or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › Snow White & The Huntsman
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Snow White & The Huntsman

post #1 of 67
Thread Starter 
Didn't see any threads on this. Ebert gave it three and a half out of 4. I'm going to see this Sunday afternoon. Anyone else up for seeing it? Not doing too well on RT but it's one of those movies that I'm going to see regardless.
post #2 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbug View Post

Didn't see any threads on this. Ebert gave it three and a half out of 4. I'm going to see this Sunday afternoon. Anyone else up for seeing it? Not doing too well on RT but it's one of those movies that I'm going to see regardless.

The movie is terrible, don't waste your money. One of the worst movies in 2012.
post #3 of 67
definitely has mixed reviews...I like Hemsworth and Theron...not so much Ms.
Twilight (discounting those movies). I've seen quite abit of her in various indies where she actually had a role, but I don't see much depth. Anyway, the positive reviews at least call for a rental.
post #4 of 67
I saw a pre-screening of the film 5/26. Now the film does look stunning, but its contents leave a lot to be desired. I would certainly never willingly see it a second time. It was a major disappointment in light of the trailer that promised more than the film could deliver.
post #5 of 67
1st of all I think the casting of Kristen stewart is bad and wrong, she has the same expression, no range, and cannot emote. That might work for an introvert aloof teen for Twilight but not here.

2nd snow white is supposedly is fairer than the wicked queen. Now which bozo dropped this ball?...kristen is no where near the hotness of Charlize so if you cast Charlize as the queen which is fine then you damn better have some Victoria secret model or Maxim top 100 to be your snow white.
post #6 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoey67 View Post

Now which bozo dropped this ball?

Man, I don't know but you get the nod for best line of 2012! I've never felt so stupid laughing out loud by myself at something so simple! I promise l'll wear that word out this summer! *Literal tears in eyes*

Don't really have much to offer about the movie. I had high hopes for this one but was also skeptical and it sounds like rightfully so. I'm sure I'll catch it in HBO or something but I'll skip the theater.

Good point about Charlize btw.
post #7 of 67
I don't care about the reviews. I'm seeing it.

re: Theron/Stewart lmao! You have a solid point zoey
(btw I watched The Devil's Avocate a few days ago and it's amazing how she actually changed, didn't do much for me back then but now she's just jaw-droppingly gorgeous)
post #8 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

I don't care about the reviews. I'm seeing it.

re: Theron/Stewart lmao! You have a solid point zoey
(btw I watched The Devil's Avocate a few days ago and it's amazing how she actually changed, didn't do much for me back then but now she's just jaw-droppingly gorgeous)

The trailer looks awesome when i saw avengers. Will watch on blu ray.
post #9 of 67
post #10 of 67
Reviewed this one and thought it royally stunk! I will never, ever watch it again. Charlize was as bad as Stewart in her performance. I did not expect that at all! The story needs work and then there's the direction... Rupert Sanders has only a few shorts and commercials under his belt. Nothing else, and they gave him $175 million to make this hunk of junk. I'm wondering if someone is trying to sabotage Universal. First Battleship and now this. They're both the same caliber of crap, in my opinion.
post #11 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

I don't care about the reviews. I'm seeing it.

re: Theron/Stewart lmao! You have a solid point zoey
(btw I watched The Devil's Avocate a few days ago and it's amazing how she actually changed, didn't do much for me back then but now she's just jaw-droppingly gorgeous)

I loved the devil's adcocate...a really good creepy spooky film with Pacino still in his prime back in 98 when dvd just came on the scene. I saw it at 2am at the time alone in my condo and it really scared the crap and had to run to to my bed when it was finished.
post #12 of 67
What I'm reading here in this thread is just about the same as what I've been hearing so far outside of the forum. Some (non-exact) quotes that stick out in my head from various sources:

"Kristin Stewart is easily the worst case of miscasting this year", "epic miscasting decision", "lifeless piece of matter that doesn't matter" who "couldn't muster an ounce of happiness even when things are happening in her favor"

"Theron did not give a good performance either, completely over-the-top bad, but at least she was trying", "an example of Theron's poor performance was in the scene where she is screaming at her brother, which is kind of embarrassing"

"a complete con job trailer which looked fantastic but the film nowhere near matches it"

"great effects and production work but little else to show for it"

"despite the major problems with the performances, the biggest issue of all was the very poor job of storytelling"


I'll still see it at some point. But at least I'll go in with much more modest expectations. I'll have to find Ebert's review to see how he argued for the films competence. He's always been a bit of a pushover.
post #13 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dbuudo07 View Post

Reviewed this one and thought it royally stunk! I will never, ever watch it again. Charlize was as bad as Stewart in her performance. I did not expect that at all! The story needs work and then there's the direction... Rupert Sanders has only a few shorts and commercials under his belt. Nothing else, and they gave him $175 million to make this hunk of junk. I'm wondering if someone is trying to sabotage Universal. First Battleship and now this. They're both the same caliber of crap, in my opinion.

