MovieChat Forums > Café Society (2016) Discussion > Kristen and Jesse no talent, miscast

Kristen and Jesse no talent, miscast


Kristen Stewart simply didn't have the talent or range to deliver this role. When the script called for anything marginally demanding she fell flat: She couldn't cut it when she had to tell Jesse that she was marrying Steve, or in the nightclub when she was called upon to act like a shallow, gossipy Hollywood wife. The depth, maturity, commitment, drive and passion needed to make this role work simply weren't there.

Jesse Eisenberg: He's been a competent actor every other time I've seen him, but just like Stewart, although slightly better, when he was called upon to stretch he didn't have it. I can't help but compare him, vastly unfavorably, to Kenneth Branagh, who also played "Woody Allen" in Celebrity. And when he poured on the fake, smarmy charm I wanted to puke! Right after fighting an overwhelming impulse to jump into the screen and punch him in the face. He was woefully miscast and out of his depth when he was wearing the white tux in the nightclub and walking around with that unctuous smile on his face trying to charm everyone. Sorry, but Humphrey Bogart in Casablanca he is not!



We got a job.
What kind?
...The Forever Kind.

reply

Jesse's got Woody down pat mostly because he fits a lot of his physical aspects and can deliver his wordy sentences well proven because he's been in more than one of his 'retelling' films.

GFW

reply

Kenneth Branagh was still better.


We got a job.
What kind?
...The Forever Kind.

reply

I'm not saying he's his idea but he's terrible posture, is slight, and Jewish (at least) and can be whiny easy enough. He's learning comedic timing well enough.

I'll have to watch Celebrity. I can't imagine Kenneth in the role at all. He was good in the 'new' Wallander though.

GFW

reply

Oh, you absolutely have to see Celebrity. Way better than this movie. Kenneth Branagh nails it. He's an immensely talented actor with an incredible range, almost on a par with Meryl Streep. Classically trained. You should also see him in Conspiracy.

Woody cranks out a movie per year as if he had an assembly line and it shows. He's getting older and wants to leave a substantial body of work behind so his output is spotty. I've always revered him, but only a few of his movies in the last twenty years have been gems. Most have been afterthoughts, unfortunately like this one.

Whiney is right! Yes, Jesse got most of the "Woodyisms", but like I said earlier, when he tried to be charming he made my skin crawl! Woody himself wasn't like that when he romanced women in his movies.


We got a job.
What kind?
...The Forever Kind.

reply

I respect your opinion, but I really enjoyed them in this movie. Kristen was really natural I think, I liked her acting her.

reply

Cool


We got a job.
What kind?
...The Forever Kind.

reply

u know everything doesn't need to be linear in watching a movie. I like vulnerabilities and imperfections in acting. Try to lighten up little.

reply

I enjoyed Eisenberg, but I agree about Stewart. First off, I didn't buy her
as someone from 1936 - her posture, attitude and - especially - her phrasing
of dialogue was totally 21st century. She is a competent actor, but lacked
the skill and range, as you wrote, to make anything even remotely moving. I
also didn't buy her as a stuffy wife who had "changed" by the time she arrives
at the club in New York. But I didn't see any change in Eisenberg's character
either.

What's so baffling to me is how overpraised Stewart is here. She does not
deserve the raves I've seen written about her. She had zero chemistry with
both Eisenberg and Steve Carrel.

On the whole, I enjoyed this film, but Stewart didn't nail it, folks.

reply

I couldn't agree more. Zero chemistry with Steve and very unnatural it was hard to watch sometimes. The OP is spot on too in regard to Twilight, she played the moody teen she was at the time. I also agree that Jesse wasn't convincing as the night club owner or as the husband of the lovely Blake.

Out of Woody's most recent films, i prefer Blue Jasmine to this but nothing beats Vicki Cristina or Midnight in Paris

reply

Sorry, disagree, although I respect the opinions of others, and generally
think of Stewart as a talented actor. I just didn't buy her as someone
from 1936. She acted, walked, and breathed like someone from 2016 dressed
as someone from 1936.

reply

Quoting a bunch of critics who happen to like her doesn't mean anything. I'm not looking for an argument, but people's opinions about movies are extremely subjective.

