yeah, close to the end when she is saying whatever to him, jesus that's such bad acting... I hope that instead of spending this year of on gender studies she takes some acting lessons
Her answer is too clipped, but with her wheezing you get the feel for her fear. Nyquist was creepy and real. In all love and good will, Emma needs to take acting classes if she plans to stay in the business.
In all fairness to Emma none of the critics I have read bar one have criticised her acting in Colonia. Most of the criticism is directed at the perceived weakness of the story and the fact that both Emma and Daniel had to do the best with what they had. Having said that I would like to see Emma tackle a more earthy role in something - perhaps with an accent of some kind - Scottish, Welsh or Northern. This is where I think she might have difficulty but I'd love her to prove me wrong.
I love Emma, but the fact is she needs training in acting. She is standing still. I cringe in HP- the last film when Ron returns and throws the rucksack at his legs and is angry. I almost felt embarressed for the acting on her part.It was wooden. If she wants to remain in acting, she needs to develop her skills. I hope she is doing that during her out time.
I just watched the movie in its entirety, and Emma carries it with skill and authority. She's terrific, and the movie is terrific, and I'll listen to complaints about her acting at this point only from people who get paid to act, because there's a hell of a lot of ignorance mouthing off here.
Indeed, Jon. Suddenly everyone's a scholar on acting! The truth is, they wouldn't even comprehend good acting if they saw it. They're only commenting because it's Emma.
I rented it on iTunes and it was great! It was a little too short and I wish they had added a bit more at the end but other than that it was fantastic. Emma and Daniel were wonderful!
No not a scholar, but a viewer has the singular experience of an actor as being good or average.The point is, if a movie is presented with a bunch of actors I not consider good, I will not pay $10 to see the flick. The view perceives an actor's abilityand decides if they are worth $10. I am not necessariy interestest in the specific opera singer Meryl Streep is doing a bio on, but I will watch the film because I know everything Streep does is good and I will be satisfied having paid $10. This is a basic reality of any viewer- not necessarily Stree. I am sure that everyone has their own example. This not putting E down, rather this is a perception.
The Streep lover returns. What a confused comment though. A film is only worth seeing if it has recognizably "good actors" in it? And now we're arbitrarily talking about $10? ...why? You have a bizarre way of thinking, and certainly do not speak for the "reality of any viewer". People will go see a particular movie...if there's something about the movie that appeals to them. Whoa!
Deciding to see a movie if a I know the acting will be good or if a film is weighed down with actors that are not so good, I will reconsider if I pay $10 to see a film. I would never pay that money with bad actors, I'll wait til it comes on TV. The actor can be the appeal or the turn off. Why pay a cinema ticket when the actor's ability does not seem worth the money to you. I think more people think this way if considering if they are going to pay a cinema ticket or not. This is also reality. If you have lot's of money to play with, right then viewing a cinema ticket in this way is bizarre, but the reality is, going to the movie is expensive, and then you have not yet bought popcorn and a drink. You can very easily be rid of $12 to $15 in one evening. More than once can you read in imdb review that viewers felt a film was a waste of time and money. There are just some actors that you know anything they play in the film is going to be good. Like it or not.
Right ON! I'm not a Sci-Fi fan and everyone raved about INterstellar. I looked at the actor list. Right away, the names Jessica Chastain, Anne Hathaway, Matthew McConaughey sprang out at me. I looked at the director. Hmm! Afterwards I decided I will take a look at Christopher Nolan films- but always at actors list. I don't have a whole lot of money to spare. Seeing a specific film could be part of a monthly budget.
Clearly, a film is far more than its actors; the normal person realizes this. If all it takes is a recognizable actor the awards ceremonies tell you is "good" for you to see a film, it's safe to say your criticism doesn't carry very much weight.
