nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Snow White & the Huntsman

JP Liz V1

http://www.digitalspy.ie/movies/news/a331489/kristen-stewart-in-snow-white--the-huntsman-first-look.html

The first look at Kristen Stewart in Snow White & the Hunstman has been unveiled.
The images show Stewart's Snow White wearing armour and carrying a sword and shield.
Nick Frost, Ray Winstone, Toby Jones, Ian McShane, Johnny Harris, Bob Hoskins, Eddie Marsan and Brian Gleeson will play the movie's eight dwarfs.
Speaking at Comic-Con, producer Joe Roth compared the fantasy project to Lord of the Rings, saying that audiences can expect an action film: "Our movie, I like to think, is on the scale of Lord of the Rings, in terms of size and scope and appetite - a tough, rough, active male-female picture."
Universal has also released character images of the Queen (Charlize Theron), the Prince (Sam Claflin) and the Huntsman (Chris Hemsworth). Snow White & the Huntsman will open in cinemas in June 2012.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Sad Professor

It's actually pretty enjoyable. Script is a bit rough, leaving characterisation up to the actors. Theron is excellent, probably the only three dimensional character in the film. Stewart acquits herself rather well until the last act when she starts to look terribly uncomfortable riding about on a horse and swinging a sword around. Hemsworth brings a much needed roguish charm to the table, but he kinda disappears in the last act. And Sam Claflin's character is totally pointless - I've no idea why he's in the film.

krudler

Sad Professor wrote: »

It's actually pretty enjoyable. Script is a bit rough, leaving characterisation up to the actors. Theron is excellent, probably the only three dimensional character in the film. Stewart acquits herself rather well until the last act when she starts to look terribly uncomfortable riding about on a horse and swinging a sword around. Hemsworth brings a much needed roguish charm to the table, but he kinda disappears in the last act. And Sam Claflin's character is totally pointless - I've no idea why he's in the film.

I thought that as well, considering

they dont get together and she doesnt wind up with Hemsworth either (which would have been creepy since she's meant to be a teenager and he's clearly in his 30's)

Ian Mcshane as a dwarf though, whats not to like, like a tiny Al Swearengen :pac:

don ramo

i quite liked it, it had a decent pace, no real lulls during, there always seemed to be something on screen that made you look at the screen instead of your watch,

i thought it odd that it cost $170, why are all the film lately costing so much, battleship was $200mill, john carter $250mill, MIB3 $220mill, and none of them look any better that game of thrones which costs $35 million to make 10 hour long episodes

Sad Professor

don ramo wrote: »

i quite liked it, it had a decent pace, no real lulls during, there always seemed to be something on screen that made you look at the screen instead of your watch,

i thought it odd that it cost $170, why are all the film lately costing so much, battleship was $200mill, john carter $250mill, MIB3 $220mill, and none of them look any better that game of thrones which costs $35 million to make 10 hour long episodes

GOT's budget is a lot more than that. 60-70 million a season. And that probably wouldn't include all the money that was initially spent on sets and costumes in the pilot which they still use.

Time, visual effects, stunts, set-pieces and various other things is what makes films so expensive. GOT looks pretty good, but it's also quite stagey at times and the few action scenes are blandly shot and choreographed. They probably shoot an episode in 10 days, which is a very tight schedule and wouldn't allow for many takes. Aside from the production design and cinematography, there's not much about it that's cinematic. I'm reading through the books at the moment and there's loads of things left out of the series because they obviously can't afford it. Even the direwolves when they were small barely featured in the show.

johnny_ultimate

You can easily spot the cost-cutting measures in GoT. I've only seen the first series, but notice how pretty much all the major battle scenes aren't actually shown on screen. The CGI that is clearly CGI is most certainly of a lower standard than most things in the cinema

(dragons, anyone?)

. Sets, locations are recycled endlessly. Subtle CGI is used to enhance crowd scenes and locations to make them look grander and more expensive than they actually are (see video below) And this is the same for all television, truth be told.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhG1i_BobWY

don ramo

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

You can easily spot the cost-cutting measures in GoT. I've only seen the first series, but notice how pretty much all the major battle scenes aren't actually shown on screen. The CGI that is clearly CGI is most certainly of a lower standard than most things in the cinema
(dragons, anyone?)
. Sets, locations are recycled endlessly. Subtle CGI is used to enhance crowd scenes and locations to make them look grander and more expensive than they actually are (see video below) And this is the same for all television, truth be told.

well CGI always looks like CGI;):p, i understand there is much higher production value in films, but snow whist didnt really look $100million dollars better than all of season 2 or 1 of GOT,

also GOT is filmed in 5 different countries, Northern Ireland, Malta, Croatia, Iceland and Morocco, so 5 different sets to manage,

foodie66

I loved it! I was really looking forward to this one and it really lived up to my expectations which almost never happens with movies i have hyped up. I loved all of the cast and i really hope there is a sequel. I am going again at the weekend

Regarding budget, i heard a much lower figure than 170 million, where did you get that information?

don ramo

foodie66 wrote: »

Regarding budget, i heard a much lower figure than 170 million, where did you get that information?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_White_and_the_Huntsman

BlitzKrieg

Honestly...

