TIFF Reviews

[Guest scarlet_rose]

Sorry girls but it seems we have another negative review. And this time it´s from Toronto.

http://www.mcnblogs.com/festivals

Watching Elizabethtown was a deeply emotional experience for me. You see, I quite like Cameron Crowe’s work. He is a wonderful filmmaker. And Elizabethtown has all the qualities not of a simple misfire, but of an outright jumping of the directorial shark.

I believe that some directors are, essentially directors. A guy like Frances Coppola seems to internalize his films before spewing them out, but he has also shown himself completely capable of just directing a movie that is less personal. Soderbergh is in that realm, his misfire here with Bubble an indication of an urge to experiment more than of a career crisis.

But Cameron Crowe is in that camp with Oliver Stone and Woody Allen who are connected in some deep way to their material, their films evolving with their lives. and also running out of steam when they had said all they had to say. Word is that Allen’s Match Point is quite an excellent out-of-genre film. But you get my meaning.

Elizabethtown is the first time we’ve glimpsed Cameron Crowe doing Cameron Crowe.

The comparison of this film to Garden State is specious and insulting. Garden State combined Crowe-isms and Swedish comedy to evolve into its own unique mediocrity. Like Garden State or not, Zach Braff cannot carry Crowe’s jock. Which is why it is all the more horrifying to say that I understand what those comparisons are about. Because if Garden State is a Cameron Crowe imitation, Elizabethtown is one as well. and without the added sparks that Braff brought to his film.

The film misfires in virtually every way. It opens with a faux Jerry Maguire section that feels like we’ve seen it before – complete with company girlfriend who leaves when things go bad – that sets up a whole story about a terrible public humiliation to come. which is neither explained nor examined nor much referred to after the first 20 minutes. I don’t think I’m giving too much away to tell you that the disaster is a running shoe. and why is it a fiasco? Don’t know. Didn’t tell.

When Orlando Bloom’s character finds out that his father is dead, he heads back to Elizabethtown, but his mother and sister’s choice to stay in Seattle is murky at best.

And then you have the empty economy section on a commercial airline. the free upgrade to first class, though that section is somewhat abandoned too. and the wacky stewardess who is classically Crowe-spunky, but unlike Crowe, she is never terribly believable as a character.

As things move along, the film is not unlike Red Eye. everything that happens sets up a gag of no substance. But in Red Eye’s 75 minutes, you expect it all to be thin and senseless. Not so with an emotional drama from Cameron Crowe featuring a dead father, a riff between the folks back home and the mother, and a nightmarish public humiliation due at any moment. (How the shoe can be such a disaster and not be publicized for a week – an absolute movie contrivance of 50s era simplemindedness – is beyond me.)

One sits there, just waiting and waiting for a Cameron Crowe movie to emerge from the wreckage. But it never does. The music cues are not surprising, they are cliché’, albeit the cliché was essentially created by Crowe himself many movies ago.

And those magical moments that survive in memory from the weakest of Crowe’s works are simply nowhere to be found. He tries to bring them to life, but they just sit there. There is a “falling in love on cell phones” sequence that never finds its wings. And it is painful after a while because you so want to love and embrace it. But the child is cold.

The performances are a mixed bag. Some people will like different performances, some won’t like any. But Orlando Bloom, who I think is a movie star, is not this movie star. The role demands curveballs and sliders and Bloom is all fastballs down the middle. As for Ms. Dunst. this role is nearly impossible and her endlessly perky take on it is often hard to take. There is little wrong with Ms. Sarandon’s work. except the script she is trying to make sense of. a script that has traveled just past the lip of good, turning quirky into weird and unappealing.

I just sat there, trying to figure out what went wrong. And I only wish I came up with a better answer, as this one hurts to my core. When greatness fades, it is an ugly light indeed.

Edited by moderator for spelling and capitalisation.

[Lianna]

That review was written by David Poland, whom I somewhat respect. I ran across it elsewhere this morning.

