comment #1

Anonymous says ...

It's showing a bunch this weekend in San Diego. FYmotherfuckingI.

comment #2

Dixon Steele says ...

It's a genre film, not Terrence Malick's THE NEW WORLD. Odds are the critics won't love it, so why should New Line bother?

comment #3

Anonymous says ...

Dixon's right, just another in a trend of summer films not doing advanced screenings. What does New Line have to gain by screening it for critics versus what they might have to lose? Seems like an easy decision, although the critics will piss and moan about it and try to deride the film because of it.

comment #4

Alan Green says ...

soap buzz is white hot. soap's core audience does not give a shit what movie critics say. new line knows this. so, why should they screen soap for critics? they hate critics - all studios do. this is a fuck you from new line to all movie critics.

comment #5

Chris Otto says ...

They waited too long and I bet they tried too hard to make this hip and cult-like.

You don't TRY THIS HARD to make an offbeat cult classic. Sometimes, it just happens, while you're trying to legimately make the next Indiana Jones or Jaws.

For example, Congo and Anaconda did not, I think, intend for audiences to laugh at all the wrong places. But they did. And, in some quarters, that saved those movies from being otherwise useless.

comment #6

sutter kane says ...

If ever a movie was critic-proof, it's snakes on a plane. Just to underline this point, if I were new line, I'd screen it for all of the really high-brow critics, then run ads with the most imaginative, venemous, and clever excerpts from what are sure to be bad reviews. This will only encourage the crowd at which the movie is aimed, which quite proudly includes yours trully.

comment #7

Rich S. says ...

Sutter,

That is a legitimately brilliant idea!

comment #8

Zac Bertschy says ...

Alan Green: Snakes on a Plane buzz was "white-hot" in April.

Right now even the johnny-come-latelys are sick of it. They should've opened in June.

comment #9

Anonymous says ...

Zac: might want to factor into your comment that the movie wasn't completed in June. I know, I know, New Line should have just thrown money at the problem, rushed the effects, mix, and prints, not to mention blast money into a marketing campaign in order to get out there and compete with X-Men, The Break-Up, The Omen, Cars, Nacho Libre, Fast and Furious, Click, Superman, and then be wiped out by Pirates.

Right.

comment #10

Nick says ...

I agree with Anon 5:13 about the bump-up argument for "Snakes." Where the hell were you going to move it to a weekend where something wasn't going to kick its ass? A while back, Jeffrey mentioned July. Let's go week-by-week with problems: July 7: Dead Man's Box-Office. July 14: The second week of Dead Man's Box-Office along with a black-filmgoer split between that and Little Man. July 21: Crowded with three big-dollar projects already and Clerks II to split the hip-to-see-it crowd. July 28: There's only room for one R-rated movie on that weekend and it's Miami Vice. Aug. 4: Talladega Nights again splitting the hip-to-see-it crowd. Aug. 11: Well, you'd have bumped it up all of one week, and you'd be competing against "Pulse," another R-rated horror movie that seems to have settled there.

Which brings us back to Aug. 18, at which point you're going up against: A) Haylie and Hilary Duff in "Material Girls," which might as well be "New York Minute 2"; and B) "The Illusionist," an odd match of wide release and date if ever I've seen one. "SOAP" is going to own Aug. 18 and maybe even Aug. 25, too. College kids go back at that time, and it will kill with them. The only thing really in its way with that audience on Aug. 25 is "Beerfest," and I think promotions for that have kicked in far too late.

comment #11

Nick says ...

"That and Little Man" above meaning "SOAP and Little Man"

comment #12

Zac Bertschy says ...

I was under the impression that the only reason the film wasn't finished in June was because they decided to pull that design-by-internet-committee bullshit and include scenes and dialogue suggested by oh-so-hilarious internet hipsters.

comment #13

Nick says ...

As if other movies don't factor in audience suggestions and reactions from test screenings, whether it's for better or worse? Sure, they added in Samuel L.'s prized 12-letter moneymaker, but they also made it R-rated, which, if I'm going to see a movie about snakes declaring open season on people, is what I would expect. Set aside all those suggested changes - would you STILL have released it in June?

comment #14

Daniel Zelter says ...

I'm guessing critics would pan the film, just because Tarantino didn't "present" it.

comment #15

mike says ...

OR:

It's a deliberate plan to force critics to watch the film with the audiences intended for it. Possibly for a more favorable reaction then if they just saw it in a screening room.

That being said, the idea of running the negative ads in their campaign is genius!

comment #16

Nick says ...

Nine out of 10 movies I go to for critics' screenings aren't in a screening room. They're in a regular auditorium that's 80-percent people who've won free passes. The press gets a handful of rows, and that's it.

comment #17

thatmovieguy says ...

Absolutely right, Nick. And don't you love it when the publicists try to convince you that "you really have to see this movie with an audience to appreciate it." I remember someone telling me that prior to a full-audience screening of WILD WILD WEST a few years ago; at least in a screening room, critics would probably not have loudly booed the film or made loud, rude comments of the sort that came from the crowd I saw it with. And this SNAKES ON THE PLANE situation is just another scam. If New Line had the goods -- or if the studo really believed the film was "critic-proof" -- the movie would be shown in advance. After all, Sony showed LITTLE MAN and Fox showed THE OMEN and GARFIELD: A TALE OF TWO KITTIES. It will be interesting to see if New Line does a last-minute flip-flop like Universal did with SLITHER earlier this year.

comment #18

JESUS CHRIST says ...

GET THESE MOTHERFUCKING SNAKES OFF THIS MOTHERFUCKING PLANE!!!!!!!!!

comment #19

mike says ...

Yeah, but Slither was actually GOOD. (Well, it was entertaining as hell, and better than most films of this ilk). And a lot of people actually enjoyed it. Even Ebert, despite his 1 and a half star review. (It's a bizarre review). But those good notices didn't matter, and the film undeservedly tanked. I believe it only made slightly more than Basic Instinct 2 which opened the same day.

comment #20

thatmovieguy says ...

Absolutely right, Mike. SLITHER is actually in my Top Ten of the year so far, and everyone I nagged into going to see it came back saying they loved it. It was witty, well-written and hilariously gross; Universal completely dropped the ball on that one somehow, and New Line will be lucky if SNAKES is half as good. I will look up Ebert's review. One and a half stars for SLITHER and three stars for GARFIELD: A TALE OF TWO KITTIES and three and a half for THE LAKE HOUSE -- "bizarre" describes it pretty well.