I watched "Colonia" yesterday and thought it was a good film, scary in parts and in fairness all lead actors played their parts well. I am no film critic or expert, it was the place itself which drew my original interest as I wanted to know more about it. I could find no fault with either Emma's or Daniel's acting but perhaps I'm not as picky as some - I don't know.
Some of the most boring films I have ever seen have been Oscar winners so I don't let that cloud my judgement. The truth of the matter is that if it's a subject that interests me I will go and see it. I'm afraid films like "Regression" have no pulling power for me but I really did enjoy "Colonia" and thought Emma played her part well.
Completely agree, Vicky. I have no desire to see Regression, even though I am an Emma fan. I do want to see Colonia, and probably would even if Emma wasn't in it, but I probably wouldn't even know about it if it weren't for Emma. That piece of history is fascinating, and one that for some reason never seems to get taught in school.
Content and subject matter is probably the biggest influence in why someone goes to see a film. I wouldn't go to see a horror movie even if my favourite actress was in it because I really don't like horror movies. I would go to see the latest Star Trek movie even if Keira Knightley (who, for some inexplicable reason, I don't like) was in it because I grew up with Star Trek. Then there are the "shades of grey" (no, not that sort) movies. Sometimes, the content matter may be intriguing but the thought of paying for an expensive movie ticket to see someone I don't particularly like puts me off. Then there are other times when because someone is acting in a movie I may go to see it even though it interests me because I, for want of a better word, "trust" that actor. I'm not saying that the way I pick movies is right - I've definitely missed out on some good stuff because of unconscious (or conscious) bias and sat through some bad movies because of it as well. The thing is that its human nature and the studios know this. That's why they cast big names rather that some unknown off the street, who probably acts just as well and would cost them less.
Put me in the I don't think Emma has stellar acting chops camp. She's not bad, but she sometimes isn't convincing enough and that breaks the immersive experience of a movie. Its annoying (for me) because it takes you out of the fictional world and into the real one, but I'm still willing to watch some of her movies (B&tB, the Circle) because the content interests me. If I'm not sold on the content (Regression, Noah) then I won't be watching. I thought she was good as Hermione though - but I think because she is similar to the character and understood Hermione well.
Do I think Emma would be acting if she was a new actress on the scene or if she didn't have a "ready made" fan base? No. But that is my opinion. I appreciate someone else might think she's Oscar worthy, because its a subjective question. To say that someone's opinion on something is not valid simply because they're not a professional critic is naive. What sets a professional critic apart from a lay man is that he gets *paid* to write reviews. It doesn't make him correct. It doesn't make him an authority. A lot of the time they're motivated by how they are perceived (i.e. can't give this blockbuster chops because its too mainstream). I rarely take a critic's word at face value.
I watched Colonia yesterday. I really enjoyed the movie.
On Emma: This is my option and mine alone. I think she's not perfect but she's not bad either. I think she held her own and played her character well. She had me convinced that she was a woman trying to get her love back no matter what horrible circumstances she has to go through. I didn't cringe in my mind nearly as much as while watching her earlier HP work.
The more movies she does, the more actors she will work with with, and the more time she spends researching and learning, she will get better and better.
I also choose a film becaue of actor list, and the fact is directors get the best actors for films that have a good solid content. Why pay even 8 bucks to watch a bad actor in a maybe potential good film. That usually doesn't happen. The studios want to make money. I went to see the 2 Maze Runner movies with my son. I read the books because he did. I have an interest in young adult lit and its content. The Maze Runner films are a pleasant surprise, and the young actors- all unknows but for Thomas Brodie-Sangster. The film director is doing a wonderful job. Dylan O'brien was a pleasant surprise. Yes, a film and its actors can be a surprise, but hey the fact is films are expensive. When we left the film I had $25 less in my pocket. For some people this can be a pinch. Also, I would also go to see every Meryl Streep film; some I like better than others, but Meryl makes the film somehow delightful with her stellar acting. If there is a film with Saoirse Ronan, Jennifer Lawrence, Carey Mulligan and some others, I will pay to see the film. I am not so ready to pay those prices if I have no idea what to expect- to expensive.
