"Snow White and the Huntsman" reinvents the legendary story in a film of astonishing beauty and imagination.
awesome! roger's word restores my faith. if roger approves, the tomato meter is irrelevant in my eyes
May 31 - 05:22 AM
May 31 - 08:46 AM
Although Roger Ebert usually hits the bat on movies, he's not always right IMO. For example, he wasn't fond of some movies that most people loved like Gladiator (2/4), Clockwork Orange (2/4), and To Kill a Mockingbird (2.5/4). Roger Ebert is a really good critic, but I still have plenty of disagreements with his reviews. But hopefully he's right about this movie, although I don't expect it to be as good as 3.5/4.
May 31 - 10:14 AM
I just wish more critics would go into this film strictly for the visual design. I'm gonna go into this with the same mindset as I do a Lars von Trier film. Looking for visual beauty and symbolism..
I mean, outside of Charlize Theron, I'm sure the acting is mediocre and the story is of course a retelling, so.. I'm just going for the design elements and visuals.. Ebert seems to have had the same idea as me..
May 31 - 06:32 AM
So critics shouldn't go into this film expecting good quality content? They should just be happy this movie is "pretty"? Sort of defeats the purpose of criticism, if you're ignoring those things of a movie you should be critiquing. I mean, who cares if the acting is crap, the script is terrible and the plot is lame? It's pretty, guys! That's all that matters!
May 31 - 07:08 AM
Visual design is not just FX and CG rendered creatures that look good. I believe he is referring to the art direction and the look of the movie altogether. This also includes lighting, cinematography, costume design, and set design/environment design. Movies are not just about acting and plot, although they do play a huge part. If I am going to a movie that I already know the plot of and the acting and script is mediocre, but everything else (things I listed above)are really good than I would say it was a good movie. Some critics seem to really nitpick on acting, script, and plot because they are so important, but they forget to talk about or consider other elements that contribute to the movie.
May 31 - 07:18 AM
Acting and plot are the most important part of a movie. If that weren't the case, there'd be no need for either and we'd be looking at pretty effects and scenery. You make it sound like acting and plot are disposable. And that's especially not the case with this movie, where plot IS emphasized.
And I've seen critics compliment the efforts of Sanders and the visual effects but point out the fallacies of the actual core of the movie, the plot and the characters/actors, and what's wrong with that? For some, a "good movie" is one where everything comes together. Maybe for you, the entire movie can be crap but pretty visuals make it successful but that's just not the case for other critics. They shouldn't have to abide by other peoples' half-assed critique of movies and it's unfair to invalidate them because they critique the movie as a whole.
May 31 - 07:40 AM
I agree Carson.
May 31 - 10:04 AM
I agree Anna.
May 31 - 12:26 PM
"Movies are not just about acting and plot"
What a sad statement. This is probably the reason most movies suck these days. This guy, like most audiences, accepts mediocrity.
Jun 4 - 02:02 PM
Plus I think we need to consider that this was the directors first big Hollywood film. He is a rookie it seems.
May 31 - 07:23 AM
Calm yourself Anna, Read my post more closely. I mention in my post that Plot, acting, and script are very important. The most important in fact. What do you want me to say, that these three things are absolutely, without a doubt, undeniably the most important. Yes they are important, but I "have seen" some reviewers who only focus on those three things and leave out other elements. Of course there are some reviewers like you mentioned that give a well rounded review, but not all do. I have not seen the movie, but based off of reviews I would like to make an assessment. The movie seems to have a medicore plot that strays from the original story, acting seems to be mediocre as well and this is due to the seemingly bad script, all other elements from my previous post seem to be above average. I would maybe go see this at a matinee or rent it. THIS IS PURELY SPECULATION.
May 31 - 08:01 AM
That's actually not what you said and that was my beef with it.
May 31 - 08:04 AM
I apologize if I did not get my point across in my first post. All I wanted to do was point out that there are other elements to a movie that help to make it a good movie. Everyone has their own value on what helps to make a good movie. For me I think Plot, script and acting are extremely important, but I believe that a movie is also made to give a visually enjoyable experience. This movies' main weak spot seemed to be the script which in turn affects the actors and hurts how the plot comes across to the viewer. The plot and how it is acted out is the soul of a movie without a doubt, but I think personally that I would enjoy a movie like this with a mediocre plot and acting (bad script), but with amazing visuals (backgrounds, fantastical beasts, costumes, cinematography)more then a film that has a good plot/acting/script, but with dull/bland scenery and no imagination/creativity. Now the Transformers movies are terrible because the plot/acting/script were terrible, but amazing visuals. So, yes, plot/acting/script definitely are more important than other things when it comes to making a good movie.
May 31 - 08:31 AM
You're right, acting and plot ARE important. However, they only make up about 30% of a cinema film's ability to be labelled "Good", but only 30%. Since the dawn of film, cinema has been a visual media. The plot and "acting" have always stood second tier to the reasons we go to the movies, to see something we don't see in the everyday world. This goes for the old Georges Melies films (A Trip To the Moon 1902), sci fi films of the 20s (Metropolis) and the 70s (2001: A Space Odyssey), up into films of today (Avatar).