I never saw the Twilight movies, but I'm guessing not much was required of Stewart beyond being a moody adolescent girl, which is what she was at the time in real life. Now she's an adult and has to take on more complex roles.

Film critics (like Richard Roper) have agendas. They either choose an actor they like and try to pump up their career, or the media that pays them does it. If the Hollywood publicity machine decides to make someone a star, then that actor get massive good press whether they rate it or not. When the Twilight movies took off, Stewart became the "it" girl, at least at the time.


We got a job.
What kind?
...The Forever Kind.

reply

Quoting a bunch of critics who happen to like her doesn't mean anything. I'm not looking for an argument, but people's opinions about movies are extremely subjective.


I won't deny that judging acting talent, as is true with most art forms, can be subjective. That being said, the point I wanted to make is that it isn't simply a matter of a few obscure critics and movie reviewers who are raving about Kristen Stewart's performance in Cafe Society, but rather a plethora of the top professional critics in the industry who are heaping her with critical acclaim. So are you implying that collectively as a group, the top film critics don't know how to judge acting talent?

My answer is also in response to the numerous posters on this board who say Stewart is devoid of acting talent. While they are entitled to their own opinion, do they even realize that she won more prestigious critical acclaim last year (i.e., New York Film Critics Circle 1st Place Award, National Society of Film Critics 1st Place Award, Boston Society of Film Critics 1st Place Award, Los Angeles Film Critics Association 2nd Place Award) for her performance in Clouds of Sils Maria than any 2015 Best Supporting Actress contender, nominee and winner--yes even more than BSA Oscar winner Alicia Vikander.

At least with film critics, we know they have seen the films they write their reviews about or else how else could they write such insightful and detailed reviews? The same cannot be said about Oscar voters, many of whom do not watch all the performances and films that are in contention for awards.

reply

dhmason6155 I wholeheartedly agree with every word you just said!it seems that some actresses' careers are constantly boosted whether there is talent or not,it's all about knowing the right people I guess. Very sad actually, considering how many truly talented girls there are out there waiting for a chance..I'm a big Allen fan and was EXTREMELY disappointed in the acting in this movie, painfully miscast lead roles!!

reply

Very sad actually, considering how many truly talented girls there are out there waiting for a chance.


Can you name one young actress who could have portrayed Vonnie better than Kristen did?

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

LLOwens, it's not my job,I'm not a casting director. It could even be someone less famous with more talent rather than the other way around. You seem to be having a hard time accepting that people's opinions differ. This is a post with a specific title, you stated your disagreement, backed it up with, what you considered, fit evidence but we aren't convinced so why don't we just agree to disagree on that one.. Cheers

reply

[deleted]

LLOwens, it's not my job,I'm not a casting director.


So are you implying that you're not in a position to judge whether or not Kristen was miscast for her role as Vonnie?

On the other hand casting directors/directors have cast Kristen in 6 films which have been released in theaters this year. Why would Kristen be cast in so many films year after year after year, if she truly lacked acting talent?

So I'll add casting directors and directors to the plethora of film critics who insist Kristen does indeed possess acting talent.

reply

This could be a really interesting discussion and I would have a lot of things to reply to you in a constructive argument but obviously you are a fanatic and I will not waste any more time. So goodbye.

reply

This could be a really interesting discussion and I would have a lot of things to reply to you in a constructive argument but obviously you are a fanatic and I will not waste any more time.


How can we possibly engage in a constructive argument if you fail to answer a simple question: Being that you agree with the OP who insists Kristen was miscast, which actress could have portrayed Vonnie better?

Additionally, when I use logical examples to support my opinion that she's a talented actress you call me a fanatic--yet when someone uses the F-word and other vulgar language to describe Kristen's acting, you excuse their foul speech just so long as they agree with your position? Who really is the fanatic here?



reply

I haven't seen any foul language,just a bunch of posts marked as deleted. If someone did use such language then I do not agree with them at all and I'm glad that the administrators delete the offensive posts so quickly.

