KEVIN SMITH SHAKES UP SUNDANCE... Celebrates Punk Distribution, Critics Worried About Being Called "the Man."

This week at the Sundance Film Festival, director Kevin Smith premiered his new film RED STATE, made an audacious move to self-distribute the film, defied studios to look at how they market films, created a huge controversy with internet reporters and announced his retirement from filmmaking. All this and it's only Monday. What did you do this week?

The whole thing started innocently enough, with Kevin Smith unveiling his latest film, RED STATE. The film is a huge departure from the comedies Smith has become known for. Reportedly not fitting neatly into any category, Smith recently told the Nerdist, "I've just been calling it a horror movie." If early word is any indicator, it might not be fair to lump it into one genre.

Years in the making, it was turned down by longtime Smith partners Bob and Harvey Weinstein. Smith had tried numerous avenues to get the low-budget film made, including soliciting fans for the means in which to complete the film. The film complete, Smith went to his immense SModcast network of podcasts to promote the film. There are seven podcasts on the network, all of whom are among the most listened to on the net. Smith himself takes part in most of them. He had been stoking the fires early for RED STATE, even offering a "class" and interview series leading up to the film's premiere called, Red State of the Union.

Then came the premiere and the sad announcement that it would be picketed by the Westboro Baptist Church. This is the subhuman group not opposed to picketing the funerals of murdered children, celebrating death and destruction as proof of God's divine wrath against a society tolerant of homosexuals. They also weren't above picketing a tiny little movie at an indie film festival. Face it, folks. The Westboro people are in it for the media attention. Smith had a war of words on Twitter with Phelps family members, and early word said that some of RED STATE's characters may be based on the group. Hilariously, a counter demonstration broke out which not only vastly outnumbered the WBC, but made them truly look like the fools they are.

Then came the big event. Kevin Smith unveiled RED STATE. Reviews were mixed, and from the sounds of things it might take some time for the public to see where Smith is going here. Still, there were plenty of interested parties. Smith announced that there would be an auction after the film. Studio reps showed up, since Smith said "I will pick the distributor in the room."

Then, the move that everybody is talking about. Just as things were getting started, Smith preempted everything and sold the movie for $20.... to himself. Smith then announced that he would self-distribute the film, taking it on a roadshow tour, complete with director Q & A sessions, bringing it right to his loyal audiences who would probably be the ones to run out and see it right away anyway.

That is just so punk.

Some people were furious and have been very vocal about it. In his scathing review of both the film and the event, Drew McWeeny said bluntly, "Kevin Smith, you are a liar." And then there are publications like Vanity Fair, which are wondering if this might just be the signal of something new in independent film. Internet chatter has been all over the place since Smith made his announcement. Surely he expected some reaction, but I'm not sure he expected it to explode like it has. Commentators left and right have been calling Smith everything from a visionary to a charlatan.

Smith had reportedly grown weary with the Hollywood machine and the huge amount of money required to publicize and release the film. He also didn't like the idea of the filmmaker being taken out of the equation once it comes to selling a film to the public. "For me, the idea of giving somebody else five times the amount of the budget for the movie that we all collectively made, worked our asses off real hard, to sell the thing just seems obscene," Smith said.

This opinion is reiterated on the RED STATE website in a brief posting that reads like a manifesto. "We believe the state of film marketing has become ridiculously expensive and exclusionary to the average filmmaker longing simply to tell their story," the statement reads. "When the costs of marketing and releasing a movie are four times that film's budget, it's apparent the traditional distribution mechanism is woefully out of touch with not only the current global economy, but also the age of social media."

RED STATE already has dates lined up as tickets go on sale for advance screenings. Smith will host "one night only" screenings at huge venues. A Q & A session with Smith and awesome actor Michael Parks will follow each screening. Prices will naturally be much higher than your standard movie ticket. The first of these screenings will be at Radio City Musical Hall. From there, it will move onto at least a dozen other venues. If you live somewhere that might make getting to one of these roadshows difficult, never fear. This model is only designed to recoup costs and pay back investors. RED STATE will have a wider release on Oct. 17, 17 years to the day Smith's first film CLERKS was released.

Smith's model is actually nothing new. As he has acknowledged, the age of 3,000 screen releases that only last a few weeks in theaters is still relatively new. In the decades before the internet, home video or cable television, movies opened on far fewer screens, sometimes only one, and toured the country a bit before calling it a day. Smith's process is similar to an old practice called "four walling," a process by which the filmmaker releases their own film. It has been used by some religious filmmakers as well as exploitation gurus of years past. Kroger Babb famously toured his film MOM AND DAD everywhere, a fake doctor substituting for the more reputable Smith and Parks.