It is not abnormal to choose a film according to actors you know to be good. Not all of us have celebrity paycheck. After seeing the Room with Brie Larson, I will be more sensitive to the film she is in- great actress.
"To say that someone's opinion on something is not valid simply because they're not a professional critic is naive. "
Good thing no one said anything even resembling this, then.
One comment, mine, said that if you're only drawn to movies with recognizable names like a moth to a flame, any critique you might have will not carry much weight with anyone but yourself. It's like saying oh, I'll only give albums from recognizable artists like Katy Perry a chance, regardless of anything else involved in the music. Further, this comment was only in direct in response to someone who argued it's "true of everyone" that they won't go see a movie if they don't recognize the actors.
Hopefully you didn't see that comment and somehow deform that into "you can only have a valid opinion if you're a professional film critic". Because if that were the case, you'd need to severely improve your reading comprehension skills.
To sum up I think we are all looking for different things in a film for me it's content as well as historical and there are few actors who I actively dislike. For other people it may be the actor, director, genre etc., I did enjoy Colonia and the next one on my list to see is another Potter actor, Tom Felton, in "Risen". I've watched and enjoyed many a film that has either been slated by the critics or members of the public so I guess I'm an oddball. :)
I don't mind being the oddball, for I have to pay the ticket, so it is my decision if I pay a ticket because I trust an actor'S good delivery of a content that I find interesting. I watch for certain directors also. Nope, I don't mind being the oddball.
nor would carrie mulligan, Brie Larson, Jennifer Lawrence, Ian McKellan, Rupert Friend, Orlando Bloom, Pierce Brosnan. I was surprised that Brad Pitt did. I laughed!
The critic comment was more of a generalisation than directed at any one person/comment specifically. I guess the fact that I put it in bold didn't help - looking back I think I was kind of disheartened to read about people saying "I'm not a critic, but I think..." and also annoyed about the if you don't act, don't critique comment. You don't need to be Picasso to recognise good art. You don't need to be Marco Pierre White to know good food, right?
Sorry if you took it personally. I've never really commented on a blog before and I see now why so few people so it - it's super easy to cause offence - especially If you don't take the time to craft thoughtful responses. I'll refrain from sticking my nose in from now on. In the grand scheme of things, what does this contribute to?! I guess I was just looking for a good ol school debate...
It is confusing and unexpected when you respond to a point that no one raised, and when it somewhat resembles what someone else was talking about they will assume you misinterpreted what they said. If you still wanted to make that point, you just need to make it clearer why you're making it. Maybe reference the "I'm no critic" part or write "If one were to say someone's opinion isn't valid" rather than "To say", as the former makes it a clear hypothetical whereas the latter leaves it ambiguous and carries immediacy.
I don't know if you should comment more or not. On one hand, you seem level-headed and like you genuinely didn't want to attack anyone, which is like a rare present in this comments section, and something we could use more of. On the other hand, the comments section is generally terrible and full of people saying all sorts of awful things about Emma and other commenters.
I think some important points have been raised about how people decide to watch a movie and the fact that going to the movies is expensive. Unless you are bathing in the green leaves, then fine, but otherwise the rest of us have to have a system that works for them and is satisfying to the personal taste and doesn't test the content of the wallet in an unnatural way. I just feel bad that people would assume that another's opinion is abnormal because they say they are more actor driven in a film. What does it matter, as long as that person is satisfied. Being able to allow such diversity of coming to one's own personal decision is being smart. If you have a gold mine paycheck- good for you
33 comments:
It is new but it is weird because it is 30 seconds taken from the middle of a scene. It looks creepy though!