I dont know what to make of this...It's giving a full gutso with set pieces and the dramatics in full flair.

But it felt so dull.

It has much more in common with shakespeare's Macbeth then it does the original snow white (and because of this the snow white tropes feel somewhat forced)

Actually the comparison to macbeth sums up whats wrong with this film. Macbeth tells the same story but almost entirely from the perspective of the villian, SW+huntsman is the same story told from the heroes perspective (specifically Malcolm/Macduff)...Which is really really boring.

Which is what's wrong with this film. Snow white (Kristen Stewert) is a dull lead who rivals kiera Knightly in pirates of the caribean 3 for worse war rally speech in a modern film, the huntsman (Chris hemsworth) is saved because the actor is naturally charismatic but we knew this from Thor and Avengers, here he has nothing to do most of the time and who's backstory gets resovled in the first half of the film and the film struggles to keep him in the film after it. Charlize Theron really felt like she loved playing the role, but suffered like Chris Hemsworth for having nothing to do for most of the film.

The great cast of dwarves (Ian Mcshane!!! didnt know he was in it, got a good surprise) keeps the middle somewhat afloat but they fall into the trap that everyone else does, the instantly falling in love with snow white because the film says so and not for anything she actually does, but because the story says they do. Going back to the macbeth analogy this is stuff Shakespeare was poking fun at by focusing his play on the villian and then calling it a tragedy. So much in this film just bends over backwards for snow white yet nothing pays off from it. There is some cgi heavy nature sequences that are quite nice at points but there is no pay off for all the humming and hawwing over her.

So overall didnt find myself enjoying the film much at all.

Shockingly the entertainingly awful Mirror Mirror (the other snow white film...with real dwarves) does out do this film on a few key points (better snow white lead for one thing) I cant actually pick which of these two films is the better or worse. Mirror Mirror is at times incredibly cheesy and Julia Roberts cant hold a candle to Charlize theron, but I did enjoy my time in the cinema watching that over how uncomfortably dulled I was during parts of this.

razorblunt

The film was grand in the Irish sense of the word!

There were times when I was thinking this is one of the poorest films I've seen in a while, seemed to be no urgency to it in some parts.
Pulled itself together a little as it went on but I think that was due more to Hemsworth and Theron and the introduction of the dwarves.

I've nevere seen Twilight so this is my first time seeing Kirsten Stewart and yeah she's pretty expressionless, she seems to think heavy breathing and looking like you're about to cry is the best way to convey emotion.

5/10.

foodie66

don ramo wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_White_and_the_Huntsman

oh ok, i don't find that site very reliable

foodie66

razorblunt wrote: »

The film was grand in the Irish sense of the word!

There were times when I was thinking this is one of the poorest films I've seen in a while, seemed to be no urgency to it in some parts.
Pulled itself together a little as it went on but I think that was due more to Hemsworth and Theron and the introduction of the dwarves.

I've nevere seen Twilight so this is my first time seeing Kirsten Stewart and yeah she's pretty expressionless, she seems to think heavy breathing and looking like you're about to cry is the best way to convey emotion.

5/10.

to be fair she was running around most of the film so was bound to be out of breath. I don't get the whole expressionless thing that people say about her. She did what the role called for.

Sleepy

Stewart is, imo, supposed to be blank and vacant. She's a canvas for tweens and early teenage girls to paint themselves into. It's why she was perfect as Bella in Twilight: she sells the idea to the kiddies that even average looking, whingers can get their sparkly prince...

candy-gal1

Going to see this this afternoon, really loved the trailer, the cast seems quite awesome and suited to a movie like this, not going in with too high expectations but we shall see, if its as good as the costumes, style of it etc are then il be happy!

don ramo

foodie66 wrote: »

oh ok, i don't find that site very reliable

ok

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=snowwhiteandthehuntsman.htm

just google brought up wiki before mojo

constitutionus

got round to seeing this on wednsday and didnt like it at all.

for the life of me though i cant explain why.

it looks great, in fact in places is looks bloody amazing. the actors all do a decent job and the design front for the set peices and enviroments are up there with the best. theres even a good battle scene at the end.

i just had NO connection to the characters at all.

i literaly didnt give a damn about them or felt in any way gripped by their prediciments.

so basically there was no emotioal ressonace or drama to be seen in it from my point of view.

maybe its just me. maybe its not made for my demographic and its going for the twilight crowd or something but i was left completly nonplussed by the whole affair and as such it seemed to fecking drag by in places.

its a pity as i was really looking forward to this one. about the best thing i can say about it was charlise theron is great in it and the dwarfs came completly out of left field for me

ive probably come off like im trashing this far more than it deserves. there ARE some really good ideas in it too

the scene for instance where its heavily implied that women in the outer regios deliberaly scar themselves so none of them could be fairer than the queen and as such avoid dection by her mirror. that was inspired and very dark.

its just usually i connect to a film in SOME way , no matter how bad it is over all, and this just failed miserably to me. the bit i spoilerd is pretty much as close as it got and that was only in relation to extraenous characters with no real part of the plot.

have to give this an inexplicable 3 out of 10.

defintion of "meh" IMO and for the life of me ive no idea who to recomend it to.

sxt

Sleepy wrote: »

Stewart is, imo, supposed to be blank and vacant. She's a canvas for tweens and early teenage girls to paint themselves into. It's why she was perfect as Bella in Twilight: she sells the idea to the kiddies that even average looking, whingers can get their sparkly prince...

