THE HITMAN'S BODYGUARD | 08.18.17 | trailer 1 on page 1

[MCKillswitch123]

5 minutes ago, Alli said:

I agree about not making sense to release reviews early,  but when does the embargo lift?

Maybe a week before it comes out, maybe a little more, maybe a little less. Who knows? Who cares? Or better, why do you care so much? Do you really think Logan Lucky will beat Hitman's just with a potential twist of fate that Hitman has less positive reviews alone?

 

Take this into account: Bad Moms broke out w/a 58% RT score. It's the audience that counts.

Edited August 2, 2017 by MCKillswitch123

[Alli]

yes, i think LL has a chance to beat THB  overall. Not OW. Reviews matter. it usually tell us if the movie's good which will affect the legs

[Nova]

You wanna see a studio have zero confidence in their film? Just go check out Dark Tower. No screenings at all. That's a studio with no confidence. 

 

A studio actually willing to screen their film in advance, shows that they think they have a decent product. How people respond to said product is something the studio has zero control over though. 

[MCKillswitch123]

5 minutes ago, Alli said:

yes, i think LL has a chance to beat THB  overall. Not OW. Reviews matter. it usually tell us if the movie's good which will affect the legs

Reviews matter on OW and usually OW only. War For The Planet Of The Apes, Alien: Covenant and It Comes At Night prove that tenfold... all movies w/good OD grosses, but failed to captivate audiences either in terms of their expectations for a Summer movie (Apes) or for what they were promised by the marketing (Alien and ICAN... possibly Apes too), thus these movies' wom wasn't positive enough for them to sustain good legs, in spite of the amazing or very good reviews they all got.

 

LL will have good legs, but Hitman's is easily bound to open bigger, and if it also has really good wom on its own (it being very funny would be enough for that to happen, and the marketing makes it look like it's gonna be very funny... could it be Let's Be Cops? Yes, but according to some people, it's not), it too will have big legs throughout the barren late August and September up until Kingsman.

Edited August 2, 2017 by MCKillswitch123

[Jonwo]

7 minutes ago, Nova said:

You wanna see a studio have zero confidence in their film? Just go check out Dark Tower. No screenings at all. That's a studio with no confidence. 

 

A studio actually willing to screen their film in advance, shows that they think they have a decent product. How people respond to said product is something the studio has zero control over though. 

 

WB had early fan screenings for King Arthur but I suspect that's the exception. 

[Alli]

8 minutes ago, Nova said:

You wanna see a studio have zero confidence in their film? Just go check out Dark Tower. No screenings at all. That's a studio with no confidence. 

 

A studio actually willing to screen their film in advance, shows that they think they have a decent product. How people respond to said product is something the studio has zero control over though. 

Sorry, i don't buy this. Screening really tells so little. I remember there were plenty of screenings for Rough Night with a hilarious press release. Movie still had awful reviews and flopped

 

Quote

"Rough Night" Advance Screenings Have Audiences Partying Nationwide In Packed Houses

[Nova]

5 minutes ago, Alli said:

Sorry, i don't buy this. Screening really tells so little. I remember there were plenty of screenings for Rough Night with a hilarious press release. Movie still had awful reviews and flopped

 

The movie actually had average reviews. Yes it has a 48% on rotten tomatoes but it's average rating was a 5.4/10 which is again considered average. Some films are certified fresh with that kind of rating. 

 

It flopped because it appealed to no one. 

 

A comedy with awful reviews is Baywatch. But we were told that one was awful. 

 

Anyways I've gone back and forth with too many posters about this topic lol 

 

I'm not gonna go back and forth and nitpick every little detail or whatever any further lol I've heard from enough people who've seen the film say it's pretty good and I've heard from no one say that it's awful but more importantly I'm gonna see it next week and decide for myself whether it's any good 

 

 

[Nova]

16 minutes ago, Jonwo said:

 

WB had early fan screenings for King Arthur but I suspect that's the exception. 

Last one!

 

But we all knew King Arthur was gonna be awful. 

 

Typically when a movie is as shitty as some of you think this is going to be(not you specifically Jonwo), you hear that it's shitty long before it even comes out.  