[Fiore]

Okay, that's been the last review I've read now. They just make me immensely sad - and furious. I so much want this movie to be a success, for Orlando, and for Kirsten, and for Cameron, and for anyone else who is in it or has worked on it. So I'll make my own opinion on Etown once I've seen the movie, and if that opinion is anything like the one I've formed after seeing the clips we've already got, then it will be completely different from what I've just read.

I know it was used for KOH, but : I believe. Firmly.

[serendipity]

I'm tired of trying to second guess the critics who have posted negative reviews of Elizabethtown. It looks as if they went in to see the movie they would have made instead of the one Cameron Crowe made.

I look for this movie to be a huge success and to confound all these critics.

Fiore, I believe.

ETA: I'm having a Sponge Bob moment here. I'm ready, I'm ready, I'm ready, ready ready ready--to go see Elizabethtown.

[Wishfulthinkin]

If it's any help at all, Don't forget that these reviewers have read the Venice reviews, and there is a lot more copycatting going around than we probably think.

I think they need to be- and WE need to be, more positive, if WE go into the film already laden with some sort of disappointment then there is just no point in going at all because we'll always be searching for what they have pointed out!

Honestly, how many of you think you'd really notice half the stuff these people are picking up on in any regular film-for-enjoyment excursion? Maybe I'm just being naive to think it would be only very few.

These reviewers have read the VFF reviews and have gone in expecting to be writing poor reviews. Lemmings spring to mind.

Don’t let that be us.Don't be disheartened before you leave your homes. This is Orlando. This is Cameron Crowe.

If I'm wrong please feel free to tell me to zip it.

x Claire

[Cherrybomb]

Honestly, how many of you think you'd really notice half the stuff these people are picking up on in any regular film-for-enjoyment excursion?   Maybe I'm just being naive to think it would be only very few.

I agree Claire, I wouldn't notice half this stuff. I go into a movie having seen the previews and decide at that time if I like it. Sometimes it is great, sometimes not, but that is my view and I do not let others influence me as we all have different tastes.

I think too many of these critics go into a movie expecting it to be as good as. or as senitmental as. or as funny as. when they should infact be judging the movie on its own merits and not be comparing it to those of the past.

I think we need to get rid of the critics and reviewers and just let the people decide on their own and speak out, afterwards. We are, afterall the ones who in the end make or break the movie and its stars. Every movie deserves it own fair shot at being great.

Luv ya,

Cherie

[kathryn]

Don't forget guys - the movie these critics are reviewing is not the same as the movie we will see in October. It is going to be shortened and tightened, at the very least.

I've actually now remembered that Finding Neverland was re-edited after its initial festival screening - it was filmed before Pirates and came out long after (I listened to the Pirates commentary the other day, and Johnny mentions knowing Mackenzie Crook from Neverland).

So there's every chance that Cameron could turn it around!

Kathryn.

[Jaded]

I don''t care what the reviewers say. I'v come to expect negative reviews and therefore don't pay any attention to them. Maybe I'm paranoid, but ti seems people are out to "get" Orlando. Do you know what I'm saying? It seems there are a lot (that's 2 words) of people that have nothing but mean and negative things to say about him. He's to good to be true and all that.

I 've watched all the trailers and I've fallen in love with what I've seen. No trailer has ever affected me the way the ones for Elizabethtown have! I'm going to love this movie!

:bat: to all you nay sayers and crtics!

[Guest scarlet_rose]

I´m a little bit disappointed, I must confess. But thinking twice, this is Orlando Bloom being directed by Cameron Crowe. It can´t be that bad! And these comparisions with Crowe´s previous movies are making me sick! Why should Cameron do always the same?

[Guest sweetbaby231]

Jeff Well's review of E-Town

It's a two-bit irony, but there's no denying it: the professional failure that Orlando Bloom's character goes through in the opening of Elizabethtown, which is massive and absolute, is not unlike the sense of almost total failure that seems to be enveloping the film and its director-writer Cameron Crowe right now, at the Toronto Film Festival.

Crowe is going to be trimming Elizabethtown down by several minutes, perhaps as much as 15 or 20, but there are so many things in this undisciplined movie that have seemed to so many people at this festival to be terribly wrong, that it seems damn near unfixable.

