I had wondered where all the reviews were.



But Haunting In Connecticut was fairly pants. Not even a vague sense of fear.



I wasn't bored though. Elias Koteas and Virginia Madsen are very watchable.

Much worse things that "Haunting in Connecticut" out?





Your joking it was one of the worse films i've ever seen.

I have to say i gave up on this kind of film a long time ago...

... Yet with an understanding into the 'many different kinds of horror'. I have my personal justification.

That being said there is not one reason i can think of that would leave me wanting to see this film. And i am absolutely positive that i will totally forget about it about a month after the DVD is released as it will no-doubt get a few posters set up in my local retailer.

There is horror, there is horror, and there is horror. And Haunting in Connecticut is neither of those three.

Just as i can say that there is music... and there is U2...

...none of those three

First of, thanks Mark for making me laugh - I'm in pain at the min and it's good to have some much-needed endorphins.



Back on topic, for me, it does sort of scare me when a film isn't screened for the cirtics, which leaves me going 'well, it's probably rubbish' like you said. Although not all will be, as some will be average, it does create a sense of fear about quality I can't help prevent myself from thinking 'wait to rent the DVD'.



I'm gonna admit, I'm not a big fan of horror, particularly the supernatural horror, as it gives me the scariest and most realistic nightmares ever(which I sometimes can't wake up from ...). But there seems to be alot of horror films around lately that don't even do what the genre expects them to do: which is scare.



For example, alot of bad reviews on IMDb for The Unborn.

I suspect they omit horror films from press screenings mainly because they assume that film critics are, for want of a better word, snobs, who will turn their Truffaut-spoiled noses up at such bawdy fare. In most cases they're probably right.

Mark, you've just made Me Julie jump.



Why?



With your description of this horror film? With your outline of the abysmal treatment you receive at the hands of bigoted distributers? No.



She was stood next to me in the kitchen whilst I was watching you on the PC, when you made her jump with the loud music at the end of the blog.



This is no surprise - the music is always louder than your voice on this blog.



SORT IT OUT!



Steve W

What a wonderful source the web is. I've been watching propaganda films from the war periods and have been enthralled by them ALL (obviously for different reasons).



I wondered if Mark would care to comment on the quality, influence and legacy of such films? (I don't believe he has mentioned them before)



As an historical exercise you learn alot from these movies. Even Chaplin got hired by the US to promote sells of Liberty Bonds for WWI!

Dude, where's the suit? /keanureevesoff

As usual nice and witty.



I'm sorry to say "most" horror movies are utter tosh though. I don't have a biased opinion of horror though (sorry everything else you don't but horror you do) so maybe I can see the wood from the trees.



For every "The Shining", "The Exorcist" and "Event Horizon" there are a dozen horror tripe films like "Texas Chainsaw Massacre (the remake)" and "Texas Chainsaw Massacre (the original)". I can act better than they do in that movie!

p.s - The title would have more effect, with a comma after the it:



"A film so scary they daren't even show it, to me..."

hey mark, unrelated to the topic, but you never answer my questions and i really want you to tell me how you feel about this.



okay, three films: inland empire, spider-man 3 and the dark knight. i love all three but in your reviews you loved inland empire, were so-so on the dark knight, and thought spidey 3 was a mess, and the dark knight and spidey 3 you criticised for being a bunch of set pieces. now, the same is absolutely and definately true about inland empire. now, is the rule that no-one is allowed to make films which don't string together except for david lynch (or possibly some other weirdo arthouse directors)? how do you know that spider-man 3 isn't a lynchian masterpiece disguised like a blockbuster?

Aah The Avengers. I hate to admit it but I saw The Avengers on the big screen. I was the only person in the screening, which is not surprising. But I am a huge Ralph Fiennes fan so, you know, I was giving Ralph my support. It was awful, but to get back to your previous topic, I still didn't walk out though!

According to meta critic this is one of the worst reviewed films of the year



Even Harry Knowles didn't like the film, and that guy loves everything



so even though I'm against distributors not showing the film to critics prior to release, its udnerstandable that they refused to show it to critics considering the stateside reviews



but i think there's something else going on here in this video post. I think Mark is just peeved that distributors are now doing Mark's job for him. people should now know that the worst review a film can get is simply by not showing it to critics. Mark is just being his contrary self.



