...this has been seen time and again. She only has one expression. I can't believe why anyone keeps hiring her.
I don't know her or anyone related to movie industry, I'm just a random movie goer. Yet I can't believe why anyone would hire her?
Agreed. She did ok in the last few scenes, but most of the movie she just recited the lines.
Live long and prosper.
i was expecting a trainwreck after reading what some of you said on this board but i found her quite good here. i'm no fan. i think she's usually a bit distant in her performances but I thought she handled her role well here. I thought during the final mins of the film she was the highlight. she did a good job.
shareThis isn't exactly news. Probably 'cause the role needs a specific expressionless actress. And she matched.
shareI wasn't too familiar with her work. Haven't seen Twilight. But the little bit I've seen before, she looked very dull and like she had no talent at all. But I was impressed with her performance in Still Alice. I thought she looked beautiful and did a great job.
shareShe is bad,that's true.
Movie Reviews www.cultfilmfreaks.com or www.facebook.com/cultfilmfreakcinema
The fact that all her scenes are opposite Julianne Moore doesn't help.
What was frustrating was the scene of her in the stage play. I thought the directors might have been making the point that Lydia was not a very good actress, and might be wasting her time. Or it could has been that Stewart's acting was bad. We may never know.
It was obviously making the point that she wasn't a very good actress in that play and that's why she couldn't make it big. But Kristen Stewart's performance was great in this movie. She wouldn't be criticised for playing similar parts if she were a man or if she hadn't been in Twilight. She plays the soft-spoken, shy girl really well. And she's really beautiful. She might get the opportunity to branch out later in her career.
sharewhatever, i like her. you all are too hung up on that twilight nonsense where she acted just as her awful character was written and she was directed to. you just keep regurgitating the same crap you've read somewhere else long ago, not one of you has an original thought or opinion about kristen stewart. she has put in some great performances.
shareshe has put in some great performances.
Now I really want to see Clouds of Sils Maria. That sounds interesting.
Send lawyers,guns and money/The *beep* has hit the fan
Kristen has a much more prominent role in Sils Maria than Still Alice. I'm guessing the number of scenes she's in in Still Alice is in the 10-15% range. In Sils Maria, she's in 75-80% of the scenes. I believe that's a significant reason she was not nominated for Still Alice -- her screen time was too limited.
Rest in peace, Roger Ebert. You were the best.
you all are too hung up on that twilight nonsense where she acted just as her awful character was written and she was directed to.
Only the talentless Keira Knightly would have been worse
share[deleted]
I never saw her in Twilight. I read the books and thought the first couple were okay and then hated the last one so much I never bothered. But she was awful in Into The Wild and she was awful in this.
shareShe was just... there. Kate Bosworth was better than her. Julianne Moore stole the show and was brilliant. I mean, really, Kristen Stewart received way too much screen time. Yawn.
Snakes. Why'd it have to be snakes?
I don't believe you have seen it. I have not seen one person - critic or movie watcher - say that Kate Bosworth was better than her. Also, Kristen isn't in the movie that much and some of her scenes are via skype, so you cannot reasonably say she was in it "way too much". You are lying.
wab-3 = Dengal/vans johnson/b profane/SNL fan/Film/Carmudgen - who else?
Your post is hilarious! I've seen it.
Snakes. Why'd it have to be snakes?