TASM2 Coverage DOTPOTA Set Report The First Jurassic World Set Pics Batsuit Breakdowns Flash Gordon is Back!

HeyUGuys at Cannes 2010: FAIR GAME Review

StumbleUponReddit

HeyUGuys LogoBefore jetting back to Britain, the last film I saw on the Croisette was the early morning screening of Doug Liman’s political biopic Fair Game, which I had billed as one of the highlights of the whole schedule when it was first announced.

Fair Game is ostensibly an amalgamation of the lengthily-titled memoirs of Valerie Plame (Fair Game: My Life as a Spy, My Betrayal by the White House )and Joseph C Wilson (The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife’s CIA Identity: A Diplomat’s Memoir). Both books chronicle the events surrounding the Plame Affair (or Plamegate as the media came to call it): the identification of Plame as a covert CIA field officer, which had formerly been classified information. The disclosure was made in a newspaper column written by Robert Novak in 2003, supposedly leaked by members of the Bush administration as a direct response to Plame’s husbands’ article “What I Didn’t Find in Africa” from The New York Times a week before.

In the article, Wilson detailed his findings when sent to Niger to verify some information pertaining to possible African involvement in Iraq’s alleged acquisition of WMDs, and then accused the American and British governments of manipulating his findings to suit their own needs. Attempts were made  subsequently to publicly discredited him, as well as his wife’s burning, and Wilson spent the next months attempting to make the government accountable for their actions in placing his wife in danger, calling for them to be punished for what was the serious crime of outing his wife.

To say the historical events offer a fantastic amount of compelling information with which to make an intriguing political thriller would be to underestimate them dramatically.

Fair Game

Fair Game charts Plame’s (Naomi Watts) final missions as a covert agent, as well as Wilson’s (Sean Penn) trip to Niger and the subsequent events following the publication of his article in the New York Times, as Wilson publicly campaigned against the governments actions. The film marries Liman’s ability to present political intrigue on screen (largely in his role behind the Bourne franchise), with a more unfamiliar tender humanist aspect as Plame and Wilson struggle to survive the ordeal, and save their own consequently failing marriage.

On paper, it definitely reads well, and for the most part, the film is very good (provided you like the kind of wordy political intrigue genre that this clearly falls into). And, thankfully, I do.

Naomi WattsHowever, I simply do not believe Naomi Watts as a leading actor here (in fact aside from Eastern Promises, I struggle to think of any of her roles I have really enjoyed at all). I find that she wrestles with parts and mostly looks apathetic at best (though fans would call it an affected coolness), unable to ever capture my empathy so I feel painfully detached from her action. Even the opportunity to see Watts in a diverse a pair of films as Woody Allen’s You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger and Liman’s Fair Game did not stir a better reaction to her work (despite my attempt at objectiveness). Watts always looks slightly disinterested to me, especially in parts of Fair Game, and for a film ostensibly dedicated to her character, and thus a fair amount of responsibility falling on the shoulders of her performance, she seems oddly absent for a big portion of the film.

Sean PennSean Penn, on the other hand, is typically on form, unfortunately often making Watts’ sometime emotional ambivalence (which admittedly may be a badly handled attempt at stoicism) all the more grating. Penn ambles through his performance, never tested by any kind of emotional dynamic between himself and his wife that would have made their emotional plight more compelling.

The element of Doug Liman’s fanclub who will come to Fair Game because of the director’s association with the Bourne franchise may well be disappointed by the relative self-restraint he shows here. Obviously restricted by the biopic tag and the necessary diligence to facts, Liman’s work here lacks flair and he struggles to make the humanist concerns of the central relationship between Naomi Watts and Sean Penn matter to the audience enough. The overall effect is a fairly disjointed film with a serious lack of an emotional heart in the second half.

In all honesty, the way the humanist element of the final third or so of the film is handled, it feels entirely superfluous, and I might have been more warmed by more concern with the political side of events. But then, Fair Game is flawed by more wrong directorial decisions than just that, to the extent that the potential suggested at the outset rarely comes close to being realised.

