IF | May 17, 2024 | Paramount | John Krasinski directs, writes and stars | Ryan Reynolds and Steve Carell are here too

[JohnnyGossamer]

Well since Quiet Place made him the next Spielberg, he's having his 1941 early here.

[cannastop]

I don't get how anyone could be surprised that this is apparently mid.

[JohnnyGossamer]

1 minute ago, cannastop said:

I don't get how anyone could be surprised that this is apparently mid.

His non Quiet Place directed films have not been received especially well. This is not surprising. 

[AniNate]

3 minutes ago, cannastop said:

I don't get how anyone could be surprised that this is apparently mid.

 

I'm not surprised per se, but it would've been nice if it wasn't. It got a pretty decent budget and promotional campaign, and would've been a cinephile morale booster if it was a successful original auteur project.

[JohnnyGossamer]

11 minutes ago, AniNate said:

 

I'm not surprised per se, but it would've been nice if it wasn't. It got a pretty decent budget and promotional campaign, and would've been a cinephile morale booster if it was a successful original auteur project.

I guess we have Fall Guy for that even if it wasn't a box office success story. It was received well. I'd have that filmmaker as more of an auteur than Krasinski too.

[AniNate]

10 minutes ago, JohnnyGossamer said:

I guess we have Fall Guy for that even if it wasn't a box office success story. It was received well. I'd have that filmmaker as more of an auteur than Krasinski too.

 

I mean I don't really want to get into comparing them but this was totally Krasinski's thing, written by him as well as being produced and directed and not based on anything obscure or otherwise, even if some people think it rips off Foster's Home.

 

We do have plenty of good original movies still being made (I would personally hang my hat on Civil War and Challengers), but still waiting for something to really break out as a blockbuster phenomenon. Unlike Fall Guy this did seem like it was in a position to be successful based on the latest tracking, it just doesn't seem like it's gonna have the legs and passion behind it at this point.

 

 

Edited May 15 by AniNate

[el sid]

I hope the score will go up and that the audience likes the film.

 

But once again it's annoying that several members immediately jump on the bandwagon, "this film is bad, will flop". Almost nobody here has seen it so far. 

[emoviefan]

That's too bad. . Unless this is a critic/ audience divide movie it is probably not going to do well.Maybe it will be..

Edited May 15 by emoviefan

[cannastop]

7 minutes ago, el sid said:

I hope the score will go up and that the audience likes the film.

 

But once again it's annoying that several members immediately jump on the bandwagon, "this film is bad, will flop". Almost nobody here has seen it so far. 

 

4 minutes ago, emoviefan said:

That's too bad. . Unless this is a critic/ audience divide movie it is probably not going to do well.Maybe it will be..

I guess there's the example of Elemental.

[AniNate]

7 minutes ago, el sid said:

But once again it's annoying that several members immediately jump on the bandwagon, "this film is bad, will flop". Almost nobody here has seen it so far. 

 

The thing that really makes me doubtful about long-term prospects is that a lot of the reviews call out the movie for being too "dark", so it doesn't seem like it's mid in the silly fun way that family audiences are much more forgiving of.

[JohnnyGossamer]

Just now, AniNate said:

 

The thing that really makes me doubtful about long-term prospects is that a lot of the reviews call out the movie for being too "dark", so it doesn't seem like it's mid in the silly fun way that family audiences are much more forgiving of.

It's Krasinski's A Monster Calls.

[Morieris]

4 minutes ago, JohnnyGossamer said:

It's Krasinski's A Monster Calls.

 

This did more to interest me than months of promo.

[Speedorito]

Damn I was expecting Migration-level reviews, not this right off the bat. But I also thought Garfield looked bad but it’s apparently pretty good.

 

With these reviews I’m not it can co-exist with Garfield coming out a week later.

[AniNate]

Where the Wild Things Are seems all the more like an apt comparison, pulled families in with cuddly mascot characters but then the movie was really all about introspective melodrama. It dropped off a cliff after its opening, not even getting to a 2.5x multiplier.

[TwoMisfits]

49 minutes ago, AniNate said:

 

The thing that really makes me doubtful about long-term prospects is that a lot of the reviews call out the movie for being too "dark", so it doesn't seem like it's mid in the silly fun way that family audiences are much more forgiving of.

 

It seems like it could fall into Disney's Haunted Mansion issue - too scary for little kids, too childish for teens and adults and no one really left to watch on a subpar release date (HM b/c it wasn't Halloween season, IF b/c of Garfield).

 

But, we'll see...this should have been a $5 movie, not Strangers Chap 1...

[Flopped]

https://twitter.com/scott_tobias/status/1790764114911903843

 

 

[titanic2187]

Remind me of Lyle Lyle crocodile. But I am hoping that 40m OW would still happen so that we finally can have a 100m weekend after 6 weeks, plus we can't put the entire hope of the family business on Garfield. From how it performed in overseas, Garfield will do alright but not breaking out like a megablockbuster, so we still need If to perform decently. 

[lorddemaxus]

1 hour ago, AniNate said:

Where the Wild Things Are seems all the more like an apt comparison, pulled families in with cuddly mascot characters but then the movie was really all about introspective melodrama. It dropped off a cliff after its opening, not even getting to a 2.5x multiplier.

This seems 100× more generic than Where the Wild Things Are, which barely even has a plot while this just seems to be going for more of a Pixar "try to make adults cry" kinda vibe and leaning too hard in that aspect (also seems to have the opposite criticism of WTWA in that its too simple). Still seems way too kid-friendly to have that kind of audience reception and performance.

Edited May 15 by lorddemaxus

[el sid]

16 minutes ago, AniNate said:

 

The thing that really makes me doubtful about long-term prospects is that a lot of the reviews call out the movie for being too "dark", so it doesn't seem like it's mid in the silly fun way that family audiences are much more forgiving of.

I agree, that's a tougher sell. I did only read some of the reviews and one critic (fresh tomatoe) wrote that some children will probably wonder why their parents are so touched. When I read the user reviews at IMDb, I started to wonder if maybe parents will like the film better than their kids. Let's see if this film will be rather considered as "touching" or "too dark".

[AniNate]

That can be a pitfall when someone gets a 9 figure budget for a PG rated original script. There's a difference between making a movie for "inner children" and actual children. 

 

 

Edited May 15 by AniNate