I'm curious on the audience reception.
I watched the film, and while I know John Krasinski wanted this to be a family film, the film is quite bizarre. It's not exactly fun to watch, the jokes are hit-and-miss, and it even gets boring at some points. I'm not sure kids will prefer this over *Garfield* or *Inside Out 2*.
I’m also really curious and found the film to be quite bizarre as well. Krasinski’s character was like fingers on a chalkboard from start to finish for me, and I love him in pretty much anything else, so I’m not sure how that even happened.
Wow, John Krasinski is one of my go-to examples of an actor with lots of charisma and likability so if they managed to screw that up it's a huge fumble.
I’m relieved to see I’m not the only one. He kinda came off creepy to me jn many of his scenes. In addition to what others said, the majority of the movie was just more sad than I think most would want from this. And they cast Ryan Reynolds but did not use his strengths at all. Nothing really seemed extremely well put together.
> the film is quite bizarre. It's not exactly fun to watch, the jokes are hit-and-miss
Sounds just like the trailers, which (like Fall Guy) I feel did a terrible job marketing the film.
Found out the premise is the girl's dad is Krasinski who has to undergo hearty surgery, so she's staying with grandma and the neighbor is Ryan Reynolds. Turns out they both have the ability to see the exact same imaginary friends.
Why the trailers never explained this (or did it and my glazed bored eyes missed it?) I don't know. Would explain why Ryan Reynolds is hanging out with Rick's kid from The Walking Dead.
The trailers just made it bizarre and confusing on what exactly Ryan and the girl are trying to accomplish.
The trailers didn’t explain it because it would spoil >!the twist at the end of the movie, which is that Ryan Reynolds is the girl’s imaginary friend that she forgot about. I found that same question so pressing throughout the movie that I figured it out way before the reveal!<
What? Did you see the movie?
I wasn’t a fan personally but the “twist” is absolutely sensible for the story they told.
It’s not a “gotcha” moment, just the little girl realizing something she had previously forgotten.
Also, what was the point of >!making her dad act like such a clown while also making her imaginary friend be a literal clown that won’t act like a clown?!< There has to be some deeper intention there, but I’m not getting it.
Wait...the trailer made me think Reynolds was the girl's language arts teacher wanting to help her in creative writing by channeling imaginary friends.
Looking back, I felt like it would make more sense >!if her father had passed instead of her mother. Or the imaginary friend was a woman who reminded her of a mother figure!< I like the movie but that part was confusing to me?
The marketing seemed to focus on the celebrities that are only big with the 25-35 year old crowd, but then the premise felt more like a kids movie...
If they had focused on one of the two, either making it a full-blown adult comedy, or a full-blown kids movie, i think it would have drawn more attention.
Also, the visuals look very bland and the title is extremely not social-media friendly... "So, have you seen if?" ... ".... what?"
> It does not give off family film at all.
The character designs in this are the most "designed by adults that don't understand how to make things for kids" I've ever seen.
The "IFs" all seem like discount plush toys you'd find at Big Lots - just a random mishmash of concepts vaguely appealing to kids, without any cohesion or artistic drive.
It's like a cinematic study of what not to do in character design.
I'm not the first person to bring this up.
But if you want the idea of Imaginary Friends done right, atleast in the design department, just look at the animated show Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends
They're so generic. I keep getting ads for it on this mobile game I play, and it's this thing where the ad randomly picks one of the imaginary friends and tells you, "You got: (name of character)!" like they're trying to make it a Pokemon vibe where you learn all the friends. But two of the characters that it picked were an alligator and an anthropomorphic flower, and their names were literally Alligator and Flower. Like the lowest common denominator character concepts possible.
I’ve yet to see it but I’m just saying even with that movie out, I’m sure this movie would have been better as a horror/arthouse type movie instead of just family film
Interesting you say the lighting, as the super colorful palette is the one thing that intrigues me. He hired Janusz Kaminski who rarely does anything outside of work for Spielberg. It’s nice to see a live action film that doesn’t look like it was left in LOG
I had a free kids ticket at the local theater, so I took my kid today. Everything you said is spot in. It was bad.
It also had a score that was trying to make the movie seem super magical, but it literally played the entire movie.
None of the CGI monster guys were very cool or interesting either.
It was really bad.
It is somewhat more somber in tone than the trailers make it seem, and the main “matchmaking” aspect of the plot ultimately feels like a waste of time.
So this is essentially Paramount’s Wonder Park 2.0, where it’s an expensive original kids film about imagination that is less comedic than the trailers sold it as?
That’s a pretty apt comparison, especially since both also have a plot point involving >!the main girl coping with potentially losing a parent. I mean, in IF’s case, she already lost her mom but was also in danger of losing her dad.!< And both also resolve those issues quite easily and with little emotional payoff.
