The Best Actor in the Vase of Meiyu

Chapter 1145 Seek kindness and gain kindness
Putting aside "Master and Commander" for the moment, the anticipation surrounding "The Butterfly Effect" has always been there, waiting for the movie to be released with a curious, provocative, exploratory, and fault-finding attitude.

As Anson's first film as a producer, his transformation attempts in "Elephant" and "Walk the Line" show his efforts to get rid of the image of a vase. However, the general public, who have always been controlled by prejudice and discrimination, refuse to take off their tinted glasses and make objective judgments, and the attention focused on "Butterfly Effect" is becoming more and more intense.

This is a good thing when the quality of the film is good, but it can also be a bad thing, like what is happening now.

"Rolling Stone", 25 points, "Even Anson Wood's looks couldn't make such a boring movie. Man, where's your memory? Without the diary, have you lost your other memories? Is your life all fragmented?"

New York Post, 25 points, "It needs good-looking plot, good-looking characters, good-looking acting, good-looking twists, good-looking stories, and good-looking reflections. If good-looking is all you need, then it has everything. Ha."

A flood of negative reviews came flooding in.

All along, what people worried about finally happened, without any surprises -

When the vases try to transform, or try to break free from constraints and broaden their acting range, it is often a disaster. They have everything and yet have nothing. In the end, even their good looks cannot save the failed work.

There are countless similar stories in Hollywood.

Brooke Shields, Andrew McCarthy, Robert Lowe, Jessica Alba, Megan Fox, Zac Efron and many more.

The list goes on and on.

Now, add Anson Wood to the mix.

No matter how successful or brilliant "Cat and Mouse" or "Spider-Man" are, film critics just don't like them and will criticize them harshly and mercilessly.

Also, don’t forget that even though “The Elephant” won the Palme d’Or, its media reviews were still mixed, far from excellent.

At the moment, the quality of the "butterfly effect" is lower than expected, and negative reviews hit us like a raging storm in an instant.

They are not just any media, all of them are well-known and authoritative media; at the same time, they are not lukewarm negative reviews, but extremely bad feedback.

To this extent, it can even be called "criticism".

The situation is very, very serious.

Among the first batch of twenty-three media reviews, negative reviews accounted for nearly half, which is not even on the same level as "Master and Commander".

The atmosphere is grim.

Many media outlets have said that Anson’s vision for selecting scripts remains to be verified.

Before the release of "The Butterfly Effect", the media praised Anson for his ability to turn everything he did into gold, and all his works so far have been great successes, proving that he is a man with a keen eye for talent.

As soon as they turned around, the media said that Anson still needed to grow:
In previous works, Anson had no choice, and the crew chose all the actors, so the success of those works cannot be attributed to Anson.

"The Butterfly Effect" was Anson's first time as a producer, and it verified his personal vision. Now it seems that Anson still has a long way to go.

However, this is the reality, the cruel and cold reality. When you succeed, everything is right; when you fail, everything is wrong.

Whether it's compliments or criticisms, everything is just bubbles.

The situation is indeed not good; but it is not entirely so.

Of the twenty-three reviews, there are still four average reviews and nine good reviews left.

"Village Voice", 65 points.

"The film's understanding of the butterfly effect is too superficial, too straightforward and too dramatic. It is suitable for those viewers who want to exclaim "masterpiece" every time they see a "reversal" and spend an afternoon with a bucket of popcorn. However, in this stupid movie, the only bright spot is Anson.

He uses his charisma to hold the audience's attention and prevent them from getting completely lost in the storm. Incredibly, he gives a convincing performance in some important scenes, making the story convincing.

Unfortunately, it wasn’t enough to last me until I got to the refrigerator at home.”

The "refrigerator" mentioned here is the refrigerator theory:
If after watching a movie, you don't realize the movie's loopholes or shortcomings until you get home and open the refrigerator, then it means that this is the success of the genre film, and those loopholes should not be a reason to criticize the movie.

LA Weekly, sixty-five.

"It's hard to believe that this script was polished for seven years by two writers who were obviously frat kids with little life experience, whose minds were full of self-satisfied ideas that 'a man can save the world by saving his lover', and who didn't even bother to do more research on the butterfly effect.

But what is even more unbelievable is that the performance actually became the biggest highlight of this movie.

The chemistry between Anson Wood, Rachel McAdams and Heath Ledger is impressive. From eye contact to body language to understanding of the characters, they successfully dug out the emotional context of the characters in this naive and superficial script and delivered convincing performances.

I don't like it. But I don't hate it either.

Maybe I’ll remember it for Anson Wood.”

As both are authoritative media outlets, with similar scores and even similar content, the Los Angeles Times and the Village Voice unexpectedly reached a consensus.

The other mid-level reviews were very similar.

They generally believe that the plot of the movie is too straightforward and only provides the most superficial and shallow understanding of the butterfly effect, which causes the movie to fall into a vortex of series of reversals and ultimately fails to dig out more room for thinking.

However, the film is saved by the actors' performances and personal charm.

At least the movie is still worth watching.
This is also the reason why they gave it a neutral rating, neither good nor bad, with some bad parts and some desirable parts, so they are still willing to show some mercy.

The scores are also hovering on the edge of passing.

Things are getting interesting...

Whether it is a bad review or a moderate review, the focus is entirely on Anson.

Obviously, this "vase" is a double-edged sword. He can bring attention, but he can also steal the focus, causing the success or failure of the movie to largely revolve around him.

To some extent, directors McKee and Eric had this purpose in mind when they approached Anson, and now they have finally gotten what they wanted.

However, the two directors were still shocked.

The script that they were once so confident and proud of was criticized by the media. If it weren't for Anson saving some face, the storm of negative reviews the movie encountered might have been even worse.

They originally thought that Anson was taking a ride with them. Their script was perfect. They refused to be touched or pointed out by others and fantasized that the media and the audience would be shocked by this story and worship it. But the result was the opposite. Instead, they were taking a ride with Anson and relying on Anson to save a complete disaster.

McGee and Eric...can't hold it in anymore.

Despite this, I took a deep breath, regained some composure, and grasped the last straw.

So, what about the good reviews?

Aren’t there nine positive reviews in the first batch of media reviews?

(End of this chapter)