I really appreciate it when a critic does review the smaller, less publicized movies coming out of festivals. Going one further, I appreciate it when a critic will find a 'gem' from one of these fests and do their level best to get this movie some deserved recognition. I know that this might be rather tiresome when this 'gem' becomes the darling of the festival and everyone is falling over themselves to announce it's greatness, but still… a lot of people read this site and maybe a couple others for reviews, and certain voices here are respected and paid attention to.

Please keep reviewing festival movies.

I care. I will probably end up going to see the Wackness as soon as it comes out due to your review. And a surprising amount of the really obscure festival films will make it to theaters in major cities, or barring that, DVD. I always check festival reviews on sites like Chud and AintItCool (I even contributed about 13 of my own reviews for the last VIFF to AICN) and if the films sound intriguing I add them to my My Movies on IMDB. That way I won't forget that I was at some point interested in them, even if they don't end up being released for years. I find festival reviews way more valuable than reviews of current releases and DVD releases. If a film is already out and I can go see it straight away, why am I bothering to read reviews? I'll just go see it. Whereas if I see a positive review of a movie I've never heard of then I'll probably want to read the whole thing and then determine if it's something I want to look out for.

I care nothing if you are the one writing them, Devin.

I think if the movie is special it should really get reviewed. the fact that a lot of these movies never get distributed and are not advertised they can become unknown to a lot of us so it's kind of like your review becomes my advertisement to let me know hey this film is special or important and I need to find a way to see it. so yeah I think it's important.

I'm all for them. I read all of the trades' coverage. These smaller films serve as a beacon. The actors in them might be seen by a casting director on a larger film. The makers of these films might wind up getting more money next time. Things might happen. Even if not, it's a chance to learn about the state of indie cinema.

I find them very interesting.

Without these reviews, I wouldn't know whether or not something is worth tracking down, whether it's a small movie or one that has larger distribution. I always make it a point to check what were the reactions at SXSW, Berlinale, Guadalajara, Cannes, Tribeca, Venice, Sundance, etc., etc. So many movies fall by the wayside and disappear. Reviews make all the difference in the world. So. Speaking for myself, I care a lot.

I don't care at all about festival reviews.

I owe Boaz Yakin another chance because of FRESH. (It's hard to forgive UPTOWN GIRLS/REMEMBER THE TITANS though) As for the festival question, it depends on the writer really. if you or Beaks talk /write up about a little movie that moved, enthralled, or angered you, we'd be stupid to ignore it. Will you be engaged in discussion on said movies? I don't know. I'm a little disheartened by the new generation of CHUD geeks.

I'm for them. A lot.

If you could find a format of review that could cover all the films you saw on one page with a picture and a paragraph or two for each one it would at least be lean and mean. Add some extra commentary points about the politics of the festival itself – the placement of films – what's getting all the support and why – what's getting the 3am screening in the shittiest cinema and does it deserve it. The festival and it's films are like symbiotic organisms and you probably need to treat them as such in the framework of a review. If a film manages to break off from the host and thrive in the real world, then you can bother with a meatier article upon wide release. You've struck on a good marking system there – how good a film is balanced against how many people will actually ever see it.

SclCurious has it.

Quick hits on what you saw, and impressions on the fest as a whole.

And you know, some of these flicks live and die on reviews from internet sites. Not just as a reader, but as someone who likes to see the American film scene vibrant, varied, and interesting, these flicks need press.

Russ' Toronto Coverage is one of my favorite yearly features on CHUD. There might not be a lot of potential discussion about those movies, but it's rewarding when I remember an upcoming movie from one of Russ' reviews. It gives you an extra inside scoop into the film industry, which seems like the point of following a film site anyway. We learn by proxy.

I enjoy the festival reviews–the number of reviews can be overwhelming, so I tend to skim until I find something that sounds real interesting.

Think of 'Primer'–one of my favorite movies, which would've never gotten noticed w/out positive reviews coming out of Sundance. If not for the praises of the online community, would it ever have gotten a DVD release, much less a ltd. theatrical run? Don't think so.

Something I've noticed in your recent columns, Devin–I think having access to so many movies, for free, might be affecting your judgement. Better music critics have spoke on this for years–that the more free music a critic is exposed to, the more her standards change. A good song is no longer enough–it must also be challenging, in order to warrant repeat listens.

You're columns, recently, reflect this shift in you're perspective…the DVD post, about how you no longer feel the desire to rewatch good movies, for example. Do you feel your opinions on movies are now biased due to the sheer volume of films you take in (a volume no chud reader can match?)? I think it has.

However, I also think your recent posts, and your honesty on the subject, may reflect your self-awareness on the subject. And I applaud your honesty.