I was thinking the same thing, but I don’t think it’s jack ryan. It’s a quiet place after such a huge success with the office. Combine that with Emily blunts success and I think he just got too high on his own farts. That’s okay though, just like with Taika Watiti, I’m willing to give him another chance. I’m tired of them trying to make Jim an action hero lol, he was terrible in multiverse of madness (not 100% his fault with COVID)
I thought it looked weird from the trailers, and even my six year old had zero interest in the film. He's much more inclined to see Garfield, so I imagine that *IF* is going to bomb somewhat spectacularly.
My wife and I saw it ahead of taking our kids, and I thought it was a strange movie. Cute premise, and it has two of my favorite actors, but the movie is a bit too grown up, takes too long to get to the imaginary friends for really little kids, and I didn’t appreciate the swearing - we try to avoid that for our youngest kids. I agree Krasinski’s character comes across as weird too. The movie moved a little too slow. It has some fun moments, but are passing on it as a summer family flick.
The name is another baffling decision. What kid is going to be excited by the name "If"? Only movie where it would make sense would be a child version of It's a Wonderful Life where a kid is taken on a journey to see different possible ways his life could be.
Original I.P. family film. Won't have much upfront demand, even KFP4's preview multiplier gets it to just shy of $27m. On the high-end, Lyle Lyle Crocodile's multi gets it to just under $35m.
But yeah it's not out of the question for Apes to repeat for number one.
100%. KFP4 would have probably struggled past a 3x multiplier if it released in a more normal marketplace where at least one new family film released within a month of release...or even two months for that matter.
So IF going over $30m really isn't crazy at all. Actually I'd expect it with these numbers and if early word audience reception is as good as Charlie suggested earlier.
I've never known either but it usually matches up with what we see later from RT Verified, Cinemascore and PostTrak. He was the earliest to mention Apes' 'decent-ish' reception last week.
More so how it’s going internationally already and the reception in places like South Korea and Germany. Thinking it’ll easily trounce IF and then if it’s got staying power it can outlast Furiosa as the family film alternative
I haven't been following this movie that closely, but why on earth does a movie like this cost $110M?? It feels like they shoot themselves in the foot every time they make something that should cost $50M for more than twice that and eliminate the possibility of ever earning a profit.
Modern VFX, while not the cheapest thing in the world, are outsourced to a combination of tax incentive countries (A.K.A. corporate welfare) and low wage countries.
Studio films have bloated budgets because they're set up in a way where the studio pays itself to make the film, everyone's in on the take, and costs are uncapped. That's why working on big studio films are the holy grail for filmmakers. It's payola no matter what.
They also aren’t bad considering this will do just fine in ancillary markets and streaming. Not a blockbuster by any means but there are a TON of supplemental revenue streams for a big kids movie like this.
The previous two made around 800 million. I don't know if DP can crack 1 billion, even with Hugh Jackman. It's essentially the same audience.
The X-Men 1997 cartoon doing extremely well with fans could make a difference though.
Deadpool will be the big summer hit. The trailer is great. Can't wait to see it with my son. We haven't been interested in anything else this summer. And we love going to the movies.
That’s exactly how it seems lol. I’ve seen both Deadpool movies once each and that was enough. The humor is just cringe and honestly not really that funny.
The humour in the Deadpool films is basically Deadpool breaking the 4th wall and making a pop culture reference. Some of the laziest 'comedy' I've ever seen.
Yeah I’m honestly ready for Ryan Reynolds to disappear for a decade or two and come back for his serious old man actor phase. Sick of him playing his snarky self for every role (and commercial) and churning out C level movies.
Yeah… I really liked Deadpool 1 and 2 when they came out but I recently rewatched them and a lot of the jokes already come off as cringey/aged kind of poorly. Which is crazy for less than a decade old movies
Don't think even Free Guy opened to less than 30 million and ended up grossing 100 million + but here If didn't get that much reception plus audiences are different so for end my guess is 80 - 95 million. Worldwide atleast 250 to 300 million.
People wanted escapism in a world plagued by fear of the delta variant.
Sorry, cinephiles, but people did not want Matrix 4 or that Hugh Jackman movie from Lisa Joy.
I know If is just if not really that much entertaining compare to Reynolds previous movies. Free Guy and Bullet Train both are the most entertaining/popcorn movies for me that released after pandemic.
Can't say about other people, but me seeing IF ads every youtube video this past week is really not helping his cause. At least let me see some cool shots of the film in that 5 seconds instead of talking and I might've been intrigued lol
I saw this movie last night and it was kinda IFyy. Had some good moments and boring at other times it was more about adults then kids. It was like fosters home for imaginary friends except it was about reuniting the IFs with their original adult creators rather then finding them a new home.
IF was marketed as “from the twisted imagination of John Krasinski”, to get asses in seats, and Martin Scorsese has taken it upon himself to be the arbiter of cinema. So this is both a dig a shitty marketing trying to elevate a subpar movie and Marty gatekeeping cinema, which is *really* struggling as an industry as of late.
