Studios Feel Critics’ Sting at Box Office

Conventional film industry wisdom has it that heavily marketed summer blockbusters are critic-proof. But as has been demonstrated this summer with “Godzilla,” “Armageddon” and perhaps “Lethal Weapon 4,” when it comes to attracting more than the core audience, critics inflict some damage.

If not quite the revenge of the critics, the summer of ’98 has shown that even the most hyped movies are vulnerable to critical backlash.

To some, this represents a change of attitude on the part of critics. For the last few summers, reviewers, “rather than admit their alienation and irrelevance to these big entertainment films, have sometimes bought into the excitement,” admits Michael Sragow, critic for the alternative publications San Francisco Weekly and New Times.

The largely benign critical assessments of films like “Independence Day,” “Mission: Impossible,” “Con Air” and “The Lost World: Jurassic Park” demonstrated reviewers’ rollover attitude when gauging the public’s appetite for pure popcorn fare. And as Sragow points out, even die-hard critics are movie fans who can, on occasion, succumb to junk-food fare.

But even junk food has to provide something to chew on. The first sign of critical revolt came with last summer’s “Batman & Robin.” Critics hadn’t much cared for its predecessor, “Batman Forever,” but the antics of Jim Carrey as the Riddler were enough of a distraction for the film to get by with only a slap on the wrist from reviewers.

By contrast, “Batman & Robin” brought down scorn in heaping handfuls. Loyal fans still showed up, but they weren’t enough to make the expensive (reportedly more than $150 million) fourth installment a hit.

With “Godzilla,” “Armageddon” and “Lethal Weapon 4,” the kid gloves really came off. Ignoring “Godzilla’s” origins as high camp, Sony Pictures sold it as a scary monster movie. But “Godzilla” didn’t deliver on that level either, an open invitation for reviewers’ wrath.

The notices were so damning that “Godzilla” quickly moved from event to national joke. On “Armageddon” normally diplomatic reviewers like the New York Times’ Janet Maslin came at the film with a rare fury. Los Angeles Times critic Kenneth Turan and Variety’s Todd McCarthy were similarly severe. (For the record, Turan says he was even less kind to “Independence Day.”) Even the usually sober National Public Radio got some mileage out of the nasty barbs, running stinging excerpts from the worst “Armageddon” notices from around the country on the film’s opening.

Newsday critic Jack Matthews--whose reviews sometimes run in the Los Angeles Times--says that “at least ‘Independence Day’ had those three or four big scenes where New York and D.C. are blown up and you could get wired on the special effects.” But “Godzilla” and “Armageddon” “were just more of the same,” he adds, devoid of any freshness or inventiveness in its characters or storytelling technique.

“Lethal Weapon 4” was greeted with critical cynicism at the obvious creation of a movie for no other reason than to get further mileage out of an already tired franchise.

Some would say the studios have only themselves to blame. High concept is no longer regarded as anathema to critics, but when Disney admitted to the Wall Street Journal that “Armageddon” was born as a title before there was a story attached to it, the studio was giving license to critics to vilify the film.

By spending upward of $30 million to open blockbuster films with a blitz of TV ads and every promotional tie-in at their disposal, the studios have attempted to neuter any negative critical appraisal. But Warner Bros.’ former marketing head, Chris Pula, warns that the studios could be ignoring reviews at their own peril.

With so many major films opening so close together, “consumers haven’t caught up with last week’s four or five films, much less the ones that are opening this weekend,” Pula says. In making their moviegoing decisions, they may at least glance at a review before making their final choice, he notes.

That has little effect on the core audience of teen males for these films. And in summer, that’s nearly enough to carry all these films well into the $100-million-plus territory.

But all three films represent $200-million investments, which means they need to tap other segments of the audience, especially females and older adults. That’s where critics can help or hurt. Even studio executives agree that perhaps because they’ve been burned in the past, these groups now consult reviews even for thrill-ride movies. Mixed or indifferent reviews may not be enough to keep them away from a film like “Independence Day.” But if they’re fence-sitting on whether to see “Godzilla” or “Armageddon” a bad review can steer them in the direction of better-received films like “The Truman Show.”

As Turan and Matthews point out, this summer has offered more than its share of viable alternatives for adults and females, including “The Truman Show,” “Out of Sight” and “The Horse Whisperer.”

Studio marketing and distribution executives admit that it’s easier to attract younger patrons to an older-skewing film such as “Truman” than to go in the opposite direction with films like “Lost in Space” or “Armageddon.” And reviews definitely play some part in that.

“In a way, critics are actually reflecting popular sentiment, not leading it,” Pula says. “The consumer has become unusually adept at the machinations of the movie business. Marketing and casting decisions, film reshoots and on-the-set feuds have become a form of entertainment unto themselves via multiple infotainment TV programs, entertainment magazines and Web sites. The awareness extends way beyond the city slickers in New York and Los Angeles.”

And when a film is overly hyped and expensively marketed, no matter how creatively, the public hears the real message behind the sound and the fury: “When you scream that loud, it sounds like you’re overcompensating for something,” Pula says.