Your conviction in often going against the critical consensus is defintely one your qualities as a critic, but sometimes it comes off as plain contrariness



You were right about Mamma Mia, but I've a hard time believing that either this film or Rock the Boat are worth seeing

There is... one other possibility, Mark. And I daren't whisper it too loudly in case Kim Newman or Peter Bradshaw hears.



They - don't - need - you anymore.



There was a time when I genuinely believe they did, and I imagine so did the public to an extent. But the film critics era is dying because much of the film industry has changed from an ideas machine, to a theme park attraction style model. And then there's the fact that we can see the film ages before you do, so there's less need for the opinionated middle man, as mass advertising and piracy have became king.



I guess this is probably best exemplified in the way the Bollywood distributors have treated film critics here, like a minor little fly merely to be gestured away. I mean when is the last time any of Indian mainstream cinema releases were press screened for you.



It's a shame really, because there is a place for film criticism as part of a balanced cinema diet. We the people want to eat films that taste nice, and you the critics want us to eat films that are good for us. Between the two of us there's room for both schools of thought - and films like The Dark Knight and The Bourne Supremacy - i.e., the smart blockbuster - are making it very easy to satisfy both at once.

lol You're right. Even quite poor horror films can be entertaining. 'The Grudge' scared the wits out of me, mainly because I'm pretty sure my sister used to make that throaty noise to scare me when I was little. And it's not as if all that many films of any genre get great reviews these days. I reckon most cinema-goers just look at a synopsis of a film to see if they fancy it. Anyway, present company excepted I've stopped trusting other reviewers ever since I went to what was apparently 'the greatest action epic of all time' (according to Tookey at the Daily Mail) but was in fact a steaming pile of ordure, considerable worse than 'Knowing', which is also fairly bad (I laughed at the end). I agree with your review of 'Two Lovers' by the way too. I was distracted for the first forty minutes or so by trying to figure out whether I was watching a man on the verge of a nervous breakdown or not given his recent antics and I reckon he might be after watching that heavy, heavy performance. I also thought being visually happy-slapped by some Paltrow nudity was a bit uncalled for too...

the concise statement - i think you've hit the nail on the head. This video post by Dr. K is part of a broader debate that's been going on for over two years now. Do critics matter anymore? I think they're an essential part of cinematic culture and often enrich the cinema going experience. Critical previews are a healthy tradition.



However a lot of people (including my girlfriend) pay no attention to reviews or critics whatsoever. A lot of people will go and see something simply because one of their friends reccommended a film, or they liked the trailer, or they like the movie star or maybe they just feel like eating some popcorn in a darkened room for a couple of hours. All of those reasons are just as valid and in some ways reveal a less arbritrary love for the cinema going experience.



I think its important to keep a healthy balance. Only going to critically acclaimed films cannot be good for the soul. That's why I'm looking forward to Fast & Furious, whatever the reviews are like.

First off, there are critics and there are critics. I personally feel no-one should get to review films for a living unless they can demonstrate knowledge of at least 4,000 titles across all decades and genres, thus avoiding meaningless quotes on posters from people who know absolutely nothing (Knocked Up may be the funniest thing you've ever seen, but that's no yardstick if you've only ever seen nine films in your entire life).



Secondly there are those inexplicable moments when the critics flock en masse to lousy movies (The Piano, The Big Lebowski) and run screaming from much more interesting ones (Hudson Hawk).

It would be interesting to get feedback - including the good doctor's - on the recent firing of the film critic who'd posted a review of the web-leaked Wolverine. Wonder if the content was mostly positve or negative?



I'm not a fan of the X- Men series. However, there is obviously an adequately sizeable army of followers who will flock to the cinema, buy the DVD, merchandise etc.Despite the studio hoopla, they will still make a ton of money out of it.



The studios are fighting a losing battle with spoiler elements of their franchises popping up online, prior to official releases. A gargantuan amount of spoiler stuff on the genius Dark Knight appeared weeks, even months, before it came out. I still saw it 3 times at the cinema, and it was an absolute box office phenomenon. I was just annoyed that it didn't beat the God-awful Titanic.



Of course film critics are important. They are just as integral to the history of film production as screenwriters, producers, directors, editors and so on. Imagine dissertations, books, journals and magazines being written on film...without the archived work of critics. Celluloid projects have been green lit or scrapped because of them.



The sign of a strong critic is a strong opinion. One which is not just guided by information and conventional wisdom. I don't pay any attention to 'critics' that clearly have no strong opinion, in conjunction with poor knowledge of film history.



In the final analysis BBC,Dr.K should be the host of Film 2009.