Definitely will be waiting to rent on blu ray. Thanks David.
post #14 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoey67 View Post

I loved the devil's adcocate...a really good creepy spooky film with Pacino still in his prime back in 98 when dvd just came on the scene. I saw it at 2am at the time alone in my condo and it really scared the crap and had to run to to my bed when it was finished.

Yep - I want to see Pacino in important, sort of, roles again! Not that this one was a 'career-defining' moment (he doesn't need them anyway), but he was a delight to watch.

Back to Snow White, a few reviews are praising Theron's performance... I don't know what to think, but I'll see it next week.
post #15 of 67
We were going to see this in NYC's finest theater today, but the reviews have scared us off. With the expense of seeing movies and knowing we will spend nearly $40 to see PROMETHEUS in IMAX (real IMAX) next weekend, we are going to pass and wait for Blu-Ray.
post #16 of 67
Doing better at the BO than expected. The demo skews to women over 30, but plenty of young men and women are going (date movie?). Anyway, Hemsworth for the guys and gals, Theron for everyone and Stewart for the Twilighters seem to be able to draw for what sounds like a flawed film.
post #17 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Temple View Post

definitely has mixed reviews...I like Hemsworth and Theron...not so much Ms.
Twilight (discounting those movies). I've seen quite abit of her in various indies where she actually had a role, but I don't see much depth. Anyway, the positive reviews at least call for a rental.

I went to a Friday afternoon matinee after lunch. I'm not a very good film critic and tend to like most of what I see. I judge a film in a very simple way; if it doesn't make me lose my lunch, I like it. I'm glad I didn't go in 1/2 or 2/3 of the way through the movie or I might not have liked it.

I actually liked the first part of the movie, but when it got to the part where Snow White actually had to start acting, the film sort of fell apart. A shame really....

I agree with whoever said Snow White should be better looking than the Queen. In order to do that, they would have really (and I mean REALLY) had to shrink the talent pool when it comes to acting. They picked a Snow White that couldn't really act very well anyway so why not get someone really hot?? Ms. Stewart is quite good looking, but better looking than Charlize Theron??? Are you frelling kidding me???

Charlize Theron....ummmm.....wow......will definitely go see "Prometheus".
post #18 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Temple View Post

Doing better at the BO than expected. The demo skews to women over 30, but plenty of young men and women are going (date movie?). Anyway, Hemsworth for the guys and gals, Theron for everyone and Stewart for the Twilighters seem to be able to draw for what sounds like a flawed film.

While 56 million is certainly good, it still cost 170... After the Battleship debacle, I guess universal would have preferred an even bigger number for its first weekend.
post #19 of 67
They sure spent a lot on advertising. I've seen the commercial trailer on TV at least 20 times!

Quote:
Originally Posted by jbug View Post

The battle scenes are like the ones you've seen in countless other movies and were so standard and boring that I couldn't stand to watch them so I closed my eyes.

I find this quite amusing for some reason. So bored that it wasn't worth even the minimal effort necessary to keep your eyelids open.
post #20 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_Stevens View Post

We were going to see this in NYC's finest theater today, but the reviews have scared us off. With the expense of seeing movies and knowing we will spend nearly $40 to see PROMETHEUS in IMAX (real IMAX) next weekend, we are going to pass and wait for Blu-Ray.

Yay....they made a real 70mm print which means the (real) IMAX near my home (Rave 18 - formerly bridge theater) will show it. It's about 4 miles from my house. WAAAAYYYYYY cool. This is why I like people like Scott, Nolan, and Cameron. I couldn't see the Avengers, Thor, and a bunch of other films in a true IMAX because they didn't make a 70mm print.