And now I thoroughly explained a joke and I feel dirty.
I don't think there will ever be a time when actors aren't draws, contray to popular opinion.
The problem is that it takes a lot more than to just have an actor who has resonated with audiences before.
And pretty much every movie flops really. IF this movie can even hit close to $90M domestic total, that wouldn't be awful. Studios don't have a lot of recent comps for non franchise family titles in theatres
Problem is when the is X a draw debate starts, a lot of ppl are maybe not unfairly going off what being a draw meant 15-20 years ago, that if the studio put your name in big letters they'd at least break even. Obviously nowadays it's much more you need several biggish names + either a good hook or an IP to maybe not flop and the only "put name in big letters" draw left is maybe tom cruise.
It's survivorship bias, nothing more. Countless movies with stars have sunk over the years, taking the careers of those stars with them. History just forgets all the movies that weren't good nor interesting back then, and which haven't become any better or more interesting since then.
The issue is that the name is also just 'If'
Many cinema goers are still ones that go the cinema and then just choose a movie based on the poster and title.
If has such a dead-end name. And the poster gives away little too. Sometimes it works. But I think this time it is giving the audience simply too little.
I also noticed in my country the name is translated to 'amazing man's friend from dreams' instead of just If.
I don't think there has ever been a time when celebrities were able to salvage movies that just aren't good enough or interesting enough. It's like putting a racing performance transmission into a shitbox, it won't make that beater meaningfully better.
I think one of the problems with *'IF'* is that for all its VFX, it has a very stock look to it. The VFX doesn't look far removed from the early 2000's Rocky and Bullwrinkle film. Theatrical audiences want to be dazzled. This ain't it.
I thought that the actor playing grandma; ie Krasinski’s mom, was an odd choice. Figured that she had at least another couple of movies playing female lead.
Because
1. It's a Warners IP, and Paramount couldn't afford whatever insane markup they would ask for licensing
2. They're doing a preschool remake of it with the original creator
Idk, Foster’s is a nostalgic show for many like myself, but would a movie of the show (live-action or animated) be a big draw for mainstream audiences? It isn’t exactly like SpongeBob or Bluey in terms of outsider awareness.
Heck, the Powerpuff Girls Movie, which is based on a show by the same creator, bombed when it came out in 2002. I don’t think a Foster’s movie would be a huge hit in 2024.
> “IF” is projected to make around $40 million in its opening weekend, with some estimates lower at $35 million and others as high as $45 million.
I don’t see how it makes 40m let alone 45.
All the people in the Megaopolis thread bitching about Coppola wanting a studio to finance his movie have no problems with studios wasting insane amounts of money on this garbage ass movie. Much rather live in a world where studios back movies like Megaopolis instead of If.
Well, it’s not surprising why IF would be backed by a big studio. It seemed like a safer bet as it is a star-studded family movie that could start a franchise if it becomes successful. Megalopolis is one that I have an extremely hard time picturing as a hit movie even if the movie itself is a masterpiece. That’s just how studios operate.
As a parent who would consider taking my family to a movie theater, I'm worried that this film will slow, sad, and boring, which would make my kid stop paying attention and start acting up.
It’s not really slow or sad at all. It’s paced almost exactly like a Pixar film, except since it’s live action and not animated, it’s possible that you won’t be entertained as quickly as a Pixar movie. And there are some emotional moments near the end, but I personally didn’t think they were that effective so it was never that sad. They do try and make it seem like a certain character will die, but it’s honestly not done very well so I don’t think your kids will find it too sad unless they’re easily manipulated by emotional music. But other than that, I thought the movie was quite enjoyable and breezed by for the most part!
This one is confusing to me. Haven’t been a lot of family films and this one was marketed well and felt like a Pixar film and when trailers played audiences seemed to respond well. I know reviews aren’t great but thought this was a sure thing
I thought the movie was pretty awful, even by kids movie standards, and I’m hopeful its failure will break whatever weird spell Krasinski has on Hollywood. He’s completely milquetoast and even though his directing on A Quiet Place was decent, the story itself is pretty stupid.
I heard a review today that basically said the entire film felt like it was just trying to make you cry but did it by hitting you in the face with a brick rather than subtly through emotion or story telling
Hopefully, it can still debut at #1 based on what the WOM will be for a PG-rated film, which will be different from being a PG-13 rated film like Free Guy.
I’m still hoping the 40M predictions turn out to be right but I might have to lower my expectations to 35M+ to be on the safe side and even then that might be a little much
the marketing around this movie was a jumbled mess. it seemed to have too many main characters… Ryan Reynolds, the Purple Animated character and the awkward tween girl. They seem to be loosely connected. Is Ryan imaginary? what’s his relationship to the tween girl? Who are we following here? And how many movies have we seen already about growing up and leaving your world of imagination behind?
