norbar

No chance it gets best picture. Remember the academy are 57 year old white males. This movie is not super friendly towards people watching screeners with their family. If people didn't watch get out on principle they won't see this. Best actress is probable though

Let's not talk about the ending since anything I might say may be considered a spoiler. If you want to know more write to me. It's not a movie that aim to make $100m+. People who are easily shocked, a large part of the popcorn audience will react badly but many viewers will love it. While there is very graphic violence in the movie it's done in a serious, you could even say respectful way. It's not violence for the sake of violence. I saw it with my girlfriend who never watches horrors and World War Z was too scary for her (she literally had her eyes closed for 90% of the movie) and she loved the film. Seriously if this was late 70s or early 80s it would be a cult film and huge commercial phenomenon. Don't read the spoilers though. To me you have ruined the movie for you. It's still worth the watch as it's superbly made. If this was released in 2017 it would be one of my top3 movies of the year. It would compete with Phantom Thread and Call me by your name. I have already seen the movie twice and I'm happy that I did. I rarely buy blu rays but I am sure I will get this one.

Jesus I've also claimed I watched it yet you ignore my posts Also not it isn't "pull the rug from under you". It's not it comes at night. Ffs. Read my posts. Some people say it's not audience friendly but not because it's not a horror. While year the first hour is a bit slower many horrors are. It's not audience fiendly because some of the shit that happens is very very not nice. I'd say one of the reasons people are angry at the new Lars von Tier is the reasons people may be angry here (no, not misogyny). Rosemary's Baby. Seriously. It's VERY close. Mix "We need to talk about Kevin" with "Rosemary's baby" and you get "Hereditary" The thing is this time it is accurate. This is part hardcore family drama, part real oldschool horror.

It will be lower than B- only if people who go to see it have seen a completely different marketing than what we see now. After watching the trailers I was not really surprised by the movie. It is NOT as slow paced as The witch or It comes at night. This is important to remember. So far I know of 30+ people who have seen the movie (press etc) and only one didn't like it because inside he is a 12 year old boy (no seriously, he prefers my little pony to this)

It's definately not an F cinemascore outright Lie like it was with "It comes at night". The marketing isn't really deceptive and I'm saying this as someone who has already seen it twice. They could have went balls to the wall and sell it as an exorcism, ocultism, possession type of film but they are not. It's clear it's a film that has great scary atmosphere but aims much higher than a typical horror. Of course some people will be dissatisfied since there is a certain group of horror viewers who go to most wide releases not looking like shit so I assume it will be a "B" Cinemascore. "C" only if they change the marketing later into the game. It will probably get a wide release. They will probably ramp it up now for the last week. I assume they wanted to wait out Solo, Deadpool and Avengers. A24 is really smart with their marketing planing, they just don't have the money to fight the big boys.

Not really a problem for what it is. I'm still angered at how bad the marketing for this is. Blackkklansman will be this year racial issue film even though this is better.

Nope they don't. Many great movies failed at the box office. Wom means nothing if the premise is so unappealing people are not eager to see it. Not saying it's the case here but becoming a cult film 10years after the release is not exactly "the way".

Not in terms of greenlighting new movies. It's not 1994 and studios don't greenlit movies based on video sales. Box office is still the primiary measure of success for studios and international distributors and it influences if a director will get to make more movies, how much creative freedom he gets, if similar movies will get greenlit, will the actors get new roles etc. Also yeah Ex Machina probably did more on TV, Pay TV and VOD sales but still it had a way higher budget. You are ignoring it only because you like one movie more than the other. Hell I like Ex Machina more than the Witch but that doesn't mean I have to lie.

Jesus they look like bad human like robots. It's offputting even if the idea might have seemed good on paper

Pretty little lies was big. Remember that. Also I think the fault in our stars was after at least one Detergent. She is also fairly outspoken so she gets a lot of press and good will from progressive young women. That doesn't make her a huge star but someone well suited for a movie that would do well if it ended above 30M+

Ehh you are one of those people - guys who came here to not really talk about box office results and you will trash movies that did well commercially but you didn't like and hype movies that failed commercially but you liked. It's funny since Ex-Machina is in the green probably only after VOD and TV, definately not from Cinemas.