It could work for some people in the ticket-buying world, but this movie is for all practical purposes finished with the critics and journos who've been nothing but supportive of Crowe's films in the past.

A day and a half has passed since I saw Elizabethtown at Friday evening's press screening, and I'm still shattered by the half-failure of it. So bummed and turned around, in fact, that I couldn't summon the courage to attend the Elizabethtown press conference that happened about an hour ago. (It's now about 12:20 pm.) I thought it would hurt too much to listen to what I was sure would be a display of forced gaeity.

Yeah, half-failure. This is a movie that stabs itself in the chest over and over during the first hour or so, but then it finds itself somewhere near the halfway point and becomes.well, not a movie exactly but a meditation about what it is in life that is joyful and soul-restoring, and which generally keeps us going.

Elizabethtown starts out on a note of futility and plans of bloody suicide, with Orlando Bloom ready to pack it in after a winged running shoe he's designed has resulted in a loss of nearly a billion dollars.

Then he's saved, in a way, by news of the death of his father. He forgets about "the plan" and flies to Kentucky to take care of the funeral arrangements. And on the way he meets a plane stewardess (Kirsten Dunst) who's so oppressively perky and Jean Arthur-ish that.I'm getting ahead of myself and not completing my thought.

Which is this: if you forget about Elizabethtown not working as a real movie -- minus most of the disciplines, character shadings and payoffs we've seen in Crowe's previous films -- if you forget all that stuff and just go with the meditative flow, it starts to work after the first hour or so.

You can't really believe in it -- the movie is way too un-tethered -- but you can sorta roll with it and feel the vibe. I did, at least.

I was not having a miserable time at the end, and some (but not all) of the middle is pretty good. The problem, for me, is in the first hour, and I don't know where to start, or even if I want to.

It's not just that the crash-and-burn opening (Bloom saying "I'm okay" over and over, his girlfriend leaving him because he's failed, every last person in the office eyeballing him) is too Jerry Maguire-ish. It feels completely artificial every step of the way, and keeps hitting you with stuff you can't help but disbelieve or gag on.

I can't catalogue everything that falls apart in this section, but for openers Crowe doesn't tell us why the running shoe has died, or why the company didn't do any product testing, or why Alec Baldwin, the big boss, would sink $900 million-plus into launching a single line.I didn't believe a second of it.

When something awful has happened to you, people who know you don't usually look directly at you. Certainly not in a group situation. They usually avoid eye contact because they don't want to deal with your pain, because they're afraid it might be catching.

The suicide stabbing device that Bloom nearly uses on himself seems ridiculous. With all the suicide options out there, who in the world would think of stabbing themselves to death with a big knife tied to a workout contraption?

There has never been a flight from Seattle to Kentucky in the history of aviation with only one passenger on the plane.

There's an argument with an Elizabethtown local about what color suit his deceased father should wear -- they want brown, Bloom insists on blue. And then there's a shot of the body in the coffin and Bloom's father is wearing a suit of.dark gray!

When Orlando Bloom's character finds out that his father has died and he flies off to the bluegrass state, there's no real reason for his mom (Susan Sarandon) and sister to not come with him.

Sarandon, we are told, starts taking dance lessons right when she learns of her ex-husband's death, and a mere four days later she's found a teacher, had a lesson or two and learned enough to cautiously perform a tap-dance routine in front of the Kentucky family.pretty fast work!

I was in shock. I was in denial. I couldn't accept that this movie was misfiring as badly as it was. But then, finally, the fog lifted. It's not that Elizabethtown started being good but that it stopped making me groan, and the movie's basic theme -- what makes us stay in love with life? -- started to find its feet.

Someone has written that "those magical moments that survive in memory from the weakest of Crowe's works are simply nowhere to be found." No -- the last third is actually pretty good, or at least there's a way to roll and groove with it. That is, if you follow my instructions.

It starts sometime after the all-night cell phone conversation scene (Bloom and Dunst never recharge their phones, and why should they?), and then it starts to grow and build. I actually liked the final road-trip sequence, which a lot of people have told me they couldn't stand.

