Rotten Tomatoes gives it a 46.Some critics say Kristen Stewart ruins it because she is so dull and lifeless, which I understand is familiar to people who have seen Twilight. My daughter says “She has one expression, one of slackjawed stupidity. Have you seen her interviewed? She’s the same there and really gives off an air that she’s retarded. Robert Pattinson, though, …” I’ve only seen the ads but I want to say to Charlize Theron, "Ignore that mirror, girlfriend. It’s wrong. And I think it might be gay. You are still the fairest of them all."So, is it out yet? Has anybody seen it?
It stars Kristen Stewart who I will never pay money to see in anything. Yuck. And I like fairy tale and fantasy movies. Will save my time and money for the"Once Upon A Time" tv show DVD.
Someone may come along to say Stewart was a fine actress in some films. Don’t care. I’ve rarely seen a celebrity with such an air of self centered asshole. Prob nt her true self but that’s her public persona.
It sucked pretty hard. But some people in the audience clapped when it was over so maybe I missed something worthwhile.
I’m looking forward to it. It looks good and it has Chris Hemsworth, who my inner 16-year old has a great crush on.
The Kristen Stewart hate is laughable and downright stupid. It’s as laughable, and as downright stupid as the Leonardo DiCaprio hate back when Titanic came out and it still lingers, as will Kristen’s. As Leo did, she’ll have the last laugh, prove all the the idiots wrong, and amusingly make them all madder by having a long, successful career.
What in the world does my dislike for the entitled miss Stewart have to do with Leo? Don’t see any connection . I dislike her for the awful attitude that has come across in many many appearances and interviews.
I saw Stewart being interviewed not long ago on TV, and the overall impression I got was her not wanting to be in the limelight and/or embarrassment, maybe both. The interviewer mentioned how now everybody knows her because of Twilight, and Stewart nearly turned away from her. I couldn’t blame her – if my Hollywood calling card had been Twilight, I probably would be embarrassed too.
Saw it yesterday. It wasn’t bad, and actually had some elements of genius- mostly the scenes in the Dark Forest. Kristen Stewart was, predictably, awful. She really does only have one expression, one that I call “constipated”.
Charlize Theron… man, normally I love her in everything she does. Not this time, though- it’s like she was trying to make up for Stewart’s wooden acting by chewing on the scenery (and then screaming at it).
Hemsworth had, by far, the best role in the movie. Bob Hoskins was pretty damn good, too.
I thought Stewart was weak, but not terrible. Theron was great; she got a little crazy in a couple scenes, but she was a Wicked Queen! What I hated was how tissue thin the plot was. They hinted at all this awesomeness, but they never really brought it. What was that white stuff she bathed in? It looked cool, but what was the purpose. Who was the queen? They hinted about her origin, but they never explored it fully, and it seemed cool.
Most importantly, how can Snow White be the fairest of all, when any fool with eyes can see she’s fairly plain looking???
Walked out after the first hour at last night’s showing, so if I missed something great in the remaining 67 minutes, then maybe I’m being unfair.
I recently bitched about this year’s previous Snow White movie, so I was hoping this one would be better. I liked it even less, although for different reasons.
I have nothing against Kristen Stewart but I agree that her looks are more “oddball pretty” (those bunny teeth) than conventionally beautiful “fairest in the land”, which drew me out of the movie a bit when other characters were supposedly drooling over how supernaturally lovely she was.
But what really chapped my hide and finally sent me out of the theater was
the fact that the useless bitch didn’t DO anything. I don’t blame Stewart’s expression or acting ability so much as the screenwriters’ deliberate choice to construct the plot so that she was always gasping in terror or running away or bravely but feebly resisting somebody else’s anger or violence.
For fuck’s sake, girl, have a plan, have an idea, or at the very least let’s see you try to think about something. Not just react react react in fear, or compassion, or fearful compassion. With the effort you expend on being catastrophically weak and ineffectual you could actually, you know, accomplish something.
I thought the Twilight movies and books were awful but enjoyably laughable, so I didn’t mind them. But if they’re going to Twilightify every princess story they can get their hands on, it stops being funny. Is it really too much in this day and age to expect a beautiful young heroine to have some guts, some skills, some achievements beyond being unfairly picked on by evil people and inspiring pity and desire in good people by her waiflike emo charms? Gimme a fucking break.
