Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Snow White and the Huntsman

This is topic Snow White and the Huntsman in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001869

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 06-08-2012, 03:04 PM:

This is a movie that delivers exactly what it shows in the trailers: A larger-than-life dramatic spectacle.

The Evil Queen (Charlize Theron) is easily the best character in the movie. She is a cartoonish villain similar to characters in the comic book movies, and the character and her activities are absolutely wonderful to behold. The magic spells and the effects that go along with them are fantastic.

I was a bit disappointed with the Snow White character (Kristen Stewart). She spends a lot of time not doing much other than being present in the scene and looking pretty. She springs into action occasionally, but in a lot of the scenes she is more of a supporting character than what I expected from the title character.

The overall story is a lot of fun, and the visuals are terrific. The look and style of the movie is just exactly what you would expect a fairy tale to be.

Overall, I really enjoyed this movie. I like the style, the story, and I especially like the Evil Queen and her magic.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 06-09-2012, 01:29 AM:

Sounds like another remake of "Mirror, Mirror" where the queen steals the movie.

Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 06-09-2012, 03:04 AM:

I'm quite looking forward to this. The production design looks great as does Theron but that Twilight chick and Thor seem a little light weight for this (much like Armie Hammer in Mirror Mirror). I'll be giving it a look anyway, I think.

Posted by Melanie Loggins (Member # 6454) on 06-15-2012, 11:35 PM:

I'm showing this this weekend and got to see it tonight. (First time in about a month I've actually gotten to see the movie.)

I found it interesting in several ways. First, in what universe are we supposed to believe that Kristen Stewart is more beautiful than Charlize Theron? Even an digitally-aged Theron is infinitely more appealing and charismatic than Stewart, who for the love of all that is holy needs to learn to close her mouth sometimes. She looks like a fish. A wooden fish with no personality.

And then the plot, which is not their fault: youth trumps beauty and experience. Thatisall. Being innocent is the same as being naive and unexperienced, and that is apparently a virtue. And there is nothing in between: the women are either young and naive or older and vicious. Virgin or whore? Child or crone? As a women of, ahem, a certain age, I'd like to think there is something in between, and that women can retain some of their charms even as they get a bit older and learn a thing or two.

The movie itself looked gorgeous. The Sanctuary scenes were lovely and charming and managed not to be cloying. Chris Hemsworth dirties up nicely. Stewart luckily didn't have too many lines so her constipated delivery didn't distract too much, and Theron was great.

I liked it, but I left disconcerted. Maybe I just feel old now.

Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 06-16-2012, 03:24 AM:

quote: Melanie
...in what universe are we supposed to believe that Kristen Stewart is more beautiful than Charlize Theron?

An excellent point! I don't know how Kristen Stewart became a star. She's not especially pretty and she has the physique of a stick. And she's a bland actor as well. "Bland" is a good word to apply to her generally really.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 06-16-2012, 05:05 PM:

quote: Melanie Loggins
As a women of, ahem, a certain age

How many of them are you? [Wink]

Posted by Melanie Loggins (Member # 6454) on 06-17-2012, 12:21 PM:

quote: Chris Slycord
How many of them are you?

At least two. And one of them hates it when someone points out her typos.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 06-20-2012, 08:07 PM:

We saw this movie a week or so ago, and I thought the visuals looked amazing. Something about the wide angle shots were really beautiful to look at I thought, and I made a comment to my better half about it on the way out of the theater. I thought that was a strange observation to have, but it did indeed stand out to me while I was watching the movie.

Today I read that parts of the movie were shot in 65mm and were scanned at 8K. IMDB (I know, I know) actually says "Panavision Super 70" was used. If that's true... wow. I wonder if that had anything to do with it. Now I want to go back and see it again just to see if I can tell any difference between the close up shots and the wide establishing shots.

Posted by Allan Young (Member # 6332) on 06-21-2012, 04:22 AM:

quote: Mark J. Marshall
IMDB (I know, I know) actually says "Panavision Super 70" was used.