Doug Liman

There is also a problem with Liman’s handling of plot (a quasi-Oliver Stone tale of underhand governmental influence) which is driven by the supposedly impenetrable government body which closes ranks under pressure. The way I see it, Liman had the opportunity to play this card in one of two ways, and sadly he chose the less affecting of the options. Rather than maintaining governmental invisibility and building a sense of claustrophobic suspense, channelling a Hitchcockian vibe of the malignant removed institution playing normal people like powerless pawns, Liman chose to give the antagonists screen time. This robbed the film of a greater sense of suspense that would have made it truly compelling viewing, and I could have been talking here about one of the best political thrillers I had seen in a while.

As it is, in his filmic attempt to make the Bush administration more obviously accountable (remember my Stone reference), Liman moves away from mechanisms of suspense and subversion, and goes for a clean, obvious presentation that might be more damning, but is incredibly less entertaining.

As I said, the narrative also looks unfortunately split, making the film less successful. With Watts’ Plame largely a voyeur to her own story, and the powerful heart of the story falling to Sean Penn, the film has two distinct, disjointed phases. The sequences at the start where Plame is still in the field, attempting to help a group of Iraqi scientists escape the country work very well (and indeed are Watts’ strongest of the film), while at the same time the moral dilemma, and outrage facing her husband offer an equally compelling balance. However, when Wilson publishes his article in the NY Times, the grip of the film oddly wavers and fails a little. It seems the problem falls with both Watts’ performance, and Liman’s relative struggle to portray simple humanist concerns like the collapse of a relationship. Wilson’s plight remains compelling, but his performance is robbed of its balance, as Watts’ Plame choosing to internalise her turmoil and the actor’s inability to really convey it adequately, and the film essentially loses its emotional heart.

Fair Game, is not a terrible film- there are some excellent visual sequences, as well as a typically accomplished Sean Penn performance- but nor is it great. For its merits, the film suffers from a too-weak Naomi Watts performance, and a few directorial decisions that could have made it excellent. The potential was there, but sadly the follow-through simply wasnt.

I professed concern going into the festival that the political thriller as a genre would continue to struggle to find an audience willing to spend a lot at the Box Office, and sadly Fair Game is likely to continue that trend.

Title: HeyUGuys at Cannes 2010: FAIR GAME Review
Reviewed by Simon Gallagher on May 25
Rating:


  • Gary Norton

    Naomi Watts?! Quote: “I am simply not a fan of Naomi Watts as a leading actor (aside from Eastern Promises, I struggle to think of any of her roles I have really enjoyed at all). ” What about Mulholland Drive?!! She was fantastic in it-her turn at the audition in that was intoxicating. She can come across a little cold, a bit like Julianne Moore or Nicole Kidman, but she can act with the right material.

  • richardM

    This writer has admitted himself to be a male-chauvinist and now confesses he's also a Naomi Watts hater. Universally praised Watts' powerful performance in this film is a slap on the face of this moron that he has to put up a defense, hence this crap. Come awards time, we'll see eggs all over the face is jerk, very funny and amusing. should be

  • rob ferreol

    the guy who wrotte this is a stupid an bad critic

  • stella

    This writing is obviously biased and has a personal prejudice against Ms. Watts who is acclaimed internationally as one of the best actresses of this generation. Mulholland Drive, 21 Grams, King Kong, The Painted Veil, Funny Games, Mother and Child…are just a few of her best work, with consensus from the critics circle. This so-called review, and in fact this site, can be discarded.

  • http://www.heyuguys.co.uk Simon Gallagher

    So my not being a fan of Naomi Watts and admitting it (also look for the bit where I said I came into the film objectively as a hint), is different from you all being fans and defending her how exactly?

    And Im a chauvinist because I dont like a female actor's skills? No, I don't rate her personally, the same way i dont rate a lot of other actors. Trick is, I dont bandy their gender around willy-nilly as a reason for liking or not liking them. Chauvinism only works when it consciously acknowledges gender in skill- I dont, so Im not a chauvinist.

    Stick to the facts, and be critical and your opinions might be worth something.