I believe you are a fanatic because all your posts on IMDb are about an actress (that you only call by her first name), trying to convince everyone that is a huge talent and do not accept other people's opinions. I believe I have every right to judge who is talented and who isn't and especially when it comes to pictures made by one of my favourite directors. Now you asked who I would cast and I said i am not a casting director but I am certain I would find someone more suitable. And btw I watched the video and it didn't really strengthen your argument, it rather weakened it significantly.Just accept that there's a huge number of people who disagree with you (google worse actresses and you'll see how many disagree with you) and move on. We're all entitled to an opinion after all so trying to change our minds is hopeless.

reply

I haven't seen any foul language,just a bunch of posts marked as deleted.


Reread this thread. There is one comment not yet deleted where a poster uses the F-word.

I believe you are a fanatic because all your posts on IMDb are about an actress (that you only call by her first name), trying to convince everyone that is a huge talent and do not accept other people's opinions.


The OP used Stewart's and Eisenberg's first names in the title of this thread. Why am I singled out? Is it because I disagree with your opinion? And besides, check out the other threads on this board and you will see that I usually refer to her as Stewart, not Kristen.

Now you asked who I would cast and I said i am not a casting director but I am certain I would find someone more suitable.


Who?

And btw I watched the video and it didn't really strengthen your argument, it rather weakened it significantly.



Care to show me a clip of any young actress working in Hollywood today in a similar role which you deem superior to the clip I referred to?


Just accept that there's a huge number of people who disagree with you (google worse actresses and you'll see how many disagree with you) and move on.


Much of the hate stems from her performance in Twilight. Stewart's a much better actress now. Perhaps it's time for those who continue to judge her by her role as Bella Swan to move on.

reply

I'm not sure why i need to re-read all threads just to find someone who uses the f-word? That's unacceptable to me and I'd never condone it as I said. Now, since you insist I suggest a young actress I can say,of the top of my head, Jennifer Lawrence or Emma Stone. Or, again, an unknown, talented, charming actress. Someone with less connections and more talent. I understand you are huge fan of KS but many people aren't and that is not just because of Twilight. It's very patronising to make such assumptions. Now I won't go as far as to claim what "Urban Dictionary" claims about Stewart (though their entry is hilarious) because I respect the effort each actor puts in the performance but I will say, again,that BOTH actors did not nail it, the male lead was not good either and they had zero chemistry. Completely unconvincing both of them. Simple as that for me and A LOT of other people who think the same.

Over and out.

reply

Now, since you insist I suggest a young actress I can say,of the top of my head, Jennifer Lawrence or Emma Stone.


While I loved Emma Stone in Birdman and Easy A, in my opinion, she was out of her element in the two Woody Allen films she was cast in. Not because she doesn't possess adequate acting talent, but because she lacked romantic chemistry with Joaquin Phoenix in Irrational Man, and ditto for her lackluster chemistry with Colin Firth in Magic in the Moonlight. These were after all, romantic comedies, so realistically portraying romantic chemistry is crucial and integral if one would deem her performances in these films a success.

In my opinion, Kristen was more convincing in her longing for her onscreen love interest Bobby, played by Eisenberg. Heck, Stewart's chemistry with Steve Carell was more believable than Stone's onscreen romantic attraction to Phoenix and Firth.

As well respected as Jennifer Lawrence is in terms of the critical acclaim and accolades she's received, there is no denying the industry considers her immensely talented, it could be argued that even she is lacking in portraying credible romantic chemistry with her onscreen love interest. Silver Linings Playbook is perhaps the role most would point to with regard to her displaying credible romantic chemistry with her onscreen love interest. Yet in my opinion, it was a dysfunctional romance, which was void of any credible intimate scenes of romantic lust. Disagree? Care to make reference to a scene or post a YouTube clip showing Lawrence realistically steaming up the screen, demonstrating she is head-over-heels in love with her lover Pat, played by Bradley Cooper?

Or, again, an unknown, talented, charming actress. Someone with less connections and more talent.


But doesn't Woody Allen always cast known actresses in his lead roles, even the main supporting roles?


I understand you are huge fan of KS but many people aren't and that is not just because of Twilight. It's very patronising to make such assumptions.


I consider myself first and foremost a fan of film. I watch on average, one full-length feature film a day. Over the past decade I've watched in excess of 3,000 films. And yet from all the actress performances I've viewed, no young actress has impressed me on a consistent basis as much as Stewart has. So thus, I became and continue to be a fan of hers. Don't most moviegoers have their favorites? What's wrong with that?

