Scream 4: The Rules

So, after one false start on Tuesday, I finally saw the new Scream film last night. On Tuesday, there was a fire alarm at the Soho Hotel, where it was screening, and the assembled critics were told that the fire had been in the projection room, so it was cancelled. This was a pity, because a) the film distributor, Entertainment, are known for not always tripping over themselves to lay on advance press screenings, and b) we’d all signed our forms. These are not unheard of, especially in the age of digital media, but most film companies have dispensed with them, and critics are trusted not to be silly.

CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT

You are about to view the film “SCREAM 4.” In doing so, you acknowledge that this film is property of Dimension Films and as such: (i) you agree to be bound by an obligation to keep certain contents of the film strictly confidential and you will not disclose such contents to anyone, including but not limited to the press, the media and the general public or write about it in a blog, on Twitter, Facebook, etc. These contents include the ending of the film, kill scenes and who remains alive in the film; (ii) you will make no video copies nor take any photos of the film.

REVIEW EMBARGO

By signing this document I hereby confirm my understanding that all reviews (including any article or review containing my personal opinion of the film) of SCRE4M (aka Scream 4) are embargoed in all forms (including newspapers or magazines, broadcast outlets such as TV or radio or digital platforms such as websites, blogs and social networking sites including such as twitter and Facebook etc) until 5pm, Wednesday 13th April unless otherwise agreed in writing in advance with Entertainment Film Distributors.

Hey … that’s yesterday. I’d better get on with reviewing it. (I’ll give you a precis: Scream 4 is pointless.)

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “Scream 4: The Rules

  1. I’ve always wondered why film companies even bother inviting certian journalists who if they did there research they would never are never going to like a film like this.

    Do they have to invite everyone or can’t they not just be selective and invite..I don/t know say The Sun, Heat type journos to these screenings?

    Sure they would get slated far less.

  2. I’ve always wondered why film companies even bother inviting certian journalists who if they did there research they would never are never going to like a film like this.

    Do they have to invite everyone or can’t they not just be selective and invite..I don/t know say The Sun, Heat type journos to these screenings?

    Sure they would get slated far less.

    • The film companies don’t invite “certain journalists”, they invite publications and other outlets. They do not choose which reviewer reviews their films. Most publications, given the choice, would send a reviewer who is interested in the film, or the genre, unless they are a publication with a “star” critic who reviews everything. I volunteered to review this film for Radio Times as I like horror and loved Scream. Film companies don’t have time to “research” journalists. Their job is to get the film written about or talked about in the media. They cannot control what is written, but they can insist that certain plot points aren’t revealed (something anyone with half a brain wouldn’t do anyway). If they just invited the Sun and Heat, that would look like they were trying to control the media, which wouldn’t look very good at all.

      • Surely better to look like they are controlling the media (and which movie goer is going to critically assess all the poster quotes and work out that manipulation may have taken place) then invite a bunch of “discerning” journos to give it a critical panning.

        TBH when a film goes beyond the trilogy it probably is not worth seeing anyway, reviews or not, but that is an argument for another time.

  3. Oh I’m sure about the trilogy rule at all. Rocky? Star Trek (well ok I might give you that one), Star Wars (hmm…) oh..wait! Resident Evil silly but great all the way through and I still think that Die Hard 4 was better than 3 )..also I’d say Nightmare on Elm street 4 was better than 3 or 2 but that film should have stayed at 1 to begin with.

Do leave a reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s