  • http://www.heyuguys.co.uk Simon Gallagher

    Gary- I do like that scene. But it is an exception for me, and doesnt make me a fan of Watts. It is her coldness that I cant get on board with- interesting that you mention both Moore and Kidman, as Im not a huge fan of either of them either.

  • http://www.heyuguys.co.uk Simon Gallagher

    Universal praise? Where exactly? Quote me something to qualify the phrase please- and since when did someone's opinion have to be judged against that of a populus to make it valuable?

  • http://www.heyuguys.co.uk Simon Gallagher

    No personal prejudice- Im not a fan (something I actively sought to not cloud my judgement- hence the objective comment). And I think you will find that my sentiments around Ms Watts' work on Fair Game have been largely echoed, she was reasonable in the first half, absent in the second, and her performance lacked power.

  • Ray DeRousse

    But you sir, with that command of grammar, are a genius.

  • AlexBee

    Rotten Tomatoes UK has Watts rated at a meagre 54%. I'm with Simon on this one.

  • pepe

    mal cogido

  • la tengo bien parada

    please give our opinion about things that you know, not about acting because you can not appreciate a good acting, probably you think that Paris Hilton is a gifted one or maybe a hotel in France?

  • richardM

    Nobody need to be a fan to appreciate or to appraise fairly a performance, especially for a film critic or reviewer that you claim yourself to be, you moron.

  • richardM

    With first-rate performances from Naomi Watts and a compelling script, this suspenseful, taut drama should keep audiences nailed to their seats.
    - Pete Hammond (Boxoffice Magazine)

    Watts does a fine job of getting the politics and personality across.
    - Mayer Nissim (DigitalSpy)

    Liman's casting choices work; Watts is finely-tuned as Plame, a woman who tells lies for her country with ease but agonizes over speaking the truth for her own benefit….
    - James Rocchi (IFC)

    Watts, on the other hand, is on brilliant form as Valerie Plame. Aside from the fact both women look alike, Watts sells the weight of responsibility that must have been on Plame's shoulders with such confidence and impressive restraint, that she's able to keep us involved throughout.
    - Joe Utichi (Cinematical)

    Liman has reunited 21 Grams co-stars Naomi Watts and Sean Penn to play the lead roles, and they turn in characteristically brilliant agonized performances as the buffeted couple in the eye of a vengeful government’s storm.
    - UK Telegraph

    Watts and Penn are excellent in the two lead roles …..Right beside him (Penn) is Watts, who will most likely make a charge at the Best Actress category come nomination time in one of her better performances to date. Throughout much of the film she keeps a cool head thanks to her CIA training, but as the cracks begin to show Watts carries the performance home.
    - Brad Brevet (RopeofSilicon)

    Penn in particular delivers some of the film’s best material in its latter half, and Watts shines in the first….
    - Sam Toy (Empireonline)

    Whether moviegoers even today can look at this real-life couple, extremely well-played by Naomi Watts and Sean Penn, …
    - Kirk Honeycutt (The Hollywood Reporter)

    Naomi Watts does solid work as Plame, and Sean Penn, playing Wilson, is effective …
    - Donald Clarke (Irish Times)

    It's the best she's ever been. She is just extraordinary in the film. I don't think there's anybody – I don't care how hardcore Republican they might be – who's not going to look at the film and say, 'That was an extraordinary performance. That was a once-in-a-lifetime performance'.
    - Doug Liman

    Naomi Watts is ideally cast as Plame, really warming to her character as she becomes more imperiled. …: there’s enough here to build an Oscar campaign on.
    - Guy Lodge (InContention)

    ……….still more

  • richardM

    A true story which she plays with smoothness, sobriety and solidity, with the potentials to be the number one winning actor with Oscar.
    - Telerama.fr

    ………still more

  • Roberto

    Simon
    could you let us know who is your favourite actress? Haneke for example said that Watts is the best enlglish speaker actress of her generation, Jackson, Penn, Iñarritu, Woody Allen think that she is a great actress, please let us know your taste

  • http://www.heyuguys.co.uk Simon Gallagher

    Richard- well done Sir. I could manipulate quotes in order to get my point across too.