So please remember that, for those of us who pay for every movie we see, the more reviews the better.

I may only see one or two of the quality movies that played at Sundance and SXSW this year, but those movies may change my ways of looking. They may become movies I watch over and over again, movies that mean quite a lot to me.

If you guys stop paying attention to a certain set of movies, it will be a great disservice to the rest of us.

Russ' are always must-reads.

Festival reviews can be overwhelming if you don't know anything about the film before hand. There will be all these films and as a reader, I only really want to know about the ones the reviewer really thinks I should know about. A lot of titles that may never mean anything to me, you might as well fabricate a movie yourself and write about it for just the purpose of writing it.

Festival reviews are my personal favorite. I really appreciate the chance to read reviews of films that most people haven't even heard of yet.

After catching a free screening of The Wackness at SXSW and being massively bored and disappointed, I won't trust festival reviews anymore.

For me it still comes down to the person writing the reviews. Sure I won't have an opportunity to see The Wackness anytime soon, but at least I know that it exists and to keep and eye out for it. If a critic I follow loves a movie, I will try to check it out, whether or not I read their review the day the movie was released or a year before it was released.

I really appreciate the reviews from the festivals. Even if the films don't come out to the theaters they'll eventually come to video and I'll be able to check them out then.

I hate all reviews.

Festival reviews play a part in ensuring that a film at least makes it to DVD. It may not help widen a film's theatrical distribution but it does add to the general level of interest a film acrues and thus impacts the DVD release.

Unrelated to the topic… if someone hates Devin Faraci… who is to me representative of the essence of what CHUD.com IS… why in the fuck would they come to CHUD at all. If reading the site pisses you off they why waste your fucking time? If your time is so worthless that you can spend it commenting on everything writers that you supposedly hate are writing then you are a very sad fuck indeed and the world would probably be better off if you gave a passionate blowjob to a 12 gauge. Its fucking ridiculous how many useless people there are in the world.

If you don't like Phil or Devin or anyone else at CHUD there are a million other movie sites to go to. Of course you probably go to those as well and shit on the people who write on those sites as well… dumb fuckstick that you probably are.

Translation: I got my way paid to go to Sundance but now I actually have to do some work and that really bums me out. What I'd really rather do is drink myself to a stupor and pretend like I'm still in my 20s when it was kinda cute that I didn't have a girlfriend or a car.

I know I shouldn't engage the trolls, but I paid my own way to Sundance. Airplane, cabs, housing, food, new winter clothes… all of it out of my own pocket.

I would like to say that I care, but, honestly, if I'm never going to see the movie anyway, I don't. I've been to a few SXSWs in the past and found some real gems (Man of the Century), but to be brutally honest, I probably wouldn't go out of my way to find a lot of these small films. HOWEVER, I will say that without the reviews there are a few goodies I would have missed, and I think they are important to the filmmaker as they may help him or her realize where the strengths and weaknesses are. As someone looking to make films (and who isn't nowadays…), I would approach submitting a film to SXSW with the approach of getting an audience's reaction. Distribution would be great, but let's face it, first films usually aren't solid gold, but to submit it and find out what people say, and what WORTHY critics have to say, that would mean a great deal and help me with future projects. But to me as non film making web-site reader, unfortunately I would have to say the reviews of movies I'll never, ever see don't really matter.

i like the reviews, however, truthfully, i get preoccupied with the fanboy stuff on the site more then anything else, i tend to read reviews for fest films at other sites more geared toward indie cinema, i know that sounds closed minded, but i read certain sites for specific reasons, i read chud for the movie news, and devin's editorials, not really for the indie/foreign darlings, or smaller works, i leave that up to greencine daily, nerve, rouge, and select blogs, no hard feeling's chud crew.

I like festival reviews because they exist before the marketing campaigns and all the other studio-invented devices created for the sole purpose of selling the film.

I appreciate when you do and wish that you would continue covering smaller films and true indies. That's where I look for challenging, unique voices in cinema and a break from the norm. And your site has always gotten me to check out things I never would have seen/heard of before, and I greatly appreciate that. I know it's a big task and a lot of time and hard work. I know it personally too. I was out at Sundance this year, and tried to contact you to meet up and talk about my own first-feature "schism". A true indie. A film made from my heart that tackles a very serious subject directly. We're struggling right now to get anyone to look at it because it doesn't have big stars in it, and a big studio behind it. So if sites like yours stop covering independent movies, REAL independent movies then, yeah, that really sucks. For me. And for a lot of other filmmakers out their busting their asses for their art. Keep doing what you do. Cover good movies, no matter the budget. Good movies.
-John
http://www.youtube.com/schismmovie

It's so important. Even if you reach a few, this is really the only way to get information out on true indie films. If it were not for film reviewers from print and the internet I would have never seen great indies like "George Washington" or small foreign films like "Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter… and Spring". Documentaries like "Hope Dreams" or "King of Kong" would have never become favorites. So often it is buzz that pulls people toward the art-house theaters to see these films, and it almost always starts at the festivals. Hell, even bad buzz helps indies to an extent (see "Brown Bunny"). So, yeah, it is important, and greatly appreciated.

