This may be the best example I've seen that talented actors can't overcome a bad script. I had to have a drink to get through this movie (30 minutes too long, btw). I love Charlize but not even she could save this one, probably friends with the director/screenplay guy and trying to help him out. This one sucked folks. Yup, I said it, so have at it.
share[deleted]
I don't mean to sound like a hater, but it is just that I expect top notch stuff from Charlize because she can be SO good. With this project, it seems that she was just throwing a friend a bone. I agree with you, not the worst movie ever but I was disappointed for sure, cheers.
shareI have the same thoughts. This movie didn't have to be close to 2 hours.
shareI have seen lots of movies that fit that description. Usually people blame the actors for the movie stinking. But, here it was so clearly not their fault. Charlize deserved a much better script.
shareNot even Charlize could save this screenplay
I'm clearly in the minority on this thread because unlike the rest of you Charlize Theron isn't the type of actress that I would write or say "not even she can save a movie".I think she gave a Oscar winning performance in Monster(she completely transformed and not just her physical appearance).However other than that her acting TO ME is .I reserve comments like"not even insert _ actress name could save this movie" for Meryl Streep and Cate Blanchett.In MY OPINION Meryl Streep and Cate Blanchett has NEVER given a bad or mediocre performance.They always turn in outstanding or good performances.Again this is just my opinion.
I agree about her not being Meryl, but who is? You are talking about one of the great screen actors ever in Meryl Streep.
Cate tends to be above average but she still has moments that I'll bet she would love a do-over. Like her performance in "Little Fish", which was WAY melodramatic to the point of being cringeworthy.
My point with the post was that Charlize is an A lister . . . and this turd of a film is not worthy of any A list actress.
Wasn't a bad script, just deep and multi-layered. Intelligent plots just aren't profitable, because only a small percentage of the market will understand what's going on. It's like the difference between pulp fiction and fine literature. Everyone reads pulp and they teach lit in school so people will know it exists. People that write pulp would rather be writing literature, but it just doesn't pay the bills. People that make movies probably feel the same way - probably gets pretty boring making films even a garbage can could understand. But to try and attempt something better, they better have a big name. Charlize was available. Doesn't mean it'll work.
High and fine literature is wine, and mine is only water; but everybody likes water - Mark Twainshare
"Deep and multi-layered"!? Sorry, but did you watch the same dumbed-down movie that I did? The writing in this movie is opposite of what you described (see the ridiculously high rating for this turd as an example) . . . it is Charlize throwing a friend a bone to get them started probably.
I appreciate the comment but you are WAY off on this one. I used to teach, and I had 6th graders turn in better writing than this. The screenplay sucks folks.
Yeah, maybe I wasn't clear enough. This movie, based off a novel, tried to be intelligent. Doesn't always work, like I said. I did not read the book and I doubt I will, since the description I found of the novel is:
The novel deals with class issues in rural America, intense poverty and the Satanic cult hysteria that swept the United States in the 1980sNot really my kind of thing.
Thank you for the comment . . . sorry, but your post is just way too deep and multi-layered for me to respond to all of the questions, wow. BTW, I never referenced "source" material at all, I said the writing (who cares what it was based on) for the movie sucked.
In reading your comment, I felt like I was reading a bad script and it instructed the director to, "insert ridiculous, parody of an essay question here. :(
Screenplays based off novels tend to follow a condensed version of the novel. If the writer strays too far from the novel, they will lose the viewer that came to see the novel. Too close to the novel and it ends up losing the general population. (A good example of this is Ender's Game. Read the book and watch the film - you'll see what I mean. The writing sucked in the movie, but followed the book pretty well.) The novel this film is based from had a very narrow market, so the film was never slated for mass market. They could have pumped up the writing, but destroyed the original plot and dark realistic feel I can only imagine the novel was like.
This was a film you and I were really never meant to see. If we were meant to see it, we would have already read the book. I'm never going to read the book and I doubt you will either. We aren't qualified to say the writing sucks. You don't write for yourself, you write to your audience. Twilight was a brilliant film series for millions of women, who had read the books and just loved the films. I think we would both agree the writing sucks - but we would be wrong.
Intelligent plots just aren't profitable, because only a small percentage of the market will understand what's going on.There are countless movies that are hard to follow that people still love. Not sure that is the reason. share
This may be the best example I've seen that talented actors can't overcome a bad script. I had to have a drink to get through this movie (30 minutes too long, btw). I love Charlize but not even she could save this one, probably friends with the director/screenplay guy and trying to help him out. This one sucked folks. Yup, I said it, so have at it.
More than that, the plot is incredible. What sane mother does what Hendricks' character did?
If it weren't for bad luck, Ben would have no luck at all.