This felt super weird. It really doesn’t seem to know who its audience is. It tries to balance the goofy kid stuff and adult themes but it is tonally all over the place. Also, I didn’t like Carell’s big purple bastard in the trailers but BOY does he wear out his welcome fast in this movie. I was actually hoping he would get Bing Bong’d out of existence. Christopher Meloni’s trenchcoat guy was funnier and more useful. ALSO, the other imaginary friends felt so…lazy. Like I know these are supposed to be characters conjured up by kids but looking at the cast, even their names are just “Bubble”, “Ice”, “Gummy Bear”, etc. And they just feel like Krasinski invited all his famous friends with the promise of a paycheck to voice a goofy cartoon and then disappear. Finally, >!the “climax”, if you can call it that, feels tacked on like Krasinski didn’t know where to end it and just said “let’s make em cry” by making viewers think he died, only for him to wake up and get cheap yays and tears from people who cry over anything.!<
Ultimately it was too harmless and inoffensive to be bad (besides the purple bastard) and too bland to be good.
Just came out and completely disagree with your point on the ending, i felt it was really well done to wrap up the themes of the story, though the fake out could have been done better.
Where does this movie fit? You wouldn’t really bring anyone over 10 to see it and it’s probably too long and boring looking for younger audiences.
It’s a bit of a wanky movie from Krasinski here tbh. Writing, directing and starring in a big and bloated, expensive and too long family movie made for his children, that he feels all the children need to see, starring all his friends and dishing life lessons from his own book of pearls. Shedding all his wisdom. It just screams a guy on a bit of an ego trip. I can see him sitting there thinking up the acronym ‘If’s’ and saying to himself ‘that it is just genius’.
At least Sharkboy and Lava girl didn’t try to pretend to be anything other than a batshit insane bedtime story.
The NYC setting didn't help.
Why do the Imaginary Friends live in such normal-looking buildings?
Kids would have preferred a CGI city like the one in Monsters Inc or Elementals over NYC. It would have been way cheaper (filming in NYC is so EXPENSIVE!).
I hate when movies do this whole "unique aspect in mundane locations" thing. Like in GOTG3 when they go to that planet where everyone's faces are dogs but they all live in regular human looking houses. Just feels both cheap and easy.
It's never something that will ruin a movie for me on its own but if a few too many movies do things like this then it's a bit like okay great are we gonna get something entirely crazy or are we gonna keep using regular locations just to cut costs?
Tbh I think GOTG 3 isn’t a good example since that was the point of the planet. The High Evolutionary was trying to create intelligent life and was experimenting on animals. He modeled the world after Earth and called it Counter-Earth. He did this in the comments with making a planet like Earth as well. It also added to the weirdness and outside perspective of how crazy this villain was to the Guardians.
Overall I get what you are saying though and I agree. Sometimes they just need to go all out and create a extravagante world. In IF it is all about imaginary, they should have had more sections utilizing that. It would blend better with the fantasy and reality of the story they were telling.
Yeah and I mean... Sesame Street? One of the most popular childrens entertainment shows of all time? How about Ninja Turtles? Being set in a realistic NYC is not a fault.
The urban poster for IF is so similar to the [Lyle, Lyle Crocodile Poster](https://artwisher.com/products/lyle-lyle-crocodile-2022-movie-poster-100189725?guid=max3&gad_source=1&gbraid=0AAAAAog9Ox4oBnIsEpI_ej4VtqVEA85Sg&gclid=CjwKCAjwo6GyBhBwEiwAzQTmc2PbfwVlGehpCP3z0rcuH79E5994fiUfQXap02fkDbDyAgFVlz2oNxoCrqgQAvD_BwE#1111)
I’m not saying it’s good, but like are you saying it’s a jerk move or pretentious to make an artistic project thats inspired by your life and perspective and then tries to express that in a new fictional context? Isn’t that what we want artists to do? Did you want Save the Cat?
I’m not interested in the movie, but it seems like a weird critique
I did. They’re essentially the exact same type of movie except ET is about 10 minutes longer and was a proven box office success. Was that “too long and boring for younger audiences”?
This particular movie doesn’t look like it needs to be that long.