"This is Indie Film 2.0," Smith said during his rant. "It's not enough to just make the movie. We have to learn how to release the movie. Because true independence isn't making a film and selling it to some jackass. True independence is schlepping that shit to the people, which is what I intend to do."

Not every filmmaker, especially those starting out, could afford to do what Smith is doing. Smith does however have a built in cult following and a ready-made publicity machine with his SModcast network. If nothing else, this shows that there is more than one way to do things. Other filmmakers, who might feel that the current method of doing things is outdated, might want to take a look at what Smith is doing. After all, if there is more than one way to get a film out to audiences, there is certainly more than two.

That is something that is reiterated in the Harvey Boys manifesto. "It is our intent to use the groundwork we lay with RED STATE to aid other filmmakers in releasing their films, via our new launched SModcast Pictures," the posting read. "Don't hate the studio; BECOME the studio. Anybody can make a movie; what we aim to prove is anyone can release a movie as well."

Kevin Smith has shaken things up and forced filmmakers to take a look at new ways of doing things. And that's always exciting.

As if all of this weren't enough, Kevin Smith also announced his retirement from filmmaking. For months, he has been hinting at this development in his podcasts. "After this, I think I have one more film left in me and then I'm done," he told the Nerdist. That film is another comedy, the hockey-themed HURT SOMEBODY, to be made next year. So, this announcement was sort of expected. Still, to hear it formally announced at Sundance is a major disappointment.

Personally, I've enjoyed all of Smith's films to varying degrees. Some I naturally love more than others. But I am very excited to see RED STATE, because I believe Smith is at his most interesting when he defies expectations. Smith took his brand of comedy and inserted it into a tender and unconventional love story, coming up with the incredible CHASING AMY. He used old school zany humor to skewer religious stereotyping in DOGMA. I was personally a big fan of the film he did a few years ago, ZACK AND MIRI MAKE A PORNO. So now that he is truly going out on a limb like no other filmmaker with his reputation, it would be a shame if this were an end to what he has to offer. I personally hope he discovers more stories he wants to tell.

Is RED STATE a successful film? I don't know. Like much of the country, I have not yet seen it and so I cannot comment. It will however be an interesting film, just like it is interesting to see any talented filmmaker venture out of their comfort zone and deliver something new. That is something that doesn't only cover the making of RED STATE, but the release as well. Maybe it will be a success, maybe not. But Smith has already struck a resounding blow to independent filmmaking. Just like 17 years ago, when Smith first burst onto the scene.... at Sundance.

THE RAZZIES... Bitter Hipsters Page Through Gossip Rags, Make Catty Comments, Call Themselves Critics

Are the terms, "R. Patz," "Brangelina," or "JWoww" part of your everyday vocabulary? Congratulations then on your annual awards show.

Every year, just before the announcement of the Oscar nominations, the Razzies beat them to the punch. These are of course the anti-Oscars. These are the awards that celebrate and/or roast the very worst cinema had to offer over the previous year. A cathartic blow to the filmgoers and cinema lovers who were duped into buying a ticket for cinema excess.

At least, that's what it should be.

But such is not the case. For most of it's long life, the Razzies has instead been the "tool cool for school" people, eating Bon-Bons, paging through their latest gossip mags and making catty comments. Ever see someone get drunk on daquiris and make superficial comments to reruns of SEX AND THE CITY? That's the Razzies' Board of Directors.

According to the ever-reliable Wikipedia - and really, why would they lie? - the Razzies are voted on by "650 journalists, cinema fans and professionals from the film industry." Instead, the Razzie noms often read like they were voted on by gossip columnists, ironic hipsters and put-upon assistants with an ax to grind. Their choices often read like blurbs found in People Weekly or the National Enquirer. You can practically hear the hissing.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge celebrator of bad movies. And the whole point of this site is celebrating the good and holding the mediocre to task. However, the Razzies often seem to never have much to do with actual filmmaking and have more to do with sniping at whatever is popular at the moment.

Such is the case with the latest Razzies. Some of their selections are impossible to argue with. LAST AIRBENDER, BOUNTY HUNTER, VAMPIRES SUCK? Oh yes, those were horrible movies no doubt about it. But the film that seems to be leading with the most nominations is THE TWILIGHT SAGA: ECLIPSE. Now, don't get worked up. I didn't think this was a great film. I also didn't think it was terrible. But really, the only critics that are considering it one of the absolute worst of the year are among genre sites, like the one I used to write for. Otherwise, there are plenty of TWILIGHT detractors out there. From people who are genuinely upset with the defanged vampires in Stephanie Myers' universe, to guys who think making near-homophobic comments about the series is an easy target, to the hipsters that sneer and pop culture. That last one is the Razzies audience, in case you haven't been paying attention.