I don't believe I'm making any assumptions when I stated that much of the hate stems from her performances in Twilight. On virtually every thread where the OP openly criticizes Stewart's acting, including this one, there are posters, including the OP, who make reference to her role as Bella Swan in Twilight. These ones refuse to let Stewart live it down. Time for them to move on.

reply

With regards to JLaw I believe that she would be able to communicate emotions more effectively, that is an area that KS lacks in. Maybe you were right that they had chemistry but I was not conviced that two men would act nuts for her (personality/appearance-wise) and I do not mean that KS is not beautiful, I mean that she lacks the range of emotional expression and the passion to convey a woman that people would ruin their lives for. I believe that KS can in time improve her acting skills but she is not quite there yet and there is nothing wrong with being a fan of an actor/actress who needs to work more with their range. I am a fan of plenty of those myself.

Another actress I would love to see in the lead role here would be Evan Rachel Wood who was amazing in Whatever Works (and Mildred Pierce actually) and was a very positive surprise for me.

Here is a clip of JLaw that shows raw talent and a very broad range of acting skills..Enjoy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POwysBXsow0

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Also, all three actresses, JLaw, E.R.Wood and Emma Stone are not only very skilled actresses but mind-numbingly beautiful,passionate and impressive, so much so that if I were a guy I can imagine myself going nuts for them. And that is an important part of this role being believable so IMHO the lead role should not have gone to a girl with a 'girl-next-door' appearancE but to a VERY impressive young woman.

reply

How can we possibly engage in a constructive argument if you fail to answer a simple question: Being that you agree with the OP who insists Kristen was miscast, which actress could have portrayed Vonnie better?


There are truly too many actresses who would have been about 8million times better thant Kristen Stewart. There is no point in giving you examples. The point is she did a mediocre job in this film. And I agree with someone who said she had zero chemistry with both Carrell and Eisenberg.



Paul Avery: Someone should write a *beep* book, that's for sure.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

"I never saw the Twilight movies, but I'm guessing not much was required of Stewart"

I managed to sit thru the first "Twilight" movie (no easy feat) and Ms. Stewart had one expression: sullen.

Face it, she's a horrible non-actress!

reply

I managed to sit thru the first "Twilight" movie (no easy feat) and Ms. Stewart had one expression: sullen.


Typical how many of her naysayers continue to judge her only by her performance in Twilight.

How fair would it be if we judged Felicity Jones only by her performance in Rogue One: A Star Wars Story.

Or if we judged Natalie Portman only by her performance in Star Wars: Episode I- The Phantom Menace.

Or if we judged Halle Berry only by her performance in Catwoman.

Or if we judged Angelina Jolie only by her performance in Lara Croft: Tomb Raider

Or if we judged Hilary Swank only by her performance in The Next Karate Kid.

Or if we judged Anne Hathaway only by her performance in The Princess Diaries.

Or if we judged Amy Adams only by her performance in Superman: Man of Steel.

Or if we judged Sharon Stone only by her performance in King Solomon's Mines.

Or if we judged Rooney Mara only by her performance in Pan.

Or if we judged Jennifer Lawrence only by her performance in The Hunger Games.

Or if we judged Keira Knightley only by her performance in Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl.

Or if we judged Nicole Kidman only by her performance in BMX Bandits.

Or if we judged Charlize Theron only be her performance in Aeon Flux


The aforementioned are all Academy Award nominated/winning actresses. Don't get me started on actresses who have yet to receive Oscar nods.

And besides, most 17-year-old Hollywood actresses are either starring in family friendly fare or doing bit parts--not anchoring a $3.3 billion film franchise like Stewart did. She starred in several films since Twilight, some of which she has received critical praise for.



reply

Kristen and Jessie, (and add cera too), are all terrible. They were good at playing one particular kind of part - that is - they are good playing themselves, but not portraying other people. When I see them in movies, I don't believe they are the character, I believe the character is them. They turn the character into a replica of Kristen/Jessie/cera and it just becomes annoying.

reply

Add Miles Teller to the list.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Agree 100%

reply

[deleted]