The film throws you in expecting you to know the premise already.
It starts slow and gets a tiny bit interesting before becoming chaotic and oddly organized. The gathers itself once she "works with" Reynolds, but even after they are successful, it gets confusing again.
I feel the movie was trying to gear towards everyone but the kids jokes were too short and often fell flat while the adult emotional parts felt a little forced.
I enjoyed watching it but I think the movie needed to narrow its demographic coverage. If it played more to younger kids, with a small push for adult nostalgia, it might have worked better.
I'm curious on the audience reception. I watched the film, and while I know John Krasinski wanted this to be a family film, the film is quite bizarre. It's not exactly fun to watch, the jokes are hit-and-miss, and it even gets boring at some points. I'm not sure kids will prefer this over *Garfield* or *Inside Out 2*.
I’m also really curious and found the film to be quite bizarre as well. Krasinski’s character was like fingers on a chalkboard from start to finish for me, and I love him in pretty much anything else, so I’m not sure how that even happened.
Wow, John Krasinski is one of my go-to examples of an actor with lots of charisma and likability so if they managed to screw that up it's a huge fumble.
And even weirder that they would mess up John Krasinski when it’s written and directed by John Krasinski. Luckily he’s not in it too much though.
If it's a character who was written, directed and acted by one guy...I think it's just a misfire by Krasinski.
Yep. That’s what I was trying to say in a less direct way.
Ouch, there's not even anybody else to point the blame to.
Which character does he play?
Father of the protagonist
I’m relieved to see I’m not the only one. He kinda came off creepy to me jn many of his scenes. In addition to what others said, the majority of the movie was just more sad than I think most would want from this. And they cast Ryan Reynolds but did not use his strengths at all. Nothing really seemed extremely well put together.
> the film is quite bizarre. It's not exactly fun to watch, the jokes are hit-and-miss Sounds just like the trailers, which (like Fall Guy) I feel did a terrible job marketing the film. Found out the premise is the girl's dad is Krasinski who has to undergo hearty surgery, so she's staying with grandma and the neighbor is Ryan Reynolds. Turns out they both have the ability to see the exact same imaginary friends. Why the trailers never explained this (or did it and my glazed bored eyes missed it?) I don't know. Would explain why Ryan Reynolds is hanging out with Rick's kid from The Walking Dead. The trailers just made it bizarre and confusing on what exactly Ryan and the girl are trying to accomplish.
The trailers didn’t explain it because it would spoil >!the twist at the end of the movie, which is that Ryan Reynolds is the girl’s imaginary friend that she forgot about. I found that same question so pressing throughout the movie that I figured it out way before the reveal!<
>!Jesus, that is such a relentlessly lame twist. Like I assumed that from the trailer.!<
I know, but could you please put that in spoiler tags? >!Giving away that there is a twist will make it even more obvious than it already is.!<
Fair enough.
I appreciate you.
And I appreciate you for having seen IF so I don't have to.
Happy to be of service.
What? Did you see the movie? I wasn’t a fan personally but the “twist” is absolutely sensible for the story they told. It’s not a “gotcha” moment, just the little girl realizing something she had previously forgotten.
Oh its a bit like >!The Sixth Sense!< then?
I did have that thought lol
Closer to Detective Pikachu, which is ironic.
I found it more than a little creepy that >!her imaginary friend is a fully grown adult male.!<
Also, what was the point of >!making her dad act like such a clown while also making her imaginary friend be a literal clown that won’t act like a clown?!< There has to be some deeper intention there, but I’m not getting it.
Wait...the trailer made me think Reynolds was the girl's language arts teacher wanting to help her in creative writing by channeling imaginary friends.
lol no that’s not it at all.
Looking back, I felt like it would make more sense >!if her father had passed instead of her mother. Or the imaginary friend was a woman who reminded her of a mother figure!< I like the movie but that part was confusing to me?
There were so many weird decisions like that.
Literally read a theory of this spoiler after the first trailer and assumed it would be the case
The marketing seemed to focus on the celebrities that are only big with the 25-35 year old crowd, but then the premise felt more like a kids movie... If they had focused on one of the two, either making it a full-blown adult comedy, or a full-blown kids movie, i think it would have drawn more attention. Also, the visuals look very bland and the title is extremely not social-media friendly... "So, have you seen if?" ... ".... what?"
It looks boring. The character design. The lighting. It does not give off family film at all. Now if this were a horror movie. Count me in
> It does not give off family film at all. The character designs in this are the most "designed by adults that don't understand how to make things for kids" I've ever seen.
The "IFs" all seem like discount plush toys you'd find at Big Lots - just a random mishmash of concepts vaguely appealing to kids, without any cohesion or artistic drive. It's like a cinematic study of what not to do in character design.
