On Monday night on Radio 5 film critic Siobhan Fallon mentioned that she hadn’t yet seen Baz Luhrmann’s The Great Gatsby she suggested that meant there was a nervousness from Warner Bros worried about the critical response the film would receive. Similarly in the US where the film had its premiere on May 2nd there was a review embargo until May 5th when they came out they were mixed. But those reviews didn’t stop it from taking over $50 million over its opening weekend in the US.

I think distributors believe that critics have a lot of power in the way the public decide what films to see and the critics themselves believe that they play a vital part of the of the business.

But do reviews really matter do people chose one film over another because one critic gave one film four stars and the other two?

That doesn’t happen as you can look at how many poorly reviewed films become massive hits and some of the best reviewed films fail at the box office.

So why do distributors care so much about the critics?  They fed them invite them to screening in plush private cinemas in Soho and often fly them across the world to junkets on film sets but none of that will promise the distributor a good review.  Over 30 years ago the film companies would treat  film critics like royalty offering them silver service dinning before screenings and a full bar.  Now it’s “only” tea or coffee, croissants and Danishes for morning screenings and the sandwiches with wine or beer for lunchtime or evening screenings in the preview theatres in Soho.

There are obviously some films that need reviews to bring in the audience that wouldn’t otherwise see the film.  The success of The Life of Pi a art house movie that crossed over to become a major mainstream success was in part thanks to critical response but also I’m sure down to the social media campaign Fox did around the film asking the audience to tweet their reviews.

Iron Man 3 and Star Trek Into Darkness both received great reviews from critics would they of opened as successfully has the critics not liked them?  I’m sure they would of done.

But distributors are still very scared of what the critics say if the studio decides not to screen a film to them there is always a major outcry. The biggest was when Warner didn’t screen The Avengers in 1998 the critics made a point to pay to see it and all made a bigger deal of it than it would of got had it been screened. Had Warner’s screened the film it wouldn’t of changed that the film was a flop

Was it was done on purpose to build up media attention in the hope that that negativity would cross over into bums on seats? It got the critics paying to see it

What is the point of distributors screening films to critics that they know will get negative response from critics?

As the lines outside Vue Leicester. Sq yesterday for the Great Gatsby shows the people will go to see films they want to see no matter what the critics say.