Emma Watson's list of Flop movie unsurprisingly continues!

​

Reviews of Emma's most recent film, The Circle -


The Circle - Avoid like the plague!

Rating - 3/10.

Hands down, one the absolute WORST films I have ever seen. I say that having seen "The Fish that Saved Pittsburgh", "Choo Choo and the Philly Flash", and "Smokey and the Bandit III".

It makes "Cannonball Run II" look like "Citizen Kane". Tom Hanks has about six scenes and about twenty lines. Putting him on the poster is fraud.



The Circle - Hollow Characters On Top Of Bad Acting On Top Of Bad Dialogue

Rating - 2/10.

"The Circle" is a good idea. It is a relevant topic for the society that we live in today. We are so immersed in this technology-based world now where we ourselves even wonder about some of the scenarios the film portrays, and that's the biggest praise I can give this film. Other than that, this film is a sloppy mess full of dull characters, really bad dialogue, and poor acting.

There is a subplot that is introduced in this movie, and it goes nowhere. It was almost like the movie was on cruise control but sped past the exit you needed to get off at. That whole subplot is just brushed under the rug and forgotten about.

The acting is really bad in the movie. Emma Watson in particular. I will say that I thought her performance improved as the movie went on, but there were times her performance was a really wooden.

The characters in this film are literally some of the dumbest characters I have ever seen. The main character Mae is hollow. There's nothing to her. She has no arc whatsoever. I just don't buy the fact that a girl with her intellect would just walk into this big conglomerate, look around, and think everything is going to be okay. No, just no. Put it this way. If Google and Facebook had a kid and that kid took a bunch of anabolic steroids... that's the company The Circle


The Circle - High potential, disappointing result

Rating - 3/10

'The Circle' is a film that tries to be more intelligent than it actually is. While possessing a quality message and material to potentially make a gripping and mysterious film, it falls short with hollow and forgetful characters/performances, wildly off-the-wall concepts, and many plot holes and questions that can be formed with no answer to them. While I have no knowledge of the novel, I would imagine it being significantly better than this film-adaptation. A nod for the message 'The Circle' intends to convey but a disappointed walk-out by the time the credits roll.





The Circle - What... a.... disaster.!

Rating - 2/10.

The first thing that I noticed: its pacing issues, which are generally attributed to choppy, poor video editing. The fecal storm was piled onto by absolutely horrific acting by Emma Watson and most of the supporting cast. Even Tom Hanks looks out of place and like he is going through the motions in this one. One of the most painful moments in the film is when Emma Watson's character capitulates to some weird ideas overnight and her once-stable and supportive best friend suddenly becomes a malicious goth mess overnight. Neither one of them pulls it off well. It was partly the fault of an atrocious script that forced them to make a complete 180 in their characters.

When directing teachers teach you how to make a film they emphasize that you should make a few thousand dollars look like you spent one million dollars. Well, this film looks like a young, inexperienced upstart had a multi-million dollar budget out of the gate.

Aside from some fairly good comedic moments (and I don't think that this film was designed as a comedy) it's an absolute disaster. I hope that Ponsoldt will return to his less-glossy roots soon.



At this point even Emma's most hardcore fans must admit that she is a failed actress. A one hit wonder who could never rise beyond her work in the Harry Potter series.

 

She is a shit actress who can't carry a film but she was just in high grossing tbatb. yeah it was a disney movie but she was smart to get a role. she makes white priviledge work for her.

 

She is a damn shitty actress but she still benefits from her Harry Potter fame. All the Harry Potter fanboys\-girls who grow up with her and fap to her for the first time still want to see her so the studios will cast her just to write her name on the poster.

 

What are you talking about. The Beauty and the Beast, a movie Emma Watson leads, was released less than 2 months ago and is already the 15th highest grossing movie of ALL TIME.

 

But that's not her achievement. It's because it's a remake of a popular Disney movie from the 90's where all the 90's kids who have now children storm the box office to show them something from their childhood.
That's Disney marketing 101.

 

That only shows one side of the coin. The feature isnt necessarily good just because it sells much tickets. It could be a result of marketing.

 

So if a movie is successful, it's not her achievement - but if it flops, it's her fault. Do I get that right?

 

Don't get me wrong, I think Emma Watson is a pretty forgettable actress, I only really like her in 2 movies: The Perks of Being a Wallflower (which she is fantastic in, as is everybody in that movie) and The Bling Ring. I don't care for her - but your arguments make no sense.

 

She does a lot of higher brow type movies now Potter is finished.... she did BATB but other than that i don't think she's done a properly mainstream movie since Potter. They tend to only really go well with the critics & whatnot, the people that generally hate popular movies

 

Off course its not that simple. For example Tom Hanks have gotten plenty of praise for his portrayal in the circle, but the feature itself hasnt gotten the same praise. From what i can tell and seen Watson hasnt necessarily been outed as the main reason for it bombing either.

 

That's depends on the type of the movie. If a movie with a budget & a marketing like the Beauty and the Beast flops it's the fault of the studios. If a movie like Colonia flops it's the fault of it's lead actors, Daniel Brühl & Emma Watson are terrible in this.

 

It's asking a lot for an actor to do well in a bad movie. Ham Tonks probably got all the good material, and is a veteran actor to boot. And Disney movies aren't guaranteed to be a smash, and live-action remakes even less so.

 

I really like these guys reviews in general so i share their thoughts on the feature.

 

jerking off to the fact that a movie of an actress you don't like gets bad reviews is definitely one of the stranger kinks, but to each their own I guess

 

How do you even figure that? Big-budget movies flop all the time despite big marketing pushes. That's on the studio?

You're just looking for a reason to blame Emma for the box office here.

 

It did well because of the orginal, and nothing to do with the actual cast. Its like Star Wars, people will flock to see it, just because of the brand.

Asd for her acting skills. She might believe her own hype, but at best shes a B/C actress. I want her to do well as I liked her in the HP movies, but that FAME has gone to her head and she doesnt care about the negative reviews as she will always get work. Its the same with people like Jennifer Aniston. People will watch her even knowning the film is going to be mostly miss.

She should step away from the safe roles, and try something new. Comedy, Tv etc.

 

How I figure that out? Because the studios made shitty decisions. They cast the wrong people for certain roles and/or don't get the source material right. See Ghost in the Shell. That's something where you can't blame the actors. But if it's come to smaller budget movies like Colonia, Regression & The Circle you can blame the lead actors because in those type of movies you need good acting to be successful.

 

But good acting alone doesn't make a movie sell (see basically every Best Picture nominee ever) and bad acting alone doesn't make a movie flop (see Twilight or Fifty Shades). It's not that simple. Ghost in the Shell, for example, probably just didn't have the audience they expected, no matter how good the movies was (and I've heard it was decent).

Smaller movies need to be very good in order to be successful. It's not just about acting, it's also about plot, cinematography, pacing, everything.

 

Or it's, you know, a bad script, bad directing, bad marketing, a bad rollout, bad reviews...

 

MRA types are an odd, unstable bunch