I have read so many articles about her being the next big thing, with several movies due out over the next year or so....it's shocking that someone who is supposed to be poised for major stardom in big studio films appearing in a Lifetime TV movie...I do think she is an excellent young actress, and just saw her in "Lost River"...the film was very different, and ok, but she was very good in it...any ideas?
shareIt premiered at Sundance this January and obviously wasn't supposed to be released straight to TV. I don't know why it ended up being on Lifetime while so much worse movies get released in movie theatres.
shareMy personal opinion is that it might be best for her career that this one went relatively unpromoted to tv and can drop off the radar. The poor one and one-half hour just got crammed too full of ambitious undertaking. Honestly, I am impressed with Nixon's attempt at handling what she had to work with.
I think the biggest problem for this...tv movie, I guess, is that it really overestimated the audience to which it was being released and under-delivered with regards to the story that that audience expected. A typical film for adults, for lack of a better term, would have been able to avoid a lot of the details that detracted from the point, while a typical Lifetime tv watcher was left hopelessly confused, I would expect, from the lack of the kind of clear plot structure to which they are accustomed.
Just my opinion.
Well said. Typical Lifetime movies have a definite structure to them, to the point where they all blend together after a while. It's like the writers have a list of plot points to choose from (take this from column "A", this from column "B"), and they paste them together with some minor variations to create cookie-cutter films.
But since this wasn't produced by Lifetime, I don't think the typical Lifetime audience knew what to make of it. I noticed that is hasn't gotten many, if any, repeat showings. Most new Lifetime movies do get shown multiple times.
This was far too sophisticated, nuanced, and slow for the Lifetime audience. It's a shame. Maybe it should have been shown elsewhere.
Pretty sure her Dad is her manager and I've heard he has screwed up a lot of big roles she was offered, e.g. (Avengers) because he thinks she can get more money. She needs to jump ship because she is so talented.
share[deleted]
Sometimes actors/actresses no matter how big they get sometimes find an interesting script that they want to do and they don't really care that its not some big-time blockbuster.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
I agree with the other people here - this was not a Lifetime movie. It just happened to premier on Lifetime, I would guess because it was assumed, rightly, that it wouldn't do well in theaters. I liked the movie a lot, and look forward to it coming out on DVD or BD (hopefully). But it isn't aimed at a mainstream movie-going public or audience.
I also agree that Saoirse Ronan is extremely talented, one of the best young actresses working today. But she has chosen some bad movies to be in. Whoever her agent is needs to give her better advice, and she needs to pick her projects more carefully. Her acting has been excellent in everything she's done, but since "Atonement" and "The Lovely Bones", she's been in a string of poor movies. OK, "Hanna" was decent, though that one didn't really stand up to multiple viewings. Oh, and she was good in "The Way Back", though she only had a small role in that film. But she has been in a bunch of bad movies lately.
I haven't seen "Lost River" yet, though I expect to later this week, so I don't know what that one is like. But I sure hope we start to see her in some better movies soon!
"The Grand Budapest Hotel" was one of the best loved films of last year. And it sounds like "Brooklyn" may be her biggest success yet and potentially a second Oscar nod.
shareIf you watch trailers for major studios these days something like 95% of them are comic book related, fantasy, animated, or sophmoric comedies! Big Studios don't care about human dramas anymore because the public has no attention span anymore unfortunately do to technological advancements like the internet and cellphones. That is why movies like this don't get attention, cannot afford advertising budgets or even worse end up going straight to a garbage networks like Lifetime where their low brow audience who mostly appreciates badly acted repetitive movie of the week romances and thrillers. Lifetime ends up badly editing these films for content and time even on first run, saturating them with commercial spots breaking the tension and making you wanna change the channel. Even worse is both Sundance and the former, Independent Film Channel, as proclaimed by a former sellout president who said years ago "were only the Independent Film Channel on paper", became have dumped their old formats! Trying to appear to be to the ignorant, nostalgia channels showing old overplayed Hollywood Blockbusters and concentrating more on original programming, more than ever corporately sponsored! Wether or not films like Room, Carol and Beasts of a Nation are well acted and made American audiences would never get to see them the way the filmmakers intended if it wasn't for services like Netflix or maybe low key debuts on something like HBO signature!