    For anyone interested, RichardM has changed some of the quotes above to make it look like they are more positive than they actually are, in a truly ingenius manner. The Telegraph review stuck out for me, as Id read it already- notice his use of the word “brilliant”, and look at the original quote:

    “Liman has reunited 21 Grams co-stars Naomi Watts and Sean Penn to play the lead roles, and they turn in characteristically agonized performances as the buffeted couple in the eye of a vengeful government’s storm.”

    Not a bad review, but certainly not as positive as your edit, Richard.

    The quote from the EmpireOnline review as well is out of context in a review that is confused about the film for the main part, and which implies that her performance drops in the second half (which I also said).

    And, as Ive already pointed out, Liman cannot be objective, as its his film that he cast Watts in and he stands to gain financially from favourable reviews.

    Also- you said universal praise: go back to google and read the other reviews that you failed to cut and paste from (or edit at your own whim), they say something different, and the critical reception is far from being “universal”. Of the ones you have quoted- only four are really positive, others call her performance efficient, solid or finely-tuned, which are not by-words for greatness last time I checked.

    Difference between me and you is I dont think anyones opinion is right or wrong, its just an opinion.

  • http://www.heyuguys.co.uk Simon Gallagher

    Read the review Richard- it clearly says I went into the screening and watched her performance as objectively as possible, so I agree with what you say. And just because a review isnt positive doesnt mean it isnt fair.

    And thanks for the kind use of the word moron. Coming from a learned scholar like you who changes quotes to his own ends that really gives me a personal lift. But its your opinion, and one youre entitled to, because no one opinion is right or wrong, thats the nature of the beast.

  • richardM

    I have all the quotes rechecked and admittedly there is a mistake, but only ONE slip, and that's the word “brilliant” from Telegraph which however was quoted from a forum writer and indeed missing from the original Telegraph review. I therefore admit that negligence and take that back, still “characteristically agonized performances” is positive. All the other quotes (10 of then) are likewise nothing short of praise, but of course you have a prejudice and that's a different thing. And therfore some of these quotes are intentionally have Penn's included just for you, chauvinist. You deny these quotes, you deny Penn's as well.

    As to Liman he had said nothing like this before about any of his past actors.

    Your review is not fair and biased because:
    1/ On your site “Obsessed with Films”, you've pre-empted yourself by saying you're seeing the film because of Liman, and Penn, and ignored Watts totally, and then admitted yourself being a male-chauvinist.
    2/ Here, you repeatedly admit yourself simply not a “fan” of Watts and go on to spend nearly half of your so-called review to pan her and her performance, totally in reversal of how you treated her in 1/

    Well, you may also show your readers 10 quotes (excluding yours of course) to back up your opinion that the praise for Watts' is un-universal. Just don't forget come awards time you'll have egg all over your face, Moron.

  • http://www.heyuguys.co.uk Simon Gallagher

    Keep the personal attacks to a minimum Richard, I realise youre obviously a Watts fanboy, but rein it in a little.

    Again with the chauvinist remark- let me put you straight. Firstly, ObsessedWithFilm is not MY site, I contributed to it. Secondly, I never admitted to being a chauvinist- when I said “Oh yeah, that's chauvinism!” I was being sarcastic, given your flimsy grasp of the term. And in the article you refer to I picked out a couple of reasons to get excited about the project- I DID in fact mention Naomi Watts, though you have ignored that before, so Im not surprised you did again here. I state that Sean Penn is enough to make you excited about any project- how could you possibly argue that he (as an Oscar winner and multiple nominee is not critically a more exciting draw than most other actors? Regardless of who he acts opposite, he is going to be top billed in my eyes). I didnt mention that I was excited about Liman specifically, just how he would handle the project given his pedigree and experience. The fact that he is male is neither here nor there- same with Penn (you might want to look up what chauvinism actually is).

    How can you say “half” of the review is dedicated to panning Watts? There is one paragraph, plus three other sentences dedicated to a critique of her performance (and one positive)- I think you'll find that my review looks at Liman a lot more.

    And the excuse that you lifted the edited quote from a blog? I just plain dont believe you- and a cursory glance through search engines would back me up. But, show me the blog and Ill be more able to believe.

