I agree with everything you said. In fact, I admitted to as much in my "unpublished" post, but wasn't man enough to call it out for what it was in public, so I edited it out.clakclak wrote:She was a lead character but ... she may be. I don't know her.
Basically, it appeared to me to be a vehicle for Kunis and a J.J. Abrams 'splosion/action fest with something like "high stakes" and "drama" thrown into a classic "young person discovers their secret powers/Little Prince" theme. It just flocked up, miserably, at providing much of anything that appealed to the viewer. All the "edge of your seat" dramatic entertainment that was supposed to be there was only there because of people returning from the bathroom...
Agreed. I, for instance, couldn't stand Hayden Christensen in those things called the "Star Wars" prequel "movies." But, then someone reminded me that I liked "Jumper." I was forced to revise my opinion and went in search of "why is a barely functional block of wood being cast in a lead role" answer... That's when I found out Lucas virtually coached every darn scene to be as downplayed as humanly possible, then directed from off-set, practically, while watching it all on monitor. The problem was he didn't realize how crappy it actually was and how terrible his coaching was.pjknibbs wrote:...If he wasn't capable of bringing any nuance to his role, unfair to blame Kunis for a similar problem with hers, methinks...
So, it wasn't Christensen's fault. And, from what bits and pieces I've seen of Kunis on "That 70's Show" and her extensive voice-acting in shows like "Family Guy" and the much respected and much beloved, maybe even award-winning awesome television spectacle that is "Robot Chicken" I have to say... There is direct evidence to show that she's a better actor than "Jupiter Ascending" gave her the chance to be.
I didn't see "The Theory of Everything." I am also hesitant to pay much attention to either exploitation movies (ie: topical celebrity exploitation) or awards for movies that focus on people overcoming disabilities. I'm not saying either situation can't end up producing a good or even a great movie. It's just that I'd rather time do the talking, there.
But, I don't doubt that he probably has better examples of his ability. I don't think they're going to put that much money into a movie and then purposefully tank it by filling it with bad actors. (Some exceptions to that rule, though.)