 

I dont expect this movie to set the world on fire critically but I do expect it to be successful in what it is supposed to do aka be a kick ass funny action comedy. 

Edited August 2, 2017 by Nova

[Mike Branson]

Ryan Reynolds

1 hour ago, Barnack said:

I think over Baywatch (18.5m) would be a big success for this.

 

Lot of similar movie, including at least one very good one with some star power's didn't do it (Fist Fight 12.2m, Nice Guys 11.2, let's be cops 17.3, RIPD 12.7, Cop Out 18.2 and well Baywatch), Chips even went under 10m.

 

What interesting is R.I.P.D., CHIPS, LETS BE COPS and FIST FIGHT are all bad movies and they embargo was lifted the night before their release date.

As far as we know now THB is following that same road.

However, that doesn't mean this is a bad movie. Because of past movies Lionsgate should realise this late embargo is making some people have justified doubt about this movie. They should move the lift up a week before to end any doubt.

Edited August 2, 2017 by Mike Branson

[MCKillswitch123]

1 hour ago, Alli said:

How does Lopnsgate seem confident in the movie?

 

There's a 2.5 star review on letterboxd. not good

Just to tackle this quickly, here's what that 2.5 star review had to say about the movie itself:

 

"Imho thought it was good fun, great to watch Sam L Jackson be as Sam Jackson as he can be but the film was probably 15mins too long"

 

Doesn't seem too negative to me.

 

[baumer]

3 hours ago, MCKillswitch123 said:

Just to tackle this quickly, here's what that 2.5 star review had to say about the movie itself:

 

"Imho thought it was good fun, great to watch Sam L Jackson be as Sam Jackson as he can be but the film was probably 15mins too long"

 

Doesn't seem too negative to me.

 

 

And that's the problem with RT right there....people don't read the review, they just see fresh rotten.

[ClaudeManhattan]

1 hour ago, Nova said:

They're holding fan screenings for it like two weeks before release. They've already shown some critics the film. They screened it at Cinemacon. 

 

And as I've already stated, EmpireCity watched it months ago at a screening and said it screened it well. 

 

I dont think a studio would have their film screen a bunch of times to industry insiders if they felt bad about it. 

Most films get screened  multiple times to get a feel of the general audience. Hollywood calls this testing.

[baumer]

Just cruious, @ClaudeManhattan...if you like RR, then why are so negative towards this film?

[Mike Branson]

2 minutes ago, ClaudeManhattan said:

Most films get screened  multiple times to get a feel of the general audience. Hollywood calls this testing.

That true, test screenings are not unusual. This is done in post production stage to adjust the editing.

These screen aren't for showcasing the finish movie.

[ClaudeManhattan]

4 minutes ago, Stutterng baumer Denbrough said:

Just cruious, @ClaudeManhattan...if you like RR, then why are so negative towards this film?

Because he's a better actor than this movie.  He played a similar role in RIPD that turned out bad.

Edited August 2, 2017 by ClaudeManhattan

[FantasticBeasts]

1 hour ago, Nova said:

You wanna see a studio have zero confidence in their film? Just go check out Dark Tower. No screenings at all. That's a studio with no confidence. 

 

A studio actually willing to screen their film in advance, shows that they think they have a decent product. How people respond to said product is something the studio has zero control over though. 

Innocent boy! Disney checks are being sent non stop the first days! 

[baumer]

Ok.

[Alli]

2 minutes ago, ClaudeManhattan said:

Because he's a better actor than this movie.  He played a similar role in RIPD that turned out bad.

I feel you. I'm always harder on the ones i like.

 

this movie doesn't look too bad tho

Edited August 2, 2017 by Alli

[MCKillswitch123]

7 minutes ago, ClaudeManhattan said:

Because he's a better actor than this movie.  He played a similar role in RIPD that turned out bad.

The movie doesn't look remotely as bad as RIPD and have you seen the movie to know if he's better than it or not? 

Edited August 2, 2017 by MCKillswitch123

[ClaudeManhattan]

I hope RR would take better roles, he's a good actor, but he always playing stupid characters in stupid movies. 

I do admit that maybe I'm being a little too hard on THB, but to me it looks like another stupid movie that RR signed up for.