MNightFans.com

Night Produced => Night Chronicles => Devil => Topic started by: Cleveland Heep on September 16, 2010, 03:17:21 AM

Title: Not being screened for Critics
Post by: Cleveland Heep on September 16, 2010, 03:17:21 AM
not a good sign.

at all.





Title: Re: Not being screened for Critics
Post by: Erik on September 16, 2010, 05:29:10 AM
So it is official?

I was going looking for the Dutch reviews (Devil was released here today, but thanks to my agrement with my girlfriend to watch it together, I have to wait untill Saturday), but couldn't find any...
Title: Re: Not being screened for Critics
Post by: Erik on September 16, 2010, 10:47:29 AM
I found 2 reviews on Imdb (made by members, not critics!)

One larger one (with a 8/10 rating!) and one small one (10/10 rating, though I think that's a little unrealiable)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1314655/usercomments

The larger one was a good read!
Title: Re: Not being screened for Critics
Post by: Cleveland Heep on September 16, 2010, 12:47:39 PM
okay the first review gives me hope.


but honestly no movie in the last 5 years not screened for critics has ever been good.
Title: Re: Not being screened for Critics
Post by: Imalshen on September 16, 2010, 12:56:01 PM
What exactly makes a movie have/not have screenings?
Title: Re: Not being screened for Critics
Post by: Wags on September 16, 2010, 01:01:52 PM
A couple things factor into a movie not being screened. 

In some cases, it is to prevent people from finding out that the movie is not very good.  I have heard rumors that that is why there is so much secrecy and no information about Clint Eastwood's Hereafter.

Another reason why a film would hold no advanced screenings is to prevent a twist or secret about the movie from being revealed.  I could see that being a big reason why "Devil" wasn't screened, or the reviews are being held until tomorrow.  Alfred Hitchcock used this same principle for "Psycho": no advanced screenings, no late-comers were allowed into the movie, and no re-admittance was allowed into the theatre.

I'm actually reading a book about Hitchcock right now; it's amazing how similar he and Night are in terms of their habits/idiosyncrasies
Title: Re: Not being screened for Critics
Post by: Imalshen on September 16, 2010, 05:16:08 PM
Hmmmm what book? :)
Title: Re: Not being screened for Critics
Post by: Wags on September 16, 2010, 06:04:42 PM
"it's Only A Movie" is the name of the book.  It's by a good friend of The Hitchcocks, and is told through interview dialogue mostly, with a synopsis for each of his movies.  It's an OK read so far, and at times gives some neat stories about the man, but it's not as....ABOUT the man as I had hoped it would be.
Title: Re: Not being screened for Critics
Post by: Imalshen on September 16, 2010, 09:40:25 PM
I see. Well if you think it's worth reading when you finish it let me know. :)
Title: Re: Not being screened for Critics
Post by: Cleveland Heep on September 17, 2010, 11:31:44 AM
Well it has a zero percent on RT.

but good news is - most reviews are mixed, which is probably the best outcome in Shyamalan's recent career.

everyone says it starts out with a promising idea (apparently the main credits are something special) but goes into stupid with moments of good tension.

also, apparently chris messina is excellent
Title: Re: Not being screened for Critics
Post by: Baconhawk on September 17, 2010, 04:26:33 PM
47% isn't bad. Definitely the best for shyamalan since the village. I think they actually posted a negative review twice so techincally it has a 50%. Good enough for me :D