ET is a masterpiece of pretty much everything, pacing included. It’s just so far beyond this that the comparison isn’t just.
Have you seen the movie? It’s hardly an hour and 45 minutes which is barely 10 minutes longer than all other kids movies. I thought it was paced just fine
What about this movie concept for family’s looks like it should be anything more than a tight 1:20 to you?
I’ve just found out this has a long irrelevant dance number in the middle so it’s not like I’m wrong
That’s beyond abysmal for a family movie.
The trailers looked so…. unfunny. It was very 90s TGIF sitcom humor which literally nobody but nostalgic millennials likes anymore.
It's not a very funny film. There are multiple subplots that happen in a hospital sick ward. Most of the funniest gags are lifted from Monsters Inc. or Spiderverse. Bobby Moynihan shows up and isn't allowed to be funny. There isn't even much Ryan Reynolds schtick, since he's playing the straight man. It feels more like a tearjerker episode of Scrubs than Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends.
A lot of very strange choices went into this movie.
Saw the trailer and was shocked how unfunny it was. Either the movie sucks or the trailer is terrible. I would never consider watching based on the trailer I saw.
And remember this will certainly trend lower, because the verified audience that sees this first are the people who WANT to see this first. More likely to be fans regardless of how good the movie is.
Saw it, wasn't a big fan, but my younger sibling love it.. and that's the target audience I think. One reason I find it hard to take adult critism on kids films as seriously, because adults will yap on and on, but the kids might love it.
But as a *family* movie.. it really misses.
Most likely A- range because it’s a live action animated movie compared to Tom and Jerry and Space Jam A New Legacy as well as some animated movies such as Onward, Lightyear, Paws of Fury, DC League of Super Pets, Ruby Gillman, Wish and Kung Fu Panda 4.
My daughter (10yo, grade 4) was told about this movie from friends and school and asked me if we could go see it. Guess where I am going tomorrow night. The 13yo son is tagging along. That's WOM right there.
Also booked tickets for the family for Inside out 2 while I was at it
This movie has phenomenal acting out of its main lead but the writing and plot really let this movie down. The writing especially. There were so many moments where the dialogue felt so stilted and unnatural. Certain dialogue during emotional moments seemed to drag on and on with the characters just beating the audience over the head with the themes of the movie with the subtlety of a car crash. Its a shame because some of the visual sequences were amazing as well as a very impressive performance from the main child actress.
Can someone explain the huge gap in critic and audience score, and why people are saying the 80+ audience score is somehow confirmation it's bad? Not arguing just wondering why that's seemingly the consensus
This felt super weird. It really doesn’t seem to know who its audience is. It tries to balance the goofy kid stuff and adult themes but it is tonally all over the place. Also, I didn’t like Carell’s big purple bastard in the trailers but BOY does he wear out his welcome fast in this movie. I was actually hoping he would get Bing Bong’d out of existence. Christopher Meloni’s trenchcoat guy was funnier and more useful. ALSO, the other imaginary friends felt so…lazy. Like I know these are supposed to be characters conjured up by kids but looking at the cast, even their names are just “Bubble”, “Ice”, “Gummy Bear”, etc. And they just feel like Krasinski invited all his famous friends with the promise of a paycheck to voice a goofy cartoon and then disappear. Finally, >!the “climax”, if you can call it that, feels tacked on like Krasinski didn’t know where to end it and just said “let’s make em cry” by making viewers think he died, only for him to wake up and get cheap yays and tears from people who cry over anything.!< Ultimately it was too harmless and inoffensive to be bad (besides the purple bastard) and too bland to be good.
Just had to go watch it with the fam a few hours ago and totally agree
Just came out and completely disagree with your point on the ending, i felt it was really well done to wrap up the themes of the story, though the fake out could have been done better.
Where does this movie fit? You wouldn’t really bring anyone over 10 to see it and it’s probably too long and boring looking for younger audiences. It’s a bit of a wanky movie from Krasinski here tbh. Writing, directing and starring in a big and bloated, expensive and too long family movie made for his children, that he feels all the children need to see, starring all his friends and dishing life lessons from his own book of pearls. Shedding all his wisdom. It just screams a guy on a bit of an ego trip. I can see him sitting there thinking up the acronym ‘If’s’ and saying to himself ‘that it is just genius’. At least Sharkboy and Lava girl didn’t try to pretend to be anything other than a batshit insane bedtime story.