    Also, nice work calling it a “so-called” review- again, just because I dont agree with your opinion (even though you havent seen the film at all apparently) you attack the nature of what Ive written, and question whether it is an actual review?! Astounding.

  • Trenticle

    @RichardM Arent you just as biased since youre a fan of Watts?

    And sicne you havent even seen the film, that makes you even more biased!

  • WendyR

    I dont agree that all of the things u quoted are positive either RichardM- saying someone is solid in a role doesnt mean they excelled. I dont think dependability should be praised.

    And stop getting so pissy- Simon's a blogger and u came here to read his opinion like we did. Just cos it doesnt match how u feel about an actor doesnt make it less valid. I personally dont mind Naomi Watts, but I agree that she hasnt done much good other than 21 Grams and Eastern Promises- I really dont see how she can win an Oscar for this role, looking at what other people have said about it. But ill reserve my judgement until Ive seen the film.

    Maybe u should too RichardM, at the minute u just sound like 1 of those blinkered fans who wont hear a bad word said about the object of your obsession.

  • http://www.heyuguys.co.uk Simon Gallagher

    Keep the personal attacks to a minimum Richard, I realise youre obviously a Watts fanboy, but rein it in a little.

    Again with the chauvinist remark- let me put you straight. Firstly, ObsessedWithFilm is not MY site, I contributed to it. Secondly, I never admitted to being a chauvinist- when I said “Oh yeah, that's chauvinism!” I was being sarcastic, given your flimsy grasp of the term. And in the article you refer to I picked out a couple of reasons to get excited about the project- I DID in fact mention Naomi Watts, though you have ignored that before, so Im not surprised you did again here. I state that Sean Penn is enough to make you excited about any project- how could you possibly argue that he (as an Oscar winner and multiple nominee is not critically a more exciting draw than most other actors? Regardless of who he acts opposite, he is going to be top billed in my eyes). I didnt mention that I was excited about Liman specifically, just how he would handle the project given his pedigree and experience. The fact that he is male is neither here nor there- same with Penn (you might want to look up what chauvinism actually is).

    How can you say “half” of the review is dedicated to panning Watts? There is one paragraph, plus three other sentences dedicated to a critique of her performance (and one positive)- I think you'll find that my review looks at Liman a lot more.

    And the excuse that you lifted the edited quote from a blog? I just plain dont believe you- and a cursory glance through search engines would back me up. But, show me the blog and Ill be more able to believe.

    Also, nice work calling it a “so-called” review- again, just because I dont agree with your opinion (even though you havent seen the film at all apparently) you attack the nature of what Ive written, and question whether it is an actual review?! Astounding.

  • Trenticle

    @RichardM Arent you just as biased since youre a fan of Watts?

    And sicne you havent even seen the film, that makes you even more biased!

  • WendyR

    I dont agree that all of the things u quoted are positive either RichardM- saying someone is solid in a role doesnt mean they excelled. I dont think dependability should be praised.

    And stop getting so pissy- Simon's a blogger and u came here to read his opinion like we did. Just cos it doesnt match how u feel about an actor doesnt make it less valid. I personally dont mind Naomi Watts, but I agree that she hasnt done much good other than 21 Grams and Eastern Promises- I really dont see how she can win an Oscar for this role, looking at what other people have said about it. But ill reserve my judgement until Ive seen the film.

    Maybe u should too RichardM, at the minute u just sound like 1 of those blinkered fans who wont hear a bad word said about the object of your obsession.

  • http://www.heyuguys.co.uk Simon Gallagher

    In all honesty I cant say I have just one favourite.

    I think Tilda Swinton is exceptional in pretty much everything she is in, Kate Winslet is usually impressive and I like Anjelina Jolie when she isnt just playing the sex interest.

    Imelda Staunton is always a pleasure to watch too.

    In terms of upcoming talents, I like Zooey Deschanel and Carey Mulligan, as well as Anne-Marie Duff.

    In all honesty, though I only believe that an actor is as good as their last performance- so I dont really go in for expressing favourites. That way I can (usually) be as objective as possible when Im reviewing- its the fairest way to not cloud your own judgement with emotion.