No, you did say you stayed until the end so, from the sounds of it, you were there for the best part.
I think it was supposed to be milk, a fairly standard beauty treatment for those who could afford it in the ancient world and into the middle ages, hence the scene of the peasants collecting and drinking the white stuff that is her bath run off. But they used something thicker than regular milk because it made a more awesome special effect. I agree this would have been a better movie with more back story on the queen. She was the most interesting character by far.
I’ve only seen the trailer, but it made me pretty sure that this is one of those movies that only exists as an excuse to show a bunch of cool special effects.
It was beautifully shot. The plot was major sucky because there were so many story lines left undeveloped. I thought Kristen Stewart played the part of Kristen Stewart famously!
The special effects were really cool though! 
And my kids thought it was a lot of fun. But, if I had it to do over, I’d wait for the DVD.
I saw it: I didn’t expect much going in, so I wasn’t disappointed on my way out, and I enjoyed it well enough, considering. I was constantly distracted by how bad Stewart was (my friend liked her, but my friend also likes Twilight and bodice ripper books). I haven’t actually seen Twilight and didn’t make the connection to it being the same actress until the very end (this, despite seeing the horrid trailer before the movie… if the trailer is that bad, I fear for the movie!) I still thought she was terrible and wooden, with only one expression. Stewart always kind of looks like she’s staring at something off screen, like she’s trying to read her lines off of something.
I liked Theron as the queen, and felt that she was by far the best character. She did rather well with a weak script. Hemsworth is… Hemsworth. Fun to look at, fun to listen to, and the quality of the plot doesn’t really matter. Not enough biceps though… although I saw the Avengers the next day, and got my fill there!
It was rather beautiful though - lots of good camera work and gorgeous settings. I think Rotten Tomatoes isn’t too far off…I might give it a passing grade, but not much more than that. It’s a time-waster kind of movie (which was the context I saw it in; killing time before meeting other friends for dinner) and probably is worth the wait for it to come on TV or on demand.
Still, with all it’s flaws…still a better story than Twilight!
The spouse and I saw it today and we thought it was terrible. Plot holes big enough to drive a truck through, an unsatisfying ending (it’s supposed to at least sort of be a romance, right? So who did she end up with? I know it was supposed to be obvious, but confirmation wouldn’t have been terrible). About halfway through the spouse and I had the following exchange (referring to the guy who played William, the bland non-Huntsman love interest):
Spouse: He’s prettier than she is.
Me: That’s because he has more than one expression.
For the rest of the movie it was quietly whispered MST3K comments back and forth.
It was a visually interesting movie, but the plot sucked so hard we couldn’t come up with an excuse to like it.
I hope the rest of the theater was empty. Out of consideration for others who spent a small fortune to watch a film in a theater, talking should be verboten (especially sibilant, annoying whispering).
I’ll come and say so. She was pretty good in The Runaways, and excellent in her small role in Into The Wild. I’ve never seen her interviewed, but then I don’t base my opinion of someone as an actor on their non-acting stuff.
It will be interesting to see what she does with some more serious roles. Robert Pattinson has shown that he can do it, so maybe Stewart will as well.
I saw it with a friend who afterwards called it Snow of Arc. I’d give it a C+; could have been a B+ if it had an actress in the role of Snow who actually connected with the scenery/other characters/plot, though I don’t think it had an A in it. Charlize was by far the best performance and, though the villain, the only really interesting or sympathetic character.
Did give me an excuse to say “That’s Dwarf Swedgin!” though. (Ian McShane, aka Al Swearengen on Deadwood, a character known as ‘Swedgin’ to the character of “F*ckin’ Wu!”, plays a dwarf as do Bob Hoskins, Toby Jones, and Ray Winstone.)
Took my 9 & 12 year old daughters. They both liked it, but “didn’t love it.” - and they’re probably the exact center of the target audience. I thought the plot was weak, and Snow White was awful, but it was a beautiful looking movie, and Charlize Theron totally rocked the Wicked Queen. Now I’m really looking forward to seeing her in Prometheus.