Last edited by Submerge; 11-18-2012 at 10:38 PM.
The film made $200 Million at the American box office and despite her "crazy good performance", more people could have told you who Nicole Kidman was when they left the theater after Batman Forever, than they could have Watts after seeing her in King Kong, and Kidman wasn't even very good in that.
But let's clarify. I agree that no one knows who Watts is in USA.
What I meant by without her performance the movie would have tanked...well. She was the heart of the film. Maybe some other cheaper actress (cheaper than watts? HA) would have been serviceable, but the film was already so damn bloated and overloaded with excessive ridiculousness that it wouldn't have worked out in the end without someone like Watts holding down the fort.
ETA: And I've already clearly said I wasn't talking about box office...
Will Oscar have Riva Fever?
This Keira vs Naomi thing is so boring.
Leaving a screening of The Paperboy.
Perhaps the word you're looking for is "sucked"? Tanked implies box office.
She got great reviews, a Critics Choice nod, and I think she would have been a popular Oscar nominee here as well, so nobody's saying gurl can't act or didn't act well in the flick, she did, but it didn't make her a star, so in the end her performance was irrelevant in that sense of Hollywood stardom or box office.
I think tanked is perfectly appropriate. It could apply to box office or the quality of the film.
Will Oscar have Riva Fever?
Gregory Ellwood also like Camille seems to concede the film benefits from repeat viewings:
Before the conversation, though, I sat in for a second viewing of "Karenina" and was transfixed one more. The production design is even more remarkable. Marianelli's score is even prettier. Jude Law isn't getting the credit proper credit for his superb performance as Karenin. Moreover, Knightley's turn is quite remarkable once you truly understand the stylistic tone Wright is going for. And the ballroom sequence? Just superb. All and all, you can see why Focus isn't giving up on trying to land some major Oscar nominations besides the expected craft nods such as costumes, score, production design and possibly cinematography.
Read more at http://www.hitfix.com/awards-campaig...jjYymqVIUpk.99
So this did okay at BO so far, but nothing exceptional, right?
The man who leaves and the man who comes back are not the same.
it did well, and is getting from what I heard good word of mouth and should be expanding come thanksgiving. I need to write my review! I loved it of course, but do agree it is flawed, but a really good movie. Its nowhere near Atonement or Pride and Prejudice, but it was still good. My review will be posted tonight on the criticism thread.
A. O. Scott LOVED this. That's all I needed to read.
Can't get over how wonderful the score is for this movie. It has to win at least that category. There's a lot of creativity in it (the sound of papers flying through the air, the train, the stamping).
How you measure the distance between that world — a bygone reality if you are reading Tolstoy; a constructed one if you are watching Mr. Wright’s movie — and the one we inhabit will be a matter of perspective. Mr. Stoppard and Mr. Wright offer “Anna Karenina” and its heroine to the gods of melodrama, who receive her gladly. But their film, wild and emotional as it is, does not quite hit the deep, resonant note of tragedy that would lift it above the merely (by which I mean the merely very) good. At the end you may be dazzled, touched and a bit tired. But, really, you should feel as if you had been hit by a train.
Nice. I'm finally getting this at my nearby Regal Cinemas theater on Friday. 'bout damn time!
Last edited by Elessar; 11-28-2012 at 02:40 PM.
Sublime. Beautiful. Perfect.
Excluding a certain December release, which I will have a certain bias for , this may very well be my personal Best Picture of the Year.
If Dario Marienelli is not at least nominated for Original Score, there will be hell to pay.
Last edited by Elessar; 11-30-2012 at 04:44 PM.