Those stinky mini max (lie max) theaters are a rip off. They're about the same size as some of the larger (regular) screens at the Rave.
post #21 of 67
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CruelInventions View Post

They sure spent a lot on advertising. I've seen the commercial trailer on TV at least 20 times!



I find this quite amusing for some reason. So bored that it wasn't worth even the minimal effort necessary to keep your eyelids open.

You know what, I was amused that you found that amusing and it made me smile.
post #22 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by InCali View Post

Yay....they made a real 70mm print which means the (real) IMAX near my home (Rave 18 - formerly bridge theater) will show it. It's about 4 miles from my house. WAAAAYYYYYY cool. This is why I like people like Scott, Nolan, and Cameron. I couldn't see the Avengers, Thor, and a bunch of other films in a true IMAX because they didn't make a 70mm print.

Those stinky mini max (lie max) theaters are a rip off. They're about the same size as some of the larger (regular) screens at the Rave.

Just checked the Rave and there is a morning showing of Prometheus in IMAX for $12. As I'm working a half day, I'll go catch it. The screen at the Rave is 6 stories high, the sound is awesome, and the seats are VERY comfortable. $12 is a DEAL (all things considered). The mini MAX (LieMax) at Century City 15 is about half the height, overall screen size (est.) is about a third of the Rave's and, listen to this; they charge $15.50 for a matinee. If you're in LA, tell me, where would YOU go?

Sorry to be a little off thread, but someone did mention Prometheus
post #23 of 67
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by InCali View Post

Those stinky mini max (lie max) theaters are a rip off. They're about the same size as some of the larger (regular) screens at the Rave.

Yep, they are rip offs and the last one I went to had bad sound. I too won't patronize them and they should be policed by someone from IMAX or THX. We have one legit IMAX in Chicago but when I saw Harry Potter pt.2 there they were trying to save money by turning the bulb down. I know the movie was mostly shot dark but it was ridiculously dark. I'm afraid of paying that high IMAX ticket price again for a too dark movie. I would be very unhappy.

"Lie max" I almost missed that gem. That's two good laughs in a row from you guys.
post #24 of 67
I think choices are varies from man to man. So, everybody has a different choice. Most of you did not like this movie. But i liked it much. Because the main story of this movie is the favorite one to me.
post #25 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lisandro View Post

I think choices are varies from man to man. So, everybody has a different choice. Most of you did not like this movie. But i liked it much. Because the main story of this movie is the favorite one to me.

Well i definitely watch it on blu ray when it comes out.
post #26 of 67
Just got back from seeing this, and overall I thought it was alright. My only real complaint was the last 5 minutes. So predictable and just felt forced. And the very last minute
of the movie I was like WTF! just happened, THAT'S your idea of how to end it.
post #27 of 67
Saw it in second run.

Theron stole the show... sort of; but Stewart was given little more than 4 pages of dialogue it seemed, and most of the movie was just her running around. I've also found her distracting, she's always slackjawed showing off her teeth with the same glazed expression, mouth open. I'd almost say she's stoned during her rolls, if I didn't know better.

The visuals and vistas were nice, but I just couldn't get into the melodramatic acting and loosely cut story. Also felt like they stole the initial "phantom battle" straight out of the Ridley Scotts cinematography playbook.

It did well overseas and apparently has a sequel already green lit. Nut as said, it's a lot of sweeping vistas and one sided melodramatic, soapy speeches. There's not much acting here, which might be by design for Stewart....
post #28 of 67
Well, for the sequel, it looks like they're keeping Saunders (maybe) and ditching Stewart.

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/kristen-stewart-dropped-snow-white-sequel-plans-exclusive-002217084.html

I guess the moral is, don't sleep with your married director if you want to be part of a film franchise, or something. confused.gif
post #29 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulpa View Post

Well, for the sequel, it looks like they're keeping Saunders (maybe) and ditching Stewart.
http://movies.yahoo.com/news/kristen-stewart-dropped-snow-white-sequel-plans-exclusive-002217084.html
I guess the moral is, don't sleep with your married director if you want to be part of a film franchise, or something. confused.gif

Havent seen the film yet but keep stewart and ditch saunders. Nothing more irritating than replacing main actors/actresses in sequels. For me it kills it.
post #30 of 67
This was his first film and it wasn't even anything special. Odd choice to bring him back and not a lead big name actress...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › Snow White & The Huntsman