  • Pepino el 88

    you are Wendy or Simon??

  • Perla Urbano

    I was sure that you said Angelina Jolie, because of that you do not like Naomi Watts, when Jolie is not plaing the sex interest? they are the kind of roles that she looks and also she makes badly since she is so predictable and for her being sexy is to show her mouth

  • http://www.heyuguys.co.uk Simon Gallagher

    Que?

  • http://www.heyuguys.co.uk Simon Gallagher

    Not me Pepino. I dont like 21 Grams, and I do actually think Watts might get an Oscar nom for Fair Game, but not on merit.

  • Perla Urbano

    que es logico que no te guste Naomi Watts si te gusta Jolie, si te gusta la lambada (Jolie) seguramente no te gustara la musica clasica (Watts), aparte te pregunto en que pelicula Jolie no hizo el personaje sexual, es el tipo de personajes que busca hacer porque son los que mas dinero le dan que es su interes ya que no es una artista, por otro lado esos papeles los hace mal porque para ella ser sexy es mostrar la boca entreabierta como si estuviera chupando un pene, como Lara Croft, ORIGINAL SIN y esa sarta de peliculas malisimas que suele hacer.

  • richardM

    WendyR,

    Out of the 10 quotes I've given, even “solid” and “dependability” are not negative. In 1998, Gwyneth Paltrow in “Shakespeare in Love” was almost universally panned, yet she was given the Oscar for Best Actress of the year.

    This writer has openly dissed the female sex (yours judging from your pen-name) admitting male chauvinism in his writing about this movie. If you think that's ok within you, then count yourself out of my standing up for the rights of women including Naomi Watts who is not only a woman but a talented actress who deserve none of this crap.

    Pointing out that a chauvinist's biased opinion is biased is not pissy but only righteous, in particular when the majority of other viewers' opinions is otherwise.

    For your info, I did have seen this film, not in Cannes, but at an earlier special screening.

  • richardM

    Trenticle, I don't call myself a fan but an admirer of her talents besides her beauty. I've seen the film.

  • http://www.heyuguys.co.uk Simon Gallagher

    RichardM- youre not a fan?! I know for a fact you run STEANDRIC- a kiss-ass terrible blog dedicated to Naomi Watts, which for me dilutes all of your credibility.

    And no you havent seen the film- there havent been any special screenings of it open to press (if thats what you call yourself) in the US or in Europe. Cannes was the first screening. But if youre adamant you've seen it, you give me your review, instead of quoting everyone else who has seen it. It seems to me that someone who has seen the film might express their own opinions, rather than going down the road of cutting and pasting other peoples- it would seem decidely convenient of you to announce that youd seen it just when youre accused of basing your opinion on a film you havent yet seen.

  • http://www.heyuguys.co.uk Simon Gallagher

    Richard- show me, and anyone else where I have “openly dissed” the female sex please? And where I admitted male chauvinism. Id like you to qualify your accusations, because you are getting more than a little tiresome- just because I dont like Watts' performances, it DOES NOT MEAN THAT I AM SEXIST! Thats the deluded and skewed opinion of an obsessive fanboy who has his own shrine to Naomi Watts, who prefers to sharpen his knives in public rather than accepting a critical response.

  • WendyR

    I dont understand ur ref to Gwyneth Paltrow?

    And I dont see any dissing of women in the article? Also, I dont need u to stand up for my rights- they havent been compromised, thankuverymuch! Youre very militant.

    It isnt biased to express an opinion, and as he says he tried to be objective. Perhaps he shudnt have put that he isnt a fan of Watts tho. I dont really see how he is chauvinist either?

    If it is true u have the Naomi Watts blog u shudnt be fussing about the writer beign biased- people in glass houses shouldnt throw stones after all.

  • richardM

    I said I don't call myself a fan but an admirer of her talents besides her beauty. An admirer's credibility is definitely better than that of a biased.

    Well, call your connections if you have in Minneapolis and ask if the date of Wednesday, October 21, 2009 rings a bell?