I would like Emma was better actress
yeah, close to the end when she is saying whatever to him, jesus that's such bad acting... I hope that instead of spending this year of on gender studies she takes some acting lessons
It's a new clip, but I don't understand it, it's like they cut it from a bigger scene, but it's the part when she's with her shirt opened
Can't wait to see this movie, I don't have high expectations but I'm really waiting for this, looks creepy af
There's a new featurette from Indiewire too
it comes out today on limited release and on demand but I don't know how you find it on demand? Can anyone help me?
Her answer is too clipped, but with her wheezing you get the feel for her fear. Nyquist was creepy and real. In all love and good will, Emma needs to take acting classes if she plans to stay in the business.
In all fairness to Emma none of the critics I have read bar one have criticised her acting in Colonia. Most of the criticism is directed at the perceived weakness of the story and the fact that both Emma and Daniel had to do the best with what they had. Having said that I would like to see Emma tackle a more earthy role in something - perhaps with an accent of some kind - Scottish, Welsh or Northern. This is where I think she might have difficulty but I'd love her to prove me wrong.
Colonia torrent is out guyz!
I love Emma, but the fact is she needs training in acting. She is standing still. I cringe in HP- the last film when Ron returns and throws the rucksack at his legs and is angry. I almost felt embarressed for the acting on her part.It was wooden. If she wants to remain in acting, she needs to develop her skills. I hope she is doing that during her out time.
I just watched the movie in its entirety, and Emma carries it with skill and authority. She's terrific, and the movie is terrific, and I'll listen to complaints about her acting at this point only from people who get paid to act, because there's a hell of a lot of ignorance mouthing off here.
Indeed, Jon. Suddenly everyone's a scholar on acting! The truth is, they wouldn't even comprehend good acting if they saw it. They're only commenting because it's Emma.
I rented it on iTunes and it was great! It was a little too short and I wish they had added a bit more at the end but other than that it was fantastic. Emma and Daniel were wonderful!
No not a scholar, but a viewer has the singular experience of an actor as being good or average.The point is, if a movie is presented with a bunch of actors I not consider good, I will not pay $10 to see the flick. The view perceives an actor's abilityand decides if they are worth $10. I am not necessariy interestest in the specific opera singer Meryl Streep is doing a bio on, but I will watch the film because I know everything Streep does is good and I will be satisfied having paid $10. This is a basic reality of any viewer- not necessarily Stree. I am sure that everyone has their own example. This not putting E down, rather this is a perception.
The Streep lover returns. What a confused comment though. A film is only worth seeing if it has recognizably "good actors" in it? And now we're arbitrarily talking about $10? ...why? You have a bizarre way of thinking, and certainly do not speak for the "reality of any viewer". People will go see a particular movie...if there's something about the movie that appeals to them. Whoa!
Deciding to see a movie if a I know the acting will be good or if a film is weighed down with actors that are not so good, I will reconsider if I pay $10 to see a film. I would never pay that money with bad actors, I'll wait til it comes on TV. The actor can be the appeal or the turn off. Why pay a cinema ticket when the actor's ability does not seem worth the money to you. I think more people think this way if considering if they are going to pay a cinema ticket or not. This is also reality. If you have lot's of money to play with, right then viewing a cinema ticket in this way is bizarre, but the reality is, going to the movie is expensive, and then you have not yet bought popcorn and a drink. You can very easily be rid of $12 to $15 in one evening. More than once can you read in imdb review that viewers felt a film was a waste of time and money. There are just some actors that you know anything they play in the film is going to be good. Like it or not.
Right ON! I'm not a Sci-Fi fan and everyone raved about INterstellar. I looked at the actor list. Right away, the names Jessica Chastain, Anne Hathaway, Matthew McConaughey sprang out at me. I looked at the director. Hmm! Afterwards I decided I will take a look at Christopher Nolan films- but always at actors list. I don't have a whole lot of money to spare. Seeing a specific film could be part of a monthly budget.
Clearly, a film is far more than its actors; the normal person realizes this. If all it takes is a recognizable actor the awards ceremonies tell you is "good" for you to see a film, it's safe to say your criticism doesn't carry very much weight.