Yeah and Suicide Squad was a critical darling because it won an Oscar

It's much faster paced, tense and entertaining. It's not a typical jump scare, conventional horror and Rosemary's Baby is a great comparison many critics use but it's a much better watch. It isn't. Sorry but you don't understand what a flop is. A flop is losing money. A24 doesn't spend 100-150 milion dollars on Marketing. The Witch was a great commercial success. The scale is different but so is the expenditure. The movies you mention as success stories had MUCH HIGHER marketing budgets because they were studio releases. Also saying "Unfriended is a hit" while "The Witch" is a flop is silly when there is only $6m difference between the 2. Sorry but Comparing Paranomal Activity to this is stupid since Paranomal activity had 5-10x the Marketing Budget. I know this forum is open to everyone but can you at least educate yourself before posting? Have you seen the movie? Nope, you didn't. Stop using the idiotic argument where critics are some old people smoking pipes. Horror blogs love this movie too. All the horror fans on the internet who have seen the movie are comparing it to Rosemary's Baby or Exorcist. Do you think Rosemary's Baby spits on the genre? Or are you a fake horror fan who started watching horrors with " I know what you did last summer"?

What lesson? They made $13 milion on an arthouse film where nothing happens. If anyone else released that movie without misleading people it would end up at $4m. This is misleading in terms of plot but not as misleading as it comes at night. In that movie literally nothing happened.

Doing the fights yourself is not "not dumb". It's not an intelectual pursuit. It's interesting but it's not an intelectual move. You mistake movie nerdism with intelectualism. Yes John Wick has good world building and good character actors but that again doesn't make the movie not dumb. Those are simply traits of a good movie. Critics love good movies. Not dumb. Your argument basically is critics are wrong because they are against bad storytelling. John Wick is still about a Dude everyone calls Baba Jaga (it's really REALLY stupid if you are from eastern europe) who kills everyone because they killed his dog. The basic premise is more stupid than Rampage. It's just executed better. Still to give you a better example - The Raid - it's an excellently made movie but a stupid one. It has close to no plot. It's just well made so critics and viewers love it. You make the wrong assumption that if a movie has certain traits that critics love it is not stupid. Using that logic I also hate stupid movies since the same things annoy me as the critics but that would be a really strange idea since I enjoy Ilsa the She wolf of the ss and it's hard to find a dumber movie.

To tackle the first part about critics not liking dumb movies and you saying that critics don't think John Wick or Deadpool being dumb fun movies. This is untrue. It is clear you don't read reviews and listen to podcast in large numbers. This is my daily source of entertainment and I read them all. Just to go rotten tomatoes and read critic blurbs about those movies if reading the reviews is not enough. I will quote a few john wick ones: "Stahelski and Leitch, both former stunt men, unsurprisingly tackle action sequences with glee... but the quieter scenes are more sophisticated, incorporating a sense of fantasy and visual splendor that almost makes the wafer-thin plot feel fresh." - The Atlantic. Positive. "John Wick is the kind of fired-up, ferocious B-movie fun some of us can't get enough of." - Rolling Stone. Peter Travers. I think you agree both of those reviews suggest those critics don't think John Wick is a serious movie to be considered in the same way people think of "Phantom thread" ? Not to mention critics for the most part are simply superfans. They are people who loved movies so much they wanted to write about them. The job pays shit. Hell many of them do it after hours. Especially writers for sites like Slashfilm, Collider, Filmschoolrejects etc. They just view movies different than many of us because they see more of them. When you see a lot of movies you see them in a different light. Overall I think you are mistaking stupid with bad. Rampage is worse than all of the mentioned movies. Taken or John Wick wasn't meant to be ambitious fare. The "emotional hits" and "choreagraphy" are nothing smart. Old Jackie Chan movies have great choreography and they are dumb as hell. Most critics found rampage meh, most viewers found it meh+. To me the movie is derivative so I side with the critics. I saw it only because I didn't have to pay for it (because of our local equivalent to moviepass) --------------------- As for Rampage - $100m is not fantastic. That means the movie has to make $300m on foreign markets. That will not happen. You have to judge in relation to it's budget and financial goals. Rampage was made to make money. I really believe it may cross $100m domestically. It may even do $120m but WW it may not break even. I doubt it will be a huge failure like RIPD but it will not be a clear success financially either. Also I disagree it is well liked by viewers. It has a 6.5 average rating on IMDB. To compare it to other movies currently in Cinemas - Ready player one sits at 7.9. A Quiet place at 8.1. Those movies are "well liked" Rampage imdb rating is "meh". I also disagree viewer and critic opinion really differs here. 51% critics were positive about the movie. Positive is 6/10 or more. That would mean critics are only slightly more negative towards Rampage than regular IMDB users. As for people being bored. They are not completely rejecting it but San Andreas made $54m OW and it was another city destructing, Dwayne Johnson to the rescue movie with a budget of slightly above $100m. This is a 40% drop in OW. What is more Central Inteligence made $35m and that was a lower budget Comedy. I know it had Kevin Hart but still it cost less and I assume the marketing wasn't as big too. Remember it's a $120m, big spectacle movie with one of the biggest stars on the planet and it opens to $35m? This means that while the movie isn't rejected by everyone the reaction to it from most is "maybe". There is little excitement and if you looked at tracking at boxoffice.com or a few other sites you would see that twitter, facebook and google interest numbers were low which means people were not interested before release. This is what I mean by people being bored. They expressed less interest in Rampage than in similar movies before. Lastly Baywatch wasn't a success. It was saved by the INTL market but In US it was a hard flop. This is a discussion for another topic but looking at what countries performed well (many european ones) they were also countries where he doesn't perform super well so it might have been the power of the TV Show more than him. To finish it - don't get me wrong. I'm so hard on Dwayne because I like him and I cheer for him. He seems like a great, likeable and charismatic person. This is why I want him making better choices. I am really worried he is trying to play to what he thinks other expect of him and it makes his movies look too similar or at least his roles in them. He could be so much bigger if he went for variety and sometimes risked a little.