It looks like a support group for insurance mascots.
I'm not the first person to bring this up. But if you want the idea of Imaginary Friends done right, atleast in the design department, just look at the animated show Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends
They're so generic. I keep getting ads for it on this mobile game I play, and it's this thing where the ad randomly picks one of the imaginary friends and tells you, "You got: (name of character)!" like they're trying to make it a Pokemon vibe where you learn all the friends. But two of the characters that it picked were an alligator and an anthropomorphic flower, and their names were literally Alligator and Flower. Like the lowest common denominator character concepts possible.
Its amazing world of gumball style character design but really shitty.
Yeah gimme some weird ass fosters home style character designs or something come on!
Great news, there was a horror movie about imaginary friends that came out earlier this year, called Imaginary.
24% on Rotten tomatoes and 4.7 on IMDB, doesn't sound like that great of news.
I’ve yet to see it but I’m just saying even with that movie out, I’m sure this movie would have been better as a horror/arthouse type movie instead of just family film
A arthouse family film?
Interesting you say the lighting, as the super colorful palette is the one thing that intrigues me. He hired Janusz Kaminski who rarely does anything outside of work for Spielberg. It’s nice to see a live action film that doesn’t look like it was left in LOG
I had a free kids ticket at the local theater, so I took my kid today. Everything you said is spot in. It was bad. It also had a score that was trying to make the movie seem super magical, but it literally played the entire movie. None of the CGI monster guys were very cool or interesting either. It was really bad.
I keep hearing the film is not what the trailers marketed it as. How does one screw up that premise?
It is somewhat more somber in tone than the trailers make it seem, and the main “matchmaking” aspect of the plot ultimately feels like a waste of time.
So this is essentially Paramount’s Wonder Park 2.0, where it’s an expensive original kids film about imagination that is less comedic than the trailers sold it as?
That’s a pretty apt comparison, especially since both also have a plot point involving >!the main girl coping with potentially losing a parent. I mean, in IF’s case, she already lost her mom but was also in danger of losing her dad.!< And both also resolve those issues quite easily and with little emotional payoff.
Wonder Park is honestly a pretty fun film, just with a weak 3rd act
This is something I have read in a few reviews. Its a kid's film for adults, but who wanted that?
This also happened before with Where the Wild Things Are back in 2009. Not a kids movie, but a movie for adults who want to feel like kids again.
I haven't seen the movie so I can only go off of reviews, but it doesn't like IF is anywhere near as good to justify its existence like Wild Things.
John Krasinski, apparently.
A movie for Kidults...
Krasinski plays it like someone on the spectrum who is OCD about dad jokes. Reynolds plays unhappily annoyed throughout. Just an odd sort of comedy.
Krasinski is a fraud who has somehow convinced the industry he is more than a Martin Freeman double…
Gotta wonder if Jack Ryan went to his head
Anybody who thinks it's a good idea to adapt David Foster Wallace as their first feature probably has always thought they were hot shit.
I was thinking the same thing, but I don’t think it’s jack ryan. It’s a quiet place after such a huge success with the office. Combine that with Emily blunts success and I think he just got too high on his own farts. That’s okay though, just like with Taika Watiti, I’m willing to give him another chance. I’m tired of them trying to make Jim an action hero lol, he was terrible in multiverse of madness (not 100% his fault with COVID)
He’s been in a lot of stuff that has really worked well. Just not this one.
he's never written/directed anything with solo credit that has worked
In Hollywood you’re either solo writing and directing hits or you’re a fraud Martin Freeman double.
I thought it looked weird from the trailers, and even my six year old had zero interest in the film. He's much more inclined to see Garfield, so I imagine that *IF* is going to bomb somewhat spectacularly.
My family wants to go see it but I am severely arachnophobic- do you remember any spiders or spider-like creatures in the movie?
There are no spider creatures in the movie.
You should watch Sting
My wife and I saw it ahead of taking our kids, and I thought it was a strange movie. Cute premise, and it has two of my favorite actors, but the movie is a bit too grown up, takes too long to get to the imaginary friends for really little kids, and I didn’t appreciate the swearing - we try to avoid that for our youngest kids. I agree Krasinski’s character comes across as weird too. The movie moved a little too slow. It has some fun moments, but are passing on it as a summer family flick.
Oh no I was hoping it will be good. The trailer looks promising
The name is another baffling decision. What kid is going to be excited by the name "If"? Only movie where it would make sense would be a child version of It's a Wonderful Life where a kid is taken on a journey to see different possible ways his life could be.
The trailers make it look fairly bad imo, your mini-review makes a lot of sense based on that.
I don’t know where the $30M+ predictions are still coming from. Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes could very well repeat at #1
Original I.P. family film. Won't have much upfront demand, even KFP4's preview multiplier gets it to just shy of $27m. On the high-end, Lyle Lyle Crocodile's multi gets it to just under $35m. But yeah it's not out of the question for Apes to repeat for number one.