I watched "Colonia" yesterday and thought it was a good film, scary in parts and in fairness all lead actors played their parts well. I am no film critic or expert, it was the place itself which drew my original interest as I wanted to know more about it. I could find no fault with either Emma's or Daniel's acting but perhaps I'm not as picky as some - I don't know.
Some of the most boring films I have ever seen have been Oscar winners so I don't let that cloud my judgement. The truth of the matter is that if it's a subject that interests me I will go and see it. I'm afraid films like "Regression" have no pulling power for me but I really did enjoy "Colonia" and thought Emma played her part well.
Completely agree, Vicky. I have no desire to see Regression, even though I am an Emma fan. I do want to see Colonia, and probably would even if Emma wasn't in it, but I probably wouldn't even know about it if it weren't for Emma. That piece of history is fascinating, and one that for some reason never seems to get taught in school.
Content and subject matter is probably the biggest influence in why someone goes to see a film. I wouldn't go to see a horror movie even if my favourite actress was in it because I really don't like horror movies. I would go to see the latest Star Trek movie even if Keira Knightley (who, for some inexplicable reason, I don't like) was in it because I grew up with Star Trek. Then there are the "shades of grey" (no, not that sort) movies. Sometimes, the content matter may be intriguing but the thought of paying for an expensive movie ticket to see someone I don't particularly like puts me off. Then there are other times when because someone is acting in a movie I may go to see it even though it interests me because I, for want of a better word, "trust" that actor. I'm not saying that the way I pick movies is right - I've definitely missed out on some good stuff because of unconscious (or conscious) bias and sat through some bad movies because of it as well. The thing is that its human nature and the studios know this. That's why they cast big names rather that some unknown off the street, who probably acts just as well and would cost them less.
Put me in the I don't think Emma has stellar acting chops camp. She's not bad, but she sometimes isn't convincing enough and that breaks the immersive experience of a movie. Its annoying (for me) because it takes you out of the fictional world and into the real one, but I'm still willing to watch some of her movies (B&tB, the Circle) because the content interests me. If I'm not sold on the content (Regression, Noah) then I won't be watching. I thought she was good as Hermione though - but I think because she is similar to the character and understood Hermione well.
Do I think Emma would be acting if she was a new actress on the scene or if she didn't have a "ready made" fan base? No. But that is my opinion. I appreciate someone else might think she's Oscar worthy, because its a subjective question. To say that someone's opinion on something is not valid simply because they're not a professional critic is naive. What sets a professional critic apart from a lay man is that he gets *paid* to write reviews. It doesn't make him correct. It doesn't make him an authority. A lot of the time they're motivated by how they are perceived (i.e. can't give this blockbuster chops because its too mainstream). I rarely take a critic's word at face value.
I watched Colonia yesterday. I really enjoyed the movie.
On Emma: This is my option and mine alone. I think she's not perfect but she's not bad either. I think she held her own and played her character well. She had me convinced that she was a woman trying to get her love back no matter what horrible circumstances she has to go through. I didn't cringe in my mind nearly as much as while watching her earlier HP work.
The more movies she does, the more actors she will work with with, and the more time she spends researching and learning, she will get better and better.
I also choose a film becaue of actor list, and the fact is directors get the best actors for films that have a good solid content. Why pay even 8 bucks to watch a bad actor in a maybe potential good film. That usually doesn't happen. The studios want to make money. I went to see the 2 Maze Runner movies with my son. I read the books because he did. I have an interest in young adult lit and its content. The Maze Runner films are a pleasant surprise, and the young actors- all unknows but for Thomas Brodie-Sangster. The film director is doing a wonderful job. Dylan O'brien was a pleasant surprise. Yes, a film and its actors can be a surprise, but hey the fact is films are expensive. When we left the film I had $25 less in my pocket. For some people this can be a pinch.