We go to the movies to escape. Snow White and the Huntsman provides this escape from our day-to-day world, and allows us to live vicariously through the adventures of other people. If this movie allows its audience to escape then it succeeds in its purpose and can be labelled "Good." If EVERYTHING came together (design, style, cinematography, fx, as well as acting and plot) then the movie would be considered "Great" or "Instant Classic", but since it does fall a little short, it is only good.
May 31 - 09:29 AM
Hey look, it's the guy that doesn't know anything about screenwriting or the film business, and as such thinks everyone who DOES know the business is "wrong."
Are you finished trolling yet?
I'm still waiting for you to prove me wrong in that last discussion.
Don't worry, I won't be holding my breath, though I probably should, seeing that you're completely full of $h!t.
May 31 - 01:54 PM
Anna is right - the rest of you are wrong. so watch Battleship or Transformers, leave the real movies to us.
May 31 - 10:23 AM
Fyi, that is the most elitist statement I have ever read in my life.
I believe that acting, plot, and visuals all make up a good movie - Aristotle himself said something similar in reference to a perfect tragedy. However, these are not equations, in which (for example) if two of the three are bad, the film is bad. If two of the three are good, the film is good. It is not a black and white scenario; it is a matter of extent. Is the movie's acting THAT bad, the plot THAT bad, and the visuals THAT good? Perhaps in a certain tolerable amount of 'bad' and an impressive amount of 'good' the film can be considered good - such as this.
May 31 - 06:34 PM
Jun 1 - 01:28 PM
This man's eloquence astounds me.
Jun 10 - 04:28 PM
I just wish more critics would go into this film strictly for the visual design.
^ that is the most idiotic thing i have ever heard in my life
May 31 - 10:12 AM
You said "Outside of Charlize Theron, you are sure the acting is only mediocre?"
LOL! Clearly you haven't checked the cast out have you? Have you seen who else stars in this film? Chris Hemsworth (who's gotten some praise in the film), Ian McShane, Bob Hoskins, Ray Winstone, Eddie Marsan, Toby Jones & so forth. Yeah, I'm pretty sure the acting is pretty adequate to say the least with a cast like this involved. Kristen Stewart is a hit-and-miss depending on the material as she was efficient in films like "Adventureland" but inadequate in films like "Twilight".
May 31 - 12:40 PM
I just laughed at the comment that you will watch Snow White and the Huntsman the same way you watch Von Trier.
Jun 1 - 01:43 PM
Lmao, never knew my random comment would get so much discussion and hate, haha. It's flattering.
I just base movies off a gradient spectrum of what the movie's strengths will be. This seemed like a highly artistic (visuals) driven interpretation of Snow White. The lead actors outside of Theron seem mediocre at best and the plot is of course extremely well known. So I went into the movie pretty much only watching it for the imagery.
And ya, I watch von trier solely for the symbolism, shot composition and visual beauty. His plots are somewhat abstract and always depressing, so there's not a lot I take away from one outside of the on-screen spectacle.
Just opinion people, no need to get fired up, lol
Jun 3 - 04:58 PM
He is a rookie. Hell, a studio takes a huge risk by doing this sort of thing. Trusting a summer blockbuster to an unproven director is a risky move. I'm just glad it didn't turn out terrible, because God knows there's nothing else interesting in wide-release coming out this week.
May 31 - 07:27 AM
Wow! Acting, plot, visual, cinematography, sound and light, directing. Chill out! Critics, especially those we have come to respect, advise us only. Now they might get it right or wrong but the people that decide are at the box office. The real test of any movie is it ability to go long at the box office. So give Snow White a chance and we will see. Am I saying that only those movies that rake in the dollars are worthy? Yes and NO. Some poor performers are actually good movies but for some reason(bad timing, advertising) they fail at the box office. Just goes to show you that with the right timing and advertising a piece of junk can do OK, aka Blair Witch. Long term though it crapped out.
Jun 2 - 05:23 PM
oh my god... i know he said the star system is flawed, but how can u rate this higher than the avengers?!
Jun 4 - 06:04 PM
This is a lot of movie. The rest of the critics show how jaded they are by dinging this. The casting is great and considering the fantasy of it all, the script is terrific. I liked it so much I stayed for all of the credits. Bravo to the principals for not cheating us like so many producers and directors do.
Jun 5 - 10:54 PM
Has the world gone mad? This movie had a terrible script? No one gave a shit what happened in that world or the characters--the story and dialogue and character development (or lack thereof) makes that impossible. What does it matter if the movie looks great? NONE of that matters if the audience does not become emotionally invested in the world and the characters. This movie failed. Anyone giving it good reviews is just trying to point out all the frills of movies, like special effects and design, to compensate for the fact that the movie was boring and slow and uninteresting. FUCK!
Jun 8 - 11:49 PM
I disagree Roger. I thought this film was boring, unevenly paced and just poorly written.
Sep 6 - 07:18 PM
My thoughts exactly. Roger gives this an almost perfect score, but then gives an average score to "The Dark Knight Rises" and "District 9".
Sep 10 - 09:53 AM