Strictly speaking, it's "Panavision System 65" they call it these days, since they introduced new 65mm cameras in the early Nineties. And yes, it was used for some wide shots. Apparently PT Anderson's new film The Master uses it throughout.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 06-22-2012, 10:33 AM:

Panavision Super 70 was anamorphic, wasn't it?

Is Panavision System 65 anamorphic?

Posted by Allan Young (Member # 6332) on 06-23-2012, 03:30 AM:

quote: Mark J. Marshall
Panavision Super 70 was anamorphic, wasn't it?

Is Panavision System 65 anamorphic?

Ultra Panavision was anamorphic, Panavision Super 70 was flat. Panavision System 65 produced the same image as the latter, just via new lenses and new lighter weight cameras.

EDIT: Having just looked this up on wiki, I may have got this wrong. It claims that "Super Panavision 70" refers to the original 65mm system and "Panavision Super 70" refers to the prints produced by the Panavision System 65 cameras. All a tad confusing.

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 06-28-2012, 08:55 PM:

I thought technically this movie looked and sounded great - one of the best 7.1 soundmixes I've heard recently.

However, the film further demonstrates that Kristen Stewart can't act worth spit.

Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 06-30-2012, 07:07 AM:

Hot on the heels of Mirror Mirror comes this, the second Snow White film the year and, frankly, it's nowhere near as fun. Snow White and the Huntsman adds a fashionable dose of seriousness and darkness to the tale but story-wise, it picks all the low-hanging fruit and struggles to maintain interest throughout its 2+ hour running time.

The story is not helped by the casting of Hollywoods blandest starlet in Kristen Stewart nor in Chris Hemsworth whose main claim to fame so far is a comic book character. In Hemsworth's defence, though, he doesn't have much to do bar getting angry and hitting things with a hefty weapon and somehow falling in love with the heroine (I'm still not sure exactly where in the story this happened but it did.....apparently). After half an hour it's abundantly clear this is going to be a generic royal-fugitive-reclaims-her-throne story and little surprises aside from the aforesaid blossoming inexplicable amour between Twi-chick and Thor.

The one shining performance in the film is Charlize Theron whose mad, desperate, evil queen is a magnetic presence. Her history is an untold story and thereby the most interesting aspect of a film. We almost feel sorry for her wretched, cursed existence, enduring her anguish for the sake of her youthful beauty - the only weapon possessed by a woman in a world ruled by men. while Theron is on screen the film has life but without her it's dead in the water.

Few resources may have been poured into the story but not so the production design which is splendid, particularly the sequence in the fairy forest which seems inspired by the work of Guillermo Del Toro. The whole production seems to be channelling Lord of the Rings and Excalibur and mimicks the grandeur of those films but they're wrapped around a largely soulless story so in the end it counts for little.

The seven dwarves presented here are not unlike the vagabonds in Mirror Mirror - a bunch of rough-around-the-edges outlaws with hearts of gold and wisdom beyond their stature. It's fun to play spot-the-well-known-actor with the dwarves which include Bob Hoskins, Ray Winstone, Ian McShane, Nick Frost, Toby Jones and Eddie Marsan. And it must be said that the transformation of these actors to small stature is a remarkable application of special effects technology.

But for all the action and beautiful sets, Snow White and the Hunstman is actually quite boring, and were it not for Charlize Theron we'd all be snoozing in the cinema awaiting our own loved one to revive us.

6 out of 10.

Posted by Richard P. May (Member # 3598) on 06-30-2012, 10:38 AM:

Alan,
It's still confusing. "Prints produced by the Panavision Super 65 camera"?
How do you produce prints with a camera? Is the negative film of the Super 70mm wider than the usual 65mm?
It appears that there is no difference between the two systems, except maybe improved camera and lenses, all resulting in the same size image.
Can you clarify this further?

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 06-30-2012, 02:54 PM:

I think he meant to say that it refers to the prints of movies shot using that system, although I don't see anything in the wikipedia entry he refers to that indicates this. All I see is where they said that in the 1990s they introduced updated 70mm optics/cameras and called the system both "System 65" and "Super 70"