Also, I would also go to see every Meryl Streep film; some I like better than others, but Meryl makes the film somehow delightful with her stellar acting. If there is a film with Saoirse Ronan, Jennifer Lawrence, Carey Mulligan and some others, I will pay to see the film. I am not so ready to pay those prices if I have no idea what to expect- to expensive.
It is not abnormal to choose a film according to actors you know to be good. Not all of us have celebrity paycheck. After seeing the Room with Brie Larson, I will be more sensitive to the film she is in- great actress.
"To say that someone's opinion on something is not valid simply because they're not a professional critic is naive. "
Good thing no one said anything even resembling this, then.
One comment, mine, said that if you're only drawn to movies with recognizable names like a moth to a flame, any critique you might have will not carry much weight with anyone but yourself. It's like saying oh, I'll only give albums from recognizable artists like Katy Perry a chance, regardless of anything else involved in the music. Further, this comment was only in direct in response to someone who argued it's "true of everyone" that they won't go see a movie if they don't recognize the actors.
Hopefully you didn't see that comment and somehow deform that into "you can only have a valid opinion if you're a professional film critic". Because if that were the case, you'd need to severely improve your reading comprehension skills.
To sum up I think we are all looking for different things in a film for me it's content as well as historical and there are few actors who I actively dislike. For other people it may be the actor, director, genre etc., I did enjoy Colonia and the next one on my list to see is another Potter actor, Tom Felton, in "Risen". I've watched and enjoyed many a film that has either been slated by the critics or members of the public so I guess I'm an oddball. :)
I don't mind being the oddball, for I have to pay the ticket, so it is my decision if I pay a ticket because I trust an actor'S good delivery of a content that I find interesting. I watch for certain directors also. Nope, I don't mind being the oddball.
Meryl Streep, Judy Dench would not play in such a cheap flick as a horror film. Can't imagine either one of them being chased by slobbering zombies.
nor would carrie mulligan, Brie Larson, Jennifer Lawrence, Ian McKellan, Rupert Friend, Orlando Bloom, Pierce Brosnan. I was surprised that Brad Pitt did. I laughed!
The critic comment was more of a generalisation than directed at any one person/comment specifically. I guess the fact that I put it in bold didn't help - looking back I think I was kind of disheartened to read about people saying "I'm not a critic, but I think..." and also annoyed about the if you don't act, don't critique comment. You don't need to be Picasso to recognise good art. You don't need to be Marco Pierre White to know good food, right?
Sorry if you took it personally. I've never really commented on a blog before and I see now why so few people so it - it's super easy to cause offence - especially If you don't take the time to craft thoughtful responses. I'll refrain from sticking my nose in from now on. In the grand scheme of things, what does this contribute to?! I guess I was just looking for a good ol school debate...
It is confusing and unexpected when you respond to a point that no one raised, and when it somewhat resembles what someone else was talking about they will assume you misinterpreted what they said. If you still wanted to make that point, you just need to make it clearer why you're making it. Maybe reference the "I'm no critic" part or write "If one were to say someone's opinion isn't valid" rather than "To say", as the former makes it a clear hypothetical whereas the latter leaves it ambiguous and carries immediacy.
I don't know if you should comment more or not. On one hand, you seem level-headed and like you genuinely didn't want to attack anyone, which is like a rare present in this comments section, and something we could use more of. On the other hand, the comments section is generally terrible and full of people saying all sorts of awful things about Emma and other commenters.
I think some important points have been raised about how people decide to watch a movie and the fact that going to the movies is expensive. Unless you are bathing in the green leaves, then fine, but otherwise the rest of us have to have a system that works for them and is satisfying to the personal taste and doesn't test the content of the wallet in an unnatural way. I just feel bad that people would assume that another's opinion is abnormal because they say they are more actor driven in a film. What does it matter, as long as that person is satisfied. Being able to allow such diversity of coming to one's own personal decision is being smart. If you have a gold mine paycheck- good for you
Post a Comment