No, gosh darn it, they’re going to have to make better films.
#The zookeepers wife rotten tomatoes movie#
Secondly, whenever a studio holds back a movie for review it sends a loud and clear message that the movie is a disaster. But what is their initial reaction (at least from some studios)? Don’t let reviewers see their films until after they open. Like I said, it might force Hollywood to make better movies. Personally, I think this is a good thing. Tom Cruise, Tom Hanks, any Tom you want – if they’re in a dog people now stay away. Amy Schumer’s fan base doesn’t mean shit when SNATCHED gets a 37% yes vote. Johnny Depp means nothing if his movie gets only a 31% approval rating. Who’s more popular than the Rock? Yet BAYWATCH tanked. In the future they, God forbid, might have to make GOOD movies – with stories that are fresh and not formula, characters that are engaging and not one-dimensional, and more substance than explosions.Īnd secondly, stars can’t automatically open movies anymore.
Studios have a much harder time getting away with a bad movie. Boxoffice totals are down 35% from previous chapters and continuing to head towards Davy Jones' locker. PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN 13 (or whichever number this is) got a 31% approval rating. Studios are finding that a rotten ROTTEN TOMATOES consensus can make a huge dent, even into monster franchises. Individual film critics might not make an impact but a whole bunch of them lumped together sure does. So did any movie with Jar Jar Binks.īut audiences started becoming discerning. Even if the movie is a piece of shit, even if the critics think it’s worse than MANNEQUIN 2, as long as the film “opens” as they say and has a boffo first weekend they’ve won.Īnd that strategy worked for quite some time. Secure a beloved franchise, get a big name to star, open wide in as many theaters as you can, and just go for a big opening weekend. The majority of the studios’ slate was then big budget, splashy, action, comic book movies. Or if they do, make fewer and fewer of them and only for the purpose of winning awards. Stop making intelligent films for intelligent people who read intelligent reviews. Still, the effect was significant.īut Hollywood found there was a way to make movies critic-proof. Long thoughtful analysis was replaced by thumbs pointing in different directions. Siskel & Ebert held a lot of sway with their movie review television show. Pauline Kael in THE NEW YORKER was a force to be reckoned with, as were several others. At one time, certain movie critics wielded a lot of power. A NEW YORK TIMES pan and you’re closed by Saturday. Broadway shows live or die based on critics.