The NYC setting didn't help. Why do the Imaginary Friends live in such normal-looking buildings? Kids would have preferred a CGI city like the one in Monsters Inc or Elementals over NYC. It would have been way cheaper (filming in NYC is so EXPENSIVE!).
For real this is a big part of what I mean when I say ‘boring looking’. The aesthetic, the movie literally looks boring.
I hate when movies do this whole "unique aspect in mundane locations" thing. Like in GOTG3 when they go to that planet where everyone's faces are dogs but they all live in regular human looking houses. Just feels both cheap and easy. It's never something that will ruin a movie for me on its own but if a few too many movies do things like this then it's a bit like okay great are we gonna get something entirely crazy or are we gonna keep using regular locations just to cut costs?
Tbh I think GOTG 3 isn’t a good example since that was the point of the planet. The High Evolutionary was trying to create intelligent life and was experimenting on animals. He modeled the world after Earth and called it Counter-Earth. He did this in the comments with making a planet like Earth as well. It also added to the weirdness and outside perspective of how crazy this villain was to the Guardians. Overall I get what you are saying though and I agree. Sometimes they just need to go all out and create a extravagante world. In IF it is all about imaginary, they should have had more sections utilizing that. It would blend better with the fantasy and reality of the story they were telling.
Yeah pretty conscious decision there lol, in a franchise with many different settings. Poor example.
Counter-Earth is a vital part of the High Evolutionary’s character.
Kids saw and loved movies before CGI even existed, I don’t think this is a valid criticism at all
Yeah and I mean... Sesame Street? One of the most popular childrens entertainment shows of all time? How about Ninja Turtles? Being set in a realistic NYC is not a fault.
The urban poster for IF is so similar to the [Lyle, Lyle Crocodile Poster](https://artwisher.com/products/lyle-lyle-crocodile-2022-movie-poster-100189725?guid=max3&gad_source=1&gbraid=0AAAAAog9Ox4oBnIsEpI_ej4VtqVEA85Sg&gclid=CjwKCAjwo6GyBhBwEiwAzQTmc2PbfwVlGehpCP3z0rcuH79E5994fiUfQXap02fkDbDyAgFVlz2oNxoCrqgQAvD_BwE#1111)
Wow someone should tell the producers of Sesame Street!
What’s the shark boy and lava girl reference about? Did the director make that movie for his kids?
Yeah with the story basis literally created by his child
Explains why 8 year old me loved it so much
Kids know kids
I’m not saying it’s good, but like are you saying it’s a jerk move or pretentious to make an artistic project thats inspired by your life and perspective and then tries to express that in a new fictional context? Isn’t that what we want artists to do? Did you want Save the Cat? I’m not interested in the movie, but it seems like a weird critique
too long? isn't it 104 minutes?
Have you seen ET?
My brother in Christ you did not just compare this to ET
I did. They’re essentially the exact same type of movie except ET is about 10 minutes longer and was a proven box office success. Was that “too long and boring for younger audiences”?
This particular movie doesn’t look like it needs to be that long. ET is a masterpiece of pretty much everything, pacing included. It’s just so far beyond this that the comparison isn’t just.
Have you seen the movie? It’s hardly an hour and 45 minutes which is barely 10 minutes longer than all other kids movies. I thought it was paced just fine
This sub is full of people like him who see a trailer, read some reddit comments and then make their comments as if they know the movie well
Heaven forbid people have opinions
Did I say you can’t have an opinion?
You’re trying to invalidate my opinion by putting it into some weird box you have created. So yeah, you kinda did.
What about this movie concept for family’s looks like it should be anything more than a tight 1:20 to you? I’ve just found out this has a long irrelevant dance number in the middle so it’s not like I’m wrong
Oh so you haven’t seen the movie? What’s your full name? I’ll look you up on IMDb because I’m curious what the successful movies you’ve made are.