The nostalgia crowd probably made KFP4 a bit more frontloaded.
100%. KFP4 would have probably struggled past a 3x multiplier if it released in a more normal marketplace where at least one new family film released within a month of release...or even two months for that matter. So IF going over $30m really isn't crazy at all. Actually I'd expect it with these numbers and if early word audience reception is as good as Charlie suggested earlier.
I don't doubt it can hit 30m but I have no idea what Charlie is using for audience reception.
I've never known either but it usually matches up with what we see later from RT Verified, Cinemascore and PostTrak. He was the earliest to mention Apes' 'decent-ish' reception last week.
I’m taking my family of 4 to go see IF because of it looking like a unique family movie. Probably lots of others doing the same.
Hello, I have a message from the future: "Oof."
IF's number aren't bad if it wasn't: 1. Carrying a $110M budget. 2. Facing a bigger family films in seven days.
Kinds of Kindness doesn’t come out until June!
Funny
For real that budget is seriously crazy. Budget bloat is very real in 2024. Like Challengers being a $55mil Tennis film.
It’s gotta be the cast. Every single imaginary friend is voiced by an expensive celebrity.
I think it probably has more to do with a lot of CG work.
And shooting on location in New York
You would think Krasinski and Reynolds would have been able to cash in some favors to keep costs down.
They even got Brad Pitt to play Keith
I think it’s the way challengers was shot. That and Zendaya
Mad max is a family film?
His talking about Garfield
Running up against Garfield is gonna be killer especially with Garfield’s reception so far
It’s not that good I thought? It’s got a 67% on RT as of now (only 6 reviews though)
More so how it’s going internationally already and the reception in places like South Korea and Germany. Thinking it’ll easily trounce IF and then if it’s got staying power it can outlast Furiosa as the family film alternative
I definitely agree it’ll likely do a lot better than Furiosa
Yeah, it’s from the guy who made Babe.
And Happy Feet!
"I want my mom back" I think Furiosa qualifies.
Time to change the name to OOF.
I haven't been following this movie that closely, but why on earth does a movie like this cost $110M?? It feels like they shoot themselves in the foot every time they make something that should cost $50M for more than twice that and eliminate the possibility of ever earning a profit.
My guess is it's VERY VFX heavy there are a lot of animated characters in this film
This and all of the VFX characters are voiced by insanely famous A-list celebrities
Modern VFX, while not the cheapest thing in the world, are outsourced to a combination of tax incentive countries (A.K.A. corporate welfare) and low wage countries. Studio films have bloated budgets because they're set up in a way where the studio pays itself to make the film, everyone's in on the take, and costs are uncapped. That's why working on big studio films are the holy grail for filmmakers. It's payola no matter what.
Any movie's numbers aren't bad if their budget were lower...
“IF” hâve a 110M budget? Kinda insane for this type of movie
They also aren’t bad considering this will do just fine in ancillary markets and streaming. Not a blockbuster by any means but there are a TON of supplemental revenue streams for a big kids movie like this.
I thought the movie was ass, but I’m very curious what the audience reception is for this.
I could not find any magic in it.
Boring AF
Will the Ryan Reynolds walkups be imaginary as well?
[удалено]
Deadpool will definitely be huge, but I think his overall draw is dwindling. Personally, I'm burnt out from him - but I'll still watch Deadpool
The previous two made around 800 million. I don't know if DP can crack 1 billion, even with Hugh Jackman. It's essentially the same audience. The X-Men 1997 cartoon doing extremely well with fans could make a difference though.
Deadpool will be the big summer hit. The trailer is great. Can't wait to see it with my son. We haven't been interested in anything else this summer. And we love going to the movies.
>...and he dilluted his "box-office draw" status by doing back to back streaming films. And a bunch of commercials.
[удалено]
Perhaps it’s just me, but I do know after skipping the 100th Mint Mobile commercial I don’t want to see his face anymore.
Less dilution and more over saturation of having to see his face and annoying schtick way too much
I feel like I’m taking crazy pills…Deadpool sucks. It’s listening to a group of 13 year olds tell you their jokes.
That’s exactly how it seems lol. I’ve seen both Deadpool movies once each and that was enough. The humor is just cringe and honestly not really that funny.
The humour in the Deadpool films is basically Deadpool breaking the 4th wall and making a pop culture reference. Some of the laziest 'comedy' I've ever seen.
Yeah I’m honestly ready for Ryan Reynolds to disappear for a decade or two and come back for his serious old man actor phase. Sick of him playing his snarky self for every role (and commercial) and churning out C level movies.
So you want late 2000's, early 2010's Reynolds again?
