LIFE | 03.24.17 | Sony | current gross ● 29.94 M

[baumer]

Too bad films need critics to tell u its good before youll see them. 

[robertman2]

2 minutes ago, baumer said:

Too bad films need critics to tell u its good before youll see them. 

Not everyone wants to blow their money on a bad movie, especially when there's better options for movies

[MCKillswitch123]

Agreed w/Baumer. But I guess, in this day and age, people are more reticent about theie movie choices due to inflated prices, so they run to online services for counseling. Hey, on the bright side, movies like Get Out would've never opened to the 20/30's they opened with without the strong pre-existing buzz (legs are another story).

[CJohn]

As expected, reviews are good.

[baumer]

2 hours ago, robertman2 said:

Not everyone wants to blow their money on a bad movie, especially when there's better options for movies

 

But how can you possibly know if a critic or a bunch of credits has the exact same taste in film that you do? And if people go by Rotten Tomatoes sometimes a film to be rotten but most of the review of the film is positive but theres a few things the critic doesn't like so it ends up becoming a rotten review.  But in reality it's a mostly good film. I just can't remember a time in history when some critics had this much power over properties that cost hundreds of millions of dollars.  Ive just never liked people deciding what theyre going to spend their money based on someone elses opinion. But thats just me.

[Jay Beezy]

39 minutes ago, baumer said:

 

But how can you possibly know if a critic or a bunch of credits has the exact same taste in film that you do? And if people go by Rotten Tomatoes sometimes a film to be rotten but most of the review of the film is positive but theres a few things the critic doesn't like so it ends up becoming a rotten review.  But in reality it's a mostly good film. I just can't remember a time in history when some critics had this much power over properties that cost hundreds of millions of dollars.  Ive just never liked people deciding what theyre going to spend their money based on someone elses opinion. But thats just me.

 

If a movie looks bad to people, they probably won't see it regardless of reviews. If it looks good to them, they probably will see it regardless of reviews. If they're on the fence, they may want to look at reviews.

[filmlover]

Moviegoers are becoming more and more fickle about parting with their cash. If reviews confirm that a dubious movie is indeed that, they'll just stay away and save themselves the $12.

[Cmasterclay]

28 minutes ago, Jay Beezy said:

 

If a movie looks bad to people, they probably won't see it regardless of reviews. If it looks good to them, they probably will see it regardless of reviews. If they're on the fence, they may want to look at reviews.

I mean generally this. I was on the fence about this movie, then I heard that smart people I trust (good critics) thought it was good, so I'll see it. If they hated it, I wouldn't. I trust most Top Critics and look at the consensus of the opinion. The fact is, I agree most of the time. In fact, Doctor Strange is the one big example of a movie I completely disagreed with critics on, but that's more an exception  that proves the rule. Now, I certainly disagree with the intensity of how much people like or dislike a movie, but whether it's good or not? I usually agree. Money is tight, and I ain't wasting it if something I'm on the fence on is supposedly bad. I trust critics for the same reason I trust experts in other fields. 

[Nova]

For me if I really want to see a movie I'll see it regardless. For example if a movie I wanted to see didn't get good reviews I will catch it on discount Tuesday or something. Just because I wasn't paying full price for a movie that may not have been good. On the other hand if a movie I have no interest in seeing gets really good reviews, I'll also go see it on discount Tuesday or maybe catch a matinee. 

 

With this film in particular...I love sci-fi movies and I've heard good things about this movie in particular so I was always on board. The difference would have been whether I was seeing it the weekend it came out or waited to catch a matinee. 

 

But if i was on the fence for this film, I would have waited for the reviews/audience reactions to come out. 

 

Movie tickets are so damn expensive now a days so I understand the thought process of wanting to see the reaction of others before buying tickets to catch it OW. 

[FantasticBeasts]

2 hours ago, baumer said:

 

But how can you possibly know if a critic or a bunch of credits has the exact same taste in film that you do? And if people go by Rotten Tomatoes sometimes a film to be rotten but most of the review of the film is positive but theres a few things the critic doesn't like so it ends up becoming a rotten review.  But in reality it's a mostly good film. I just can't remember a time in history when some critics had this much power over properties that cost hundreds of millions of dollars.  Ive just never liked people deciding what theyre going to spend their money based on someone elses opinion. But thats just me.

I couldnt agree more.

People misjudge masterpieces like Twilight before watching them...

[Alli]

Reviews will help it make 20M. I can feel it

[franfar]

We have a lot more options for entertainment now, which makes film criticism more of a factor when thinking about seeing a movie. If I'm considering a movie that is getting trashed by critics, I'll either skip it or wait for it to come out on Netflix. That simple for me, and for most moviegoers. If I wanted to see it no matter what, then I'll see it.

Edited March 20, 2017 by franfar

[Belakor]

Not a surprise the movie is good, Everything Jake Gyllenhaal acts in has to be at least decent.

[Boxofficerules]

19 minutes ago, Belakor said:

Not a surprise the movie is good, Everything Jake Gyllenhaal acts in has to be at least decent.

Bubble Boy? Prince Of Persia?

[Nova]

I agree 

 

[robertman2]

14 minutes ago, Nova said:

I agree 

 

Cable?

[Alli]

there’s Columbia Pictures’sci-fi horror flick “Life,” which received mostly positive reviews from critics who saw it at SXSW, but is estimated by trackers to only open to between $12 million and $17 million against a $58 million budget

 

“It’s possible that ‘Life’ could see its numbers go up if it gets some strong word-of-mouth going,”

 

http://www.thewrap.com/can-power-rangers-slay-disneys-beast-box-office/

 

Only 58M budget. It should be profitable

[MrPink]

That tracking is brutal given how much promotion I see for Life on TV. 

[Alli]

Just now, MrPink said:

That tracking is brutal given how much promotion I see for Life on TV. 

I think it can raise above expectations. Adult targeted with very good reviews. 20M is not out of the question imo

[Nova]

9 minutes ago, Alli said:

there’s Columbia Pictures’sci-fi horror flick “Life,” which received mostly positive reviews from critics who saw it at SXSW, but is estimated by trackers to only open to between $12 million and $17 million against a $58 million budget

 

“It’s possible that ‘Life’ could see its numbers go up if it gets some strong word-of-mouth going,”

 

http://www.thewrap.com/can-power-rangers-slay-disneys-beast-box-office/

 

Only 58M budget. It should be profitable

Yea they didn't go overboard with the budget which is a good thing. I have heard good things about the effects too. 

 

9 minutes ago, MrPink said:

That tracking is brutal given how much promotion I see for Life on TV. 

7 minutes ago, Alli said:

I think it can raise above expectations. Adult targeted with very good reviews. 20M is not out of the question imo

 

 

I think these types of films are harder to track. I definitely think a $20-25M opening is in play. Similar to what happened with Arrival. I don't think it will have the same legs, but I think it can have a similar OW though. 

 

Edited March 21, 2017 by Nova