She is stunningly good looking , nothing average about her at all !

kristen%20stewart%20%282%29.jpg

BarackPyjama

Seriously. Talking about Kristen Stewart's "lack of facial expressions" makes people sound like f**king idiots. Pop culture cliché. Think for yourself, people. Ugh!

Oafley Jones

sxt wrote: »

She is stunningly good looking , nothing average about her at all !

That's some flattering photograph. In fact I doubt most people would even recognize her there. She really is extremely average in the looks dept. And you'd get over that but she's an absolute vacuum of screen presence and acts with all the energy of a junkie coming down after particularly rough week.

don ramo

Oafley Jones wrote: »

That's some flattering photograph. In fact I doubt most people would even recognize her there. She really is extremely average in the looks dept. And you'd get over that but she's an absolute vacuum of screen presence and acts with all the energy of a junkie coming down after particularly rough week.

she is good looking and her stylists are doing a fantastic job with her, but i will say as good looking as she is, she will never be considered the hottest woman alive, be she will always have an army of fans drooling over her, itll just never be the biggest army around:),

BarackPyjama

She's better looking than yore bord. FACT.

krudler

BarackPyjama wrote: »

Seriously. Talking about Kristen Stewart's "lack of facial expressions" makes people sound like f**king idiots. Pop culture cliché. Think for yourself, people. Ugh!

she can't act though, and she's pretty expressionless in this, the idea of her rousing an army into battle is laughable given her half arsed speech in the movie

candy-gal1

absolutley amazing movie i have to say, much more epic than i thought it would be, the whole thing just kept my eyes glued to the screen!
Very original, different, and the cast i have to say are incredible together, especially Charlize as the Queen, will definitly go and see this again!

Plus I got a real feel of the Never Ending Story and LOTR, but much better than both and thats saying something imho, from it, and really really felt like one of those epic movies that are played each year around xmas time, curious to see if this will happen as this is now my new favourite epic movie tbh

Irish Aris

saw it today and wasn't really impressed. Apart for Charlize Theron's character (nice gothic touches), nothing kept me going. The whole film felt kind of pretentious and taking itself too seriously. And I don't think that anyone told Kristen Stewart that she wasn't in the "Twilight" zone.
At least Mirror Mirror was a full parody. . .

norrie rugger

don ramo wrote: »

**edit: massive image **

she is good looking and her stylists are doing a fantastic job with her, but i will say as good looking as she is, she will never be considered the hottest woman alive, be she will always have an army of fans drooling over her, itll just never be the biggest army around:),

The difference between the photos there shows that she is average looking. First pic is in full studio shoot mode with loads of post shot work. The large pic is the real her.
Usually I would be saying that her looks should not be an issue but she is playing Snow White afterall.

jim-jam

Saw this the other day. Overall it was ok. It did have some very good moments in it. Some of it was visually good, even stunning in some places. The Dark Forest in particular was good. The horse chase seen looked like it was ripped from LotR, nine black riders etc. There were a distinct lack of screen time for the dwarves but I enjoyed every minute they were on screen.

I did like the idea of the women scarring themselves so the Queen couldn't feed on their beauty, quite an unsettling thing to do and showed how desperate times had gotten.

Kristen Stewart still can't act. I laughed at her rousing speech.
Chris Hemsworth, as has already been posted, was just going through the motions. His character could have been interesting and I did enjoy the twist where he was the true love that woke her rather then the Prince-of-the-day.
Charlize Theron was incredibly enjoyable. Brought a sense of desperation and loneliness to a character of such power.
The Dwarves were great. Got a surprise when Ian McShane was there.

The final set piece was such a let down. Could have been far more epic.

6/10

Sleepy

Odd jawline, weird teeth, lips too small for her face, tired eyes, lank hair... and those are her publicity shots?

She's not an ugly girl but she's no beauty queen and that's why tweens love her and she'll continue to be hired for stuff pitched at girls of that age.

maximoose

Saw this the other day with the OH, and it was better than I thought it would be. Not great by any means, just ok

Kristen Stewart cannot act. She is laughably bad. One expression all the time (close your mouth once in a while ffs), and her speech was awful. The "you can't have my heart" line was really badly delivered too. What was with the end as well? Really prolonged awkward stare between the two main characters

The dwarves saved it for me!

fergus1

Looking at taking eight 11 / 12 year old girls to this film. They have all seen the last Harry potter movie which was 12A. Is it suitable?

General Zod

fergus1 wrote: »

Looking at taking eight 11 / 12 year old girls to this film. They have all seen the last Harry potter movie which was 12A. Is it suitable?

It's suitable. nothing really questionable.