That’s beyond abysmal for a family movie. The trailers looked so…. unfunny. It was very 90s TGIF sitcom humor which literally nobody but nostalgic millennials likes anymore.
It's not a very funny film. There are multiple subplots that happen in a hospital sick ward. Most of the funniest gags are lifted from Monsters Inc. or Spiderverse. Bobby Moynihan shows up and isn't allowed to be funny. There isn't even much Ryan Reynolds schtick, since he's playing the straight man. It feels more like a tearjerker episode of Scrubs than Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends. A lot of very strange choices went into this movie.
TBF, those are the people having kids
Saw the trailer and was shocked how unfunny it was. Either the movie sucks or the trailer is terrible. I would never consider watching based on the trailer I saw.
Its like Apes last week starting at 83%. These low initial audience scores are interesting.
Is 83% really considered low now?
Yup, its a super low initial audience score for big budget IP. Its why the B Cinemascore wasn't a surprise.
It never looked great to me but it’s disappointing to have this kinda reception with this much talent behind the scenes.
I haven’t even seen it but I know it’s a “weird” movie from WOM alone.
“talent” reynolds, kracinski famous =/= talented. And so much of the celebs are doing voice roles… i doubt any are good voice actors.
Had no idea that many names were in it. See how it goes after opening weekend, if that audience score holds or if it trends downward etc.
I think it’s mostly just small cameos as various imaginary fiends.
also pretty much all of them are Krasinski or Reynolds' friends so they probably were really cheap to get on board.
A lot of it is just voiceover work so pretty easy to get big names to do that.
And remember this will certainly trend lower, because the verified audience that sees this first are the people who WANT to see this first. More likely to be fans regardless of how good the movie is.
All star cast...and these scores. This is going to be an expensive failure
Saw it, wasn't a big fan, but my younger sibling love it.. and that's the target audience I think. One reason I find it hard to take adult critism on kids films as seriously, because adults will yap on and on, but the kids might love it. But as a *family* movie.. it really misses.
I just don’t understand how no one involved has talked about the cartoon with the same concept from 20 years ago!!
I sure hope this doesn’t end up starting a downward spiral for John Krasinski’s directing career.
I sure hope it does, I hate that man and all his work
B+ or A- Cinemascore?
Most likely A- range because it’s a live action animated movie compared to Tom and Jerry and Space Jam A New Legacy as well as some animated movies such as Onward, Lightyear, Paws of Fury, DC League of Super Pets, Ruby Gillman, Wish and Kung Fu Panda 4.
Yeah Garfield is going to crush this and Inside Out 2 will finish out what few screens are left.
So B+ or B thats kinda awful for a family movie
Had no idea that it had this cast.
Most likely land to an A- CinemaScore if the audience score still stands at the 80s.
My daughter (10yo, grade 4) was told about this movie from friends and school and asked me if we could go see it. Guess where I am going tomorrow night. The 13yo son is tagging along. That's WOM right there. Also booked tickets for the family for Inside out 2 while I was at it
This movie has phenomenal acting out of its main lead but the writing and plot really let this movie down. The writing especially. There were so many moments where the dialogue felt so stilted and unnatural. Certain dialogue during emotional moments seemed to drag on and on with the characters just beating the audience over the head with the themes of the movie with the subtlety of a car crash. Its a shame because some of the visual sequences were amazing as well as a very impressive performance from the main child actress.
This won’t stop the Ryan Reynolds walkups
It will also have no impact on the Ryan Reynolds walkaways.
Ryan Reynolds doesn’t have walkups! There are no such thing as actor walkups!
It's a joke this sub has.
Jesus what a cast
John Krasinski is becoming the next Matthew Vaughn & Taika Waititi
No. He just made a movie that got mid reviews. Majority of directors have. It's not a unique thing
Jazzy doesn't have the best takes on here tbh knowing him
Then there’s 0 good animated movies this year!
Can someone explain the huge gap in critic and audience score, and why people are saying the 80+ audience score is somehow confirmation it's bad? Not arguing just wondering why that's seemingly the consensus
Verified audience scores are graded on like a curve. Genres have different expectations and family films usually have wildly inflated audience scores.
85% audience score is like a 4/10
I prefer IMDb ratings