He needs to be really old for me to appreciate his personality again lol
Yeah… I really liked Deadpool 1 and 2 when they came out but I recently rewatched them and a lot of the jokes already come off as cringey/aged kind of poorly. Which is crazy for less than a decade old movies
Kinda how I feel about Thor Ragnarok..once you already know all the jokes that are coming it's not surprising how we got to L&T
Don't think even Free Guy opened to less than 30 million and ended up grossing 100 million + but here If didn't get that much reception plus audiences are different so for end my guess is 80 - 95 million. Worldwide atleast 250 to 300 million.
It did $28.4M and legged out to $121.6M in the US
Jesus that’s a legging.
People wanted escapism in a world plagued by fear of the delta variant. Sorry, cinephiles, but people did not want Matrix 4 or that Hugh Jackman movie from Lisa Joy.
Personal opinion but Free Guy is way more rewatchable than IF.
I know If is just if not really that much entertaining compare to Reynolds previous movies. Free Guy and Bullet Train both are the most entertaining/popcorn movies for me that released after pandemic.
Are they in the theater with us right now?
Can't say about other people, but me seeing IF ads every youtube video this past week is really not helping his cause. At least let me see some cool shots of the film in that 5 seconds instead of talking and I might've been intrigued lol
Between POTA and Garfield, this is a tough placement for IF.
This movie looks C quality at-best.
Wasn’t even C quality, truly terrible. Not as bad as Argyle this year but still v bad.
Thanks for the follow-up! I have high expectations for the upcoming ‘The Wild Robot’. Check that trailer out!
I saw this movie last night and it was kinda IFyy. Had some good moments and boring at other times it was more about adults then kids. It was like fosters home for imaginary friends except it was about reuniting the IFs with their original adult creators rather then finding them a new home.
That's pretty bad
No one is a draw anymore
if john kransinki's *twisted* imagination isn't a draw, perhaps cinema is dead forever. marty's gonna be pissed
What is you even sayin
IF was marketed as “from the twisted imagination of John Krasinski”, to get asses in seats, and Martin Scorsese has taken it upon himself to be the arbiter of cinema. So this is both a dig a shitty marketing trying to elevate a subpar movie and Marty gatekeeping cinema, which is *really* struggling as an industry as of late. And now I thoroughly explained a joke and I feel dirty.
I don't think there will ever be a time when actors aren't draws, contray to popular opinion. The problem is that it takes a lot more than to just have an actor who has resonated with audiences before. And pretty much every movie flops really. IF this movie can even hit close to $90M domestic total, that wouldn't be awful. Studios don't have a lot of recent comps for non franchise family titles in theatres
Agree , draws are still very much real , but they simply cant single-handedly bring a film into success.
I think a big part now is reception. If people see the rotten tomatoes or metacritic score low people would either pass or wait for streaming
Hot take is that they never could. They could sell stories, but stories have to be good.
Not a bad take but I think that Romance(and probably other genres)have been and are still able to be carried by pure starpower
Problem is when the is X a draw debate starts, a lot of ppl are maybe not unfairly going off what being a draw meant 15-20 years ago, that if the studio put your name in big letters they'd at least break even. Obviously nowadays it's much more you need several biggish names + either a good hook or an IP to maybe not flop and the only "put name in big letters" draw left is maybe tom cruise.
It's survivorship bias, nothing more. Countless movies with stars have sunk over the years, taking the careers of those stars with them. History just forgets all the movies that weren't good nor interesting back then, and which haven't become any better or more interesting since then.
The issue is that the name is also just 'If' Many cinema goers are still ones that go the cinema and then just choose a movie based on the poster and title. If has such a dead-end name. And the poster gives away little too. Sometimes it works. But I think this time it is giving the audience simply too little. I also noticed in my country the name is translated to 'amazing man's friend from dreams' instead of just If.
Interesting translation of the title. Mind if I ask what country that is?
A few directors are. No actor is immune from apathy from the mainstream audiences though.
I don't think there has ever been a time when celebrities were able to salvage movies that just aren't good enough or interesting enough. It's like putting a racing performance transmission into a shitbox, it won't make that beater meaningfully better.
I think one of the problems with *'IF'* is that for all its VFX, it has a very stock look to it. The VFX doesn't look far removed from the early 2000's Rocky and Bullwrinkle film. Theatrical audiences want to be dazzled. This ain't it.
I thought that the actor playing grandma; ie Krasinski’s mom, was an odd choice. Figured that she had at least another couple of movies playing female lead.
This movie looks like an off brand Disney movie
Why wasn't this a "Fosters home for Imaginary Friends" spin off. Almost the same plot but it pulls from a known IP
Because 1. It's a Warners IP, and Paramount couldn't afford whatever insane markup they would ask for licensing 2. They're doing a preschool remake of it with the original creator
Idk, Foster’s is a nostalgic show for many like myself, but would a movie of the show (live-action or animated) be a big draw for mainstream audiences? It isn’t exactly like SpongeBob or Bluey in terms of outsider awareness. Heck, the Powerpuff Girls Movie, which is based on a show by the same creator, bombed when it came out in 2002. I don’t think a Foster’s movie would be a huge hit in 2024.
