole Million Dollar Baby/Aviator Oscar Brouhaha and the films representing the Oscars..

Why is it not screened by critics? I think they prefer watching movies to projecting them...

I imagine that there liked % would be about 10 % and they are trying to maximize the opening weekend gross before having the hate reviews come out.

Also, I think that when a movie is pre-screened ahead of time, some critics don't go to see it and therefore, never get that bad review until someone else reviews it.

I find it strange that those of you who hate the critics the most seem to be the most obsessed with them.

AND THEN post reviews elsewhere, like on this site.

we hate Wal-Mart ... we buy from them too : )

haha.

I would like to see a post by BKB not mention AVP.

I don't think it's the critics themselves that aren't screening the film, BKB. In fact, the critics were probably quite looking forward to giving it a good pasting this weekend. It'll be the studios themselves that aren't screening the movie for critics. They usually only pull this trick for damage control when they think they have a complete turkey on their hands. Anything to slow the torrent of bad WOM they think their film's gonna get. Not that bad reviews ever seem to effect this kind of schlocky horror flick. I think the people most likely to rush out and see The Boogeyman on its opening weekend aren't the sort who read Sight and Sound on a regular basis.

Uhum AvP is alot more anticipated than Boogeyman, I cant believe you tried to use that for comparison. Dont forget Paparatzi didnt allow any screenings too and look what happened to that turd. I dont think it will make a difference for Boogeyman since al horrors are critic proofs, I just think Boogeyman itself would be overpredicted since its offering nothing new, no stars, and too much abundance of horror films

critics have a huge impact in the way people perceive films - lessening that impact by giving it one day to do so is a better idea and stops being being prejudice for longer, and a hate backlash like that experienced by Alone in the Dark, Catwoman, Elektra and Gigli to cumulate before the films even out.

I think certain films like horror and comedies are definately critic proof as experienced by White Noise and X-mas with the Kranks(this one boggles me the most). Critics only have huge impact on films that are also bashed on the internet too because AITD,Elektra and Catwoman were already getting major trashing from internet geeks days before they open. I dont see that much hate going on for Boogeyman currently from the net community. However, I believe Boogeyman will open lower than expected because of its straight to video feel and no known star in it. At least White Noise, the Grudge and Hide & Seek had stars people heard of.

Here's a review from http://www.filmjerk.com.

Pay close attention to the final paragraph.

The latest entry into the race to ruin horror films for good, “Boogeyman” is a rare case where the director doesn’t even try to tell a story. This empty, tedious, incoherent exercise in style gives the genre a bad name, and sets the bar even lower for PG-13 horror.

After witnessing his father's death at the hands of his childhood closet monster, Tim (Barry Watson, "7th Heaven") has grown up with extreme paranoia and a fear of the dark. To conquer his phobias, a doctor suggests spending one night in his boyhood home to face his troubles. Tim agrees, but as soon as he arrives, his old pal the Boogeyman comes calling, looking to finish the job he started years ago.

"Boogeyman" is no horror film. It will bill itself as one, and audiences might embrace it as a member of the genre, but I assure you it isn't. All the film contains is a series of cheap sound effect jump shocks without any vision. "Boogeyman" does not contain one element of horror, regardless of what it looks and sounds like. Filmmaker Stephen Kay, last seen overdirecting the Stallone comeback vehicle "Get Carter," overdirects "Boogeyman" at such an unbearable pitch, there's little reason to even look up at the screen.

Kay loves his camera tricks, and "Boogeyman" offers him the greatest opportunity to show off some MTV-style chops. Why? Because the film has no story. And how do horror filmmakers traditionally compensate when faced with no vision? They shake their camera around, deluge the film with artistically bankrupt boo scares, edit like they are receiving a shiny gold coin for every cut, and stall endlessly to get their film to a sellable running time. "Boogeyman?" Check, check, check, and check. The film's inertia is maddening. This is the rare film that takes forever to go nowhere. Not helping the pace is Kay, who instructs his poor, unfortunate talent (also including Emily Deschanel) to act two ways to kill time: either they play a silly, endless game of "red light, green light" going down every single hallway they come across or, in the case of Barry Watson, Kay goes in for a plethora of extreme horror close-ups when in dire need of tension. However, in this film's case, instead of reacting to ultimate terror, everyone just looks like they missed the last piece of birthday cake. Hardly frightening film-making.

Kay quickly gives up trying to stick with the script, and turns "Boogeyman" into a profoundly vague sensory experience, complete with screeching sound effects for no good reason and strobe-like editing. Since Kay and the screenwriters haven't bothered to think through who or what the Boogeyman is, the film's climax, which has Tim fighting his archenemy, offers no reason why the audience should care. Besides finally manifesting itself as a piece of questionable CGI, old Boogey doesn't have much else to offer, proving a long held theory that too much mystery is just as bad as giving it all away.

Rumor has it that "Boogeyman," after a year sitting on the shelf, was ready for the home video market before the PG-13 success of "The Grudge" gave the studio other ideas. As this repulsive genre of "horror" gets increasingly more popular, the quality of the productions has become gradually worse. "Boogeyman" takes home the distinction of being the first of the "PG-13ers" to be a completely incoherent exercise in style, without any attention paid to even the most basic of storytelling fundamentals. If "Boogeyman" signals more films like this to follow, there are far worse nightmares out there to come than whatever is lurking in your closet

My Rating: D-

That reviewer was bias, and obiously doesn't enjoy horror movies.

Doesnt he/she know that audiences love "series of cheap sound effect jump shocks without any vision"

Thats exactly why people loved the GRUDGE so much, the big loud sound effect jump shocks, same with White Noise.


So, yeah, kinda useless, stating the obvious, bias review.

Anyways, i still think BOOGEYMAN will open well this weekend, over $15M.

Manson, being a fan of the horror genre doesn't mean that you have to support every crappy horror film that gets released. In fact, a true fan of horror movies should probably do the exact opposite when they see studios raping the genre they love just to make it more accessible to kids.

You are contradicting your avatar, Snrub! Mimes cant speak!

If in fact the studio did push for a theatrical release date just to capitalize on other recent releases, that alone should make a horror film fan upset.

By flooding the market with supbar films, studios are cheating audiences.

Meh.

I agree with you, but i'll still see it tonight - as will most horror fans. It's better than sitting at home, you know?

I agree with you there, but only because my home's currently riddled with boogeymen.

Not me