ECLIPSE's reviews were not stellar. But currently sitting at 50 percent on Rotten Tomatoes and a 58 on MetaCritic points to the very definition of mixed. It would be one thing if this was one or two people's opinion. But the Razzies are supposed to be a consensus of several hundred reputable people. Sorry, but no one else is saying that David Slade's direction was horrible. No one save for the Razzies, who nominated Slade (who also directed HARD CANDY and 30 DAYS OF NIGHT) as Worst Director, suggesting they don't understand or care what it is that a director does.

But enough of that. Even more suspect is their insistence on not judging films individually. No, the Razzies judge the complete career output by an actor or director over the course of a year. This in my opinion completely negates any ability to take this group seriously. It states flat out that all the films on the list are equal and all the finished product from an actor, actress or director is equal.

One of the actresses they love to pick on is Jessica Alba. True, few actresses manage to be this beautiful and pick such awful projects. But this means that she was also nominated for her role in THE KILLER INSIDE ME. Not too many people saw that film. But it did make a definite impact with those that did. It was on quite a few Ten Best lists from 2010. Those who did not like it often agreed that the film was well acted and perhaps even technically well made. Few would call it among the worst of the year. But there it is. That'll teach Alba for co-starring with Dane Cook three years ago.

Another punching bag for the Razzies is Sylvester Stallone. They even named him Worst Actor of the Century back in 2000. Because they could not let a year go by without getting a dig in, they nominated him for Worst Director for THE EXPENDABLES. Okay, you don't like him. But the worst? Honestly guys, it's getting old. Stallone has been nominated more than any other person in Razziedom. Before, it may have made sense to hold him accountable for the admittedly questionable films he had done in the past, but THE EXPENDABLES? Again, not one of the best remembered films of the year, but not one of the worst either. It just reeks of bitterness.

People can vote on the Razzies by signing up at their website, which makes them roughly as reputable as the Talk Backers on Aint It Cool News. And maybe that is the fate of the Talk Backers. Twenty years down the road, look for the 2031 Razzie nominations. Then find the nomination for some guy who was once in a George Lucas property. And know that they're not nominated for the merits of their work or lack thereof, but because Han totally shot first.

WHO AM I AND WHAT AM I DOING HERE?

Hello, name's Scott Davis. Pleased to meet you.

Some of you may or may not know me from the various blogs, websites and podcasts that I've taken part in the past. Most recently, I have been co-host of the podcast Film Geek Central with the truly awesome Austin Kennedy. We're on extended hiatus right now, returning in some form or another on a date to be determined. You can still check out the old episodes though, and I recommend you do. Start from the end and go back though. Some of those early ones? Woof.

Before that, I had a blog on exploitation cinema, my first love. Adventure Without Shame is the name and honestly, I didn't do much with it. I hope and expect that to change very soon. AWS should exist beside this blog in posting whatever tickles my fancy. But as you will see, the focus of each blog will be entirely different. I also used to be editor of the website Horror Express. The website is still there and they still do wonderful work, even if I am not directly involved with them anymore. I also was a contributing writer to CultCuts.

The purpose of Moviocrity is simple - anything in mainstream cinema that I find interesting will be commented on here. This includes reviews and also news from the world of film. This is where the two blogs come into play. If I want to talk about a great B-movie that you just have to see, that's Adventure Without Shame. If I want to talk about the latest high-profile film and how they are either succeeding or screwing it up, that's Moviocrity.

And the title (suggested by dear friend Kevin Wetzler) is appropriate too. My Film Geek Central co-host said it best, "I would much rather see a bad movie than a mediocre one." He's right. We have all seen our share of bad films. But the ones that most grind my gears tend to be movies that just go through the motions. These are the films you see and quickly forget about. These films figure out a formula, stick to that formula unwaveringly and never attempt to do anything more. These are not the films that are complete successes. These are the films which on any level can at best be described as passable. These films hold their audience in contempt. And it's time that we didn't stand for it.

So that's Moviocrity. From time to time, I will comment on what is going on. I don't know how often this site will be updated. I have a lot on my plate right now. But I would not start this thing unless I had something to say. Working within the system, enjoying cinema but also not standing for the mediocre. We're not trying to destroy Hollywood, we're just trying to keep them honest.