I rarely read them.
They are too far away in time, and usually some indie drama nonsense with a forgettable title. Tell me about an upcoming western or a GOOD horror film and I will read it, but then only sometimes.

Truth be told, I don't really follow the festivals, but if I hear about a film that went over incredibly well, it increases my chances of seeing the movie.

I always read them, even if I may not see all of the films mentioned. I can't remember if they were festival reviews, but I may not have watched ONCE or KISS KISS BANG BANG had you not given them both such glowing reviews.

I like 'em. There's a genuine level of excitement/ ire that's missing from a review of a film that's been virally flogged to fuck.

I rarely read festival reviews. I usually scan them for names or titles I recognize just to get an idea of what to expect to see hitting theaters over the next year or two. I like reading reviews for getting new perspectives on movies I've seen or will see, and I like reading humorously written reviews of really bad films. It's hard to get much of either from festival reviews.

I like it. Even if I just see the title here (not necessarily read the entire review) and then see it again somewhere else, it lets me know that the movie may be worth seeing when I eventually see the title on a marquee or netflix-quee.
And its good to know if a movie has an original idea or concept that may intrigue me.

i'm all for festival reviews when written by a critic who i personally agree with most of the time. When it comes to the geek-centric newssites like this one, i'll read 'em. However, i'm not too interested in reading them from elsewhere, as mostly dramas are reviewed and the stranger films are ignored altogether.

I'm torn. I don't want to hear about early work-prints as it's ultimately not what we'll be seeing in theaters, nor do I want to see a lot of tiny write-ups for a bunch of movies at once. It's overwhelming. What I'd much prefer is to read about festival films that you connect with and want to fight and holler for everyone to see. I want to hear about little films that NEED a champion. This site (and your review in particular Devin) made me seek out Once long, LONG before it was ever an Oscar winner and I will be eternally grateful for that.

I want to know the answer to your question as well, for general film festival coverage overall — if a small film is unlikely to be seen by most audiences, do readers still want to read it? And if they don't, is it still worth the time and trouble? I feel like most bloggers/net critics will see the films anyway – we're all movie nerds and want to see everything — but it's hard to say what films, gems or otherwise, are justifiable to cover if presumably most readers are uninterested. Maybe there's a limited population of interested readers, and their interest makes it worthwhile…but it won't get hits. And traffic pays the bills, right?

I automatically skip all festival reviews. Most of the time these films never find their way to movie theaters and those that do are usually shown once/day in a small theater that's never convenient to drive to. Also, to be quite honest, the titles of these festival films are often forgetable and all sound the same. My eyes glaze over when I see a long dissertation focusing on a whole bunch of films that some dude caught at some random festival. While I appreciate and respect the effort, it's boring, man.

lol devin's a fag and he writes shitty so I don't care if he writes reviews lolololol

I care as much for the reviews of the unknown or "tiny" movies as I do for the ones that we all have our eye on. If there's a hidden gem out there getting lost in the shuffle of recognizable titles and names, I want to know about it. Besides, this is a movie site– it should be covering more than just what's directly on the radar.

I think you guys should review porn movies. I mean, God knows that you guys watch a TON of them(Who doesn't, right?).

I only read the Russ reviews. I skip yours.

Reviews for obscure movies are pretty much the reason I frequent sites like this. If I want reviews of the major flicks or mainstream dvd releases, there are a billion other venues for that. Like some of the other people here, I make lists of the films that sound interesting, and if they come out on DVD, I'm likely to notice. Plus, my city just got an art house/experimental theatre (finally!), and I actually have a shot at seeing some of these limited-release flicks.

dev, you have to write up the unknown, unsung films that we get a sprinkling release on dvd or the small limited runs that they will see.

McWeeney over AICN did a review of a small flick called ping pong. it took me a little over a year to finally see it (from netflix of all places). i would've never even known to look at a movie like that.

I like the reviews, the only thing I suggest is that if time is an issue and no-one expects you to do full reviews for all the films you sit through at a festival, why not just bang out a paragraph or 2 on a pda over the credits with your initial thoughts and notes. These can be put on the site quickly and can always be expanded later if the film warrants further hype/slating. I only want a flavour of what I should expect, 20 full reviews is a chore for you and me. 100-200 words should be enough for the gist.