This. Rampage wasn't really marketed as a family movie. It's more of an unoffensive movie you can take your 13 year old kids too but not a family movie in a sense where a grandma can go to the cinema with her 8 year old grandkids. Star Wars and even Marvel movies are friendlier to people that are younger. This will scare some kids (it will scare my 9 year old half sister)

No but since you made the effort to say I have said something wrong I assume you want me to know where i made a mistake. Am I wrong on the critics part or on the rampage part? I want to restart this discussion. Sorry to Baumer and anyone who feels i have misinterpreted their opinion. My point is not to win an argument. This is why I want you to say where I am wrong. I don't want to die for rampage and I feel no need to win. I really sinecerly want to discuss the box office performance here. Can we do it? Please. I am really trying to have a civilized discussion.

Ok so close to 65 not close to 100. You still overvalued it. Also this is not the topic of this discussion. I get that you like the movie. To me it had it's moments but I'd like to discuss 2 things: 1. How am I wrong outside of using a few hyperbolies? The movie is a bit different than other Dwayne Johnson movies but it uses the same aesthetic (lighting, grading, costumes - a bit like older Marvel movies that looked all like TV productions. Add to that a very similar looking city) so it seems like it's a series of movies. I love Johnson, he is super charismatic and likeable but the marketing for this makes this look like a Dwayne Johnson Verse tried making a cheaper Kong movie (I know the plot and stuff is different but remember most people don't make calculated decisions when going to cinemas). Hell some comedic sites started satirizing he looks the same in every movie where he is the only lead. 2. How is $35m opening on a $120m budget a satisfying result?

You did You have literally said it will open closer to 65 than 35 when we talked in another topic Also it still probably be 30-50m from breaking even in cinemas. How is that a great result?

If they are "just wrong" it's easy to rebuke them. Your argument is illogical. You basically say it's not worth countering people when they are wrong. So what you disagree with other people and explain why only when they are right? I will gladly talk about the movie but I thought this was a box office forum. Not a fanboy group where any criticism is not wellcome and we will not talk about what influences movie performance.

I love the message but the movie was meh for me. There are much better movies about the same topic. It only gets points for getting to more people than other movies on a similar topic (well Avatar was kinda similar in its themes in terms of protecting the enviroment).

$35m opening while some people here claimed 50-100m opening is not selling well. The mummy opened not much lower. It has a $120m production budget. So add like $80m for marketing and it needs to do $400m WW. Remember it will drop a lot when Avengers arrive.

I love how you say my points are wrong but you make no effort to really say why.

This is a stupid argument. Most critics who disliked it like dumb fun movies. Many people who love Deadpool, John Wick, first Taken movie still didn't like this. Sorry don't create the false ilusion that anyone who doesn't like dumb movies authomaticaly is a snob who only watches 24h holocaust documentaries and Terrence Malick flicks about Christian Bale drying paint. The movie looks like 2 other Dwayne Johnson blockbusters - San Andreas and that other thing plus it looks a lot like Skyscraper. He looks the same in every movie, he is like the only character in those movies (or at least in trailers). People are just getting bored of it. This is why it doesn't sell. Plus we had a better movie about giant ape vs giant monster recently, it was called Kong Skull Island at at least it didn't take place in the same generic city we see in every Dwayne Johnson and Michael Bay movie.