Don't deprive me of a review because your movie is bad

I remember "The Avengers" coming out a decade ago, not because it's a good movie (it's dreadful), but because it did not have advance screenings for critics.

Back then, this was such an unusual practice it became an entertainment news story. Movie reviews provide publicity, people said, so why would the studio want to avoid this? Not all publicity is good publicity somebody decided, and so egregious was "The Avengers," it was decided by the higher-ups not to have screenings, therefore preventing an onslaught of scathing reviews from reaching the film's potential audience. This plan backfired, and the publicity surrounding the unorthodox decision proved far worse than any negative review would.

Somewhere along the line this became less taboo and more movies were released without press screenings.

Less taboo however, does not mean acceptable, and it's time for studios to accept they may have a turkey on their hands and let critics do with it what they may.

No genre is the non-screening practice more prevalent than in the horror genre. Ironically, in my opinion, it is a great horror movie which indirectly contributed to this. "The Ring" came out in 2002 and became a major hit. It was based on a Japanese film called "Ringu" and following its success the floodgates opened for other American remakes of Asian horror films. In addition to the sequel to "The Ring," audiences were bombarded by "The Grudge," "The Grudge 2," "Dark Water," "Pulse," "One Missed Call," "The Eye," and "Shutter."

The problem, besides the fact they almost all seem to borrow from each other and run together, creating a fun game of switching titles without actually affecting the difference in outcome, is for every "The Ring," there are countless duds and many of these titles didn't screen for critics.

Everyone knows by now the reason critics aren't given the chance to see a movie in time for the reviews to make the paper, so the studios don't keep the fact the movie is not good from the public.

They do keep avid readers of entertainment news like myself from reading one more movie review on Fridays when reviews are published.

On a recent Friday, during my beloved coffee and newspaper session I turned to the entertainment page and saw the words "'Shutter'" is not reviewed today because no advance screenings were held. The review will appear tomorrow." Ebert & Roeper used to have what they called the wagging finger of shame, which they gave to offenses in the movie industry. The non-screening practice received the finger from them and I join my colleagues in this and urge studios to give critics the chance to review so readers and potential audience members can read the review and decide for themselves.

Chaz Holmes is the news assistant for the Columbia Basin Herald. He often graces the staff with his knowledge of fine films.