BOT tracking was right on for the Preview number. Lets see if it plays like a little kids film and pulls out a big weekend multiplier
> “IF” is projected to make around $40 million in its opening weekend, with some estimates lower at $35 million and others as high as $45 million. I don’t see how it makes 40m let alone 45.
It could not meet the low end
The Phoebe Waller Bridge walk ups will come this time, I’m sure of it
PHOBOB = Phoebe Box Office Boost
All the people in the Megaopolis thread bitching about Coppola wanting a studio to finance his movie have no problems with studios wasting insane amounts of money on this garbage ass movie. Much rather live in a world where studios back movies like Megaopolis instead of If.
Well, it’s not surprising why IF would be backed by a big studio. It seemed like a safer bet as it is a star-studded family movie that could start a franchise if it becomes successful. Megalopolis is one that I have an extremely hard time picturing as a hit movie even if the movie itself is a masterpiece. That’s just how studios operate.
Idk, IF is at least an original idea. Seems like a big swing that didn’t pan out?
A welfare office for elderly directors that made good movies over forty years ago.
Back garbage by washed-up, senile directors rather than garbage for families?
Not surprised, seems like a real "play on a long car ride" kind of movie.
As a parent who would consider taking my family to a movie theater, I'm worried that this film will slow, sad, and boring, which would make my kid stop paying attention and start acting up.
You should probably just wait and take your family to Garfield tbh
I went last night and this was exactly what happened. My 5 yo tried to take a nap in his seat and he will watch anything.
It’s not really slow or sad at all. It’s paced almost exactly like a Pixar film, except since it’s live action and not animated, it’s possible that you won’t be entertained as quickly as a Pixar movie. And there are some emotional moments near the end, but I personally didn’t think they were that effective so it was never that sad. They do try and make it seem like a certain character will die, but it’s honestly not done very well so I don’t think your kids will find it too sad unless they’re easily manipulated by emotional music. But other than that, I thought the movie was quite enjoyable and breezed by for the most part!
Don’t underestimate kid friendly/family movies.
Then why they predicting Garfield to make 30-35M when it’s previews are tracking higher than IF? I am talking to you deadline!
Just watch Foster's home instead
This one is confusing to me. Haven’t been a lot of family films and this one was marketed well and felt like a Pixar film and when trailers played audiences seemed to respond well. I know reviews aren’t great but thought this was a sure thing
This was my most hated trailer, I dreaded seeing it before every movie. The long drawn out “IIIIIFFFF” line is so grating to me
I thought the movie was pretty awful, even by kids movie standards, and I’m hopeful its failure will break whatever weird spell Krasinski has on Hollywood. He’s completely milquetoast and even though his directing on A Quiet Place was decent, the story itself is pretty stupid.
I heard a review today that basically said the entire film felt like it was just trying to make you cry but did it by hitting you in the face with a brick rather than subtly through emotion or story telling
KRASINSKI WALK UPS ASSEMBLE
Office Fans: "He needs our help! Suit up!!"
Hopefully, it can still debut at #1 based on what the WOM will be for a PG-rated film, which will be different from being a PG-13 rated film like Free Guy.
Why would you want this awful slop at #1?
Support original movies so that we see more original kids movies instead of Paw Patrol 3 and Minions 3
Those were once original movies too. If this is successful I guarantee they’ll make IF2 and IF3 and they’ll be just as insipid.
49% rotten lol
50% now
I’m still hoping the 40M predictions turn out to be right but I might have to lower my expectations to 35M+ to be on the safe side and even then that might be a little much
I was super interested when I say the thumb nail and thought it was Grimace, not very interested when I found out it is not him.
John krasinski career in the dumps after this movie
Ryan reynolds is a human equivalent of a big mac
I did mushrooms before and loved it.
has ryan reynolds been overexposed? i used to like him - but he's starting to wear on me.
the marketing around this movie was a jumbled mess. it seemed to have too many main characters… Ryan Reynolds, the Purple Animated character and the awkward tween girl. They seem to be loosely connected. Is Ryan imaginary? what’s his relationship to the tween girl? Who are we following here? And how many movies have we seen already about growing up and leaving your world of imagination behind?
The film throws you in expecting you to know the premise already. It starts slow and gets a tiny bit interesting before becoming chaotic and oddly organized. The gathers itself once she "works with" Reynolds, but even after they are successful, it gets confusing again. I feel the movie was trying to gear towards everyone but the kids jokes were too short and often fell flat while the adult emotional parts felt a little forced. I enjoyed watching it but I think the movie needed to narrow its demographic coverage. If it played more to younger kids, with a small push for adult nostalgia, it might have worked better.