    Being no film critic I never write or know how to write a film review but that doesn't make me not knowing how to judge a film or a performance.

  • http://www.heyuguys.co.uk Simon Gallagher

    You dont call yourself a fan?! Are you kidding me?! You run a blog, which encourages paprazzi style coverage of her, and you say youre just an admirer?! You refer to yourself on Steandric as a “dedicated fan of Naomi Watts since 1997″. Sorry, I mistook the word fan for the word “fan” there didnt I? Dude, admit it, youre pretty biased- I know of your web presence, whenever anyone says anything mildly critical of Naomi Watts you chirp up, under the guise of steandric (and some other names) to attack them. Im on to you, so give it a rest.

    And you got into the October screening? The one you commented on on the CoronaComingAttractions site, questionning Adam54 about his phrasing, and why he didnt say that Naomi Watts deserved an Oscar nomination? Funny, that comment reads a lot like you hadnt seen the film at that point.

    But regardless of that, youve definitely seen it? Despite not offering any review on your blog? In fact, there isnt even a reference to you being invited to this screening on your blog, which minutely details everything about Naomi Watts in every other case. Seems like a major departure from the norm for an excitable fan like you to not deem that invitation in Minneapolis worthy of coverage. Especially when you live in Canada? If I didnt know better, id think you were a total fraud.

    And I didnt want your full review, just something objective about the film that wasnt horrendously obsessed with Naomi Watts.

    Speaking of your blog, how can you advocate people being obsessive about an actress (like steandric is) without even pretending you are interested in her acting?

    Hopefully, you'll know stop boring me.

  • richardM

    [quote]

    richardM on May 11, 2010 at 12:14 pm

    Obsessed with film is also very much obsessed with male chauvinism as he doesn’t seem to care for main character Valerie Palme and lead actress Naomi Watts of the film.

    source: http://www.obsessedwithfilm.com/movie-news/coun

    Simon Gallagher on May 13, 2010 at 11:32 am

    Yeah, that’s chauvinism. Has nothing to do with the fact that Naomi Watts hasnt been very good in anything yet…..

    source: http://www.obsessedwithfilm.com/movie-news/coun

    *admitting “Yeah, that's (male) chauvinism.” …and that that is unrelated to her work representing her acting skills; hence, that must be related to her being female.

    [endquote]

  • richardM

    Note: This will be my last post.

  • http://www.heyuguys.co.uk Simon Gallagher

    Haha, RichardM, like Ive already said to you- that there is good old fashion sarcasm. It isnt an admission at all, it's a critique (albeit a clearly far too clever one) of your accusation. I was saying that my opinion of Watts has in fact EVERYTHING to do with the fact that I havent been particularly impressed with any of her performances to date. But fair play, it would be devastating to your argument if you accepted that so think what you like.

  • Gary Norton

    I know what you mean- I think they all exude the ace maiden a little bit too much at times, particularly in more recent performances. I am not sure what all the “hate” mail is all about that has been stirred by your comments! I would say that reviewing a film when you have slept through some of it is not the most informed way to to the job though!
    On the plus side, at least you know people are reading your work, which is great for any writer to hear. On the down side you may want to be looking over your shoulder when you are out and about with some of these comments, lol.

  • Pam Gregory

    I do not understand why people are saying that Watts will get an Oscar for Fair Game and she did not get the Cannes award, also she was not mention with chances for that award

  • Tiger tim

    STILL waiting for Malibu born and bred, family was in the business,
    ALWAYS comfortable 'daring rebel outsider' Sean Penn to have something
    to say about the unfolding revelations of GARGANTUAN 'peacetime'
    mass genocide in their 'fave' mass market paradise —ACROSS the Pacific.

    ESP. painful as MILLIONS are suffering and dying imprisoned and ignored
    right now on this, the once again 'mysteriously ovelooked'
    60th Anniversary of the staggeringly relevant, awesomely important,
    indeed, STILL unfolding —KOREAN WAR.

    -AMEN-

  • http://twitter.com/kseawins Kacy Press

    Check out this trailer for ‘Fair Game’ starring Sean Penn and Naomi Watts. http://bit.ly/8Xrmdp