Bloom isn't great in the role, but he's not bad. The relentlessly positive perkiness coming out of Dunst starts to wear you down after a while. Bruce McGill, Alec Baldwin and Susan Sarandon are.okay. But nobody kills.

About 70 minutes into the film, a certain high-profile movie guy whom everyone knows got up and left the theatre. (He came back later, he says.) As he left to go out through the right-side tunnel, he very briefly turned and looked at the audience as it to say, "I'm a little bit surprised there are so many you continuing to sit there and watch this thing."

About ten minutes later two major critics sitting a row in front of me got up and left. I've walked out on plenty of shitty films but almost never one directed by a name-brand guy like Crowe. Wait a minute.I just walked out on a Terry Gilliam film yesterday. And I admit to being so miserable watching Kundun that I shut my eyes and fell asleep. But I was still shocked when I saw those two guys get up and bolt.

I wish there was some way for me to believe this movie isn't dead, dead.deader than dead. But I really think it is.

The next chapter in the Elizabethtown saga will be upon us when an F.X. Feeney- like savior comes along and says, "No, no.you guys missed it! This movie is brilliant. It's just that Crowe decided to take a big leap and you guys were too constipated or conservative to get with what he was doing!"

I am not that guy, but I say again: forget about Elizabethtown doing what you'd like it to do (i.e., delivering the goods the way Billy Wilder used to) and just wait for the here-are-the-things- that-make-life-worth-living portions, which mostly unfold in the second half.

Hollywood Elsewhere

[Adrianne]

Not even going there. I read the first paragraph and stopped DEAD! I am sick to death of all this crap! Two months ago this movie was destined for big things and now after the Film Festival circuit it's a miserable failure?

These idiots can f:censor:ing bite me!

[Jules]

Not even going there. I read the first paragraph and stopped DEAD! I am sick to death of all this crap! Two months ago this movie was destined for big things and now after the Film Festival circuit it's a miserable failure?

These idiots can f:censor:ing bite me!

Adrianne, I am completely with you. The lot of them can right off. I know I'm going to love it!

Jules

[Guest sweetbaby231]

It's not just that the crash-and-burn opening (Bloom saying "I'm okay" over and over, his girlfriend leaving him because he's failed, every last person in the office eyeballing him) is too Jerry Maguire-ish. It feels completely artificial every step of the way, and keeps hitting you with stuff you can't help but disbelieve or gag on.

I can't catalogue everything that falls apart in this section, but for openers Crowe doesn't tell us why the running shoe has died, or why the company didn't do any product testing, or why Alec Baldwin, the big boss, would sink $900 million-plus into launching a single line.I didn't believe a second of it.

When something awful has happened to you, people who know you don't usually look directly at you. Certainly not in a group situation. They usually avoid eye contact because they don't want to deal with your pain, because they're afraid it might be catching.

The suicide stabbing device that Bloom nearly uses on himself seems ridiculous. With all the suicide options out there, who in the world would think of stabbing themselves to death with a big knife tied to a workout contraption?

There has never been a flight from Seattle to Kentucky in the history of aviation with only one passenger on the plane.

There's an argument with an Elizabethtown local about what color suit his deceased father should wear -- they want brown, Bloom insists on blue. And then there's a shot of the body in the coffin and Bloom's father is wearing a suit of.dark gray!

When Orlando Bloom's character finds out that his father has died and he flies off to the bluegrass state, there's no real reason for his mom (Susan Sarandon) and sister to not come with him.

Sarandon, we are told, starts taking dance lessons right when she learns of her ex-husband's death, and a mere four days later she's found a teacher, had a lesson or two and learned enough to cautiously perform a tap-dance routine in front of the Kentucky family.pretty fast work!

That right there says a lot about the negative critical reviews and the postive audience response. NO average movie-goer looks that deep into the movie. I find it hard to believe that critics wanted to like this movie because these are things I never care about in a movie, and I never questioned this while reading the spoilers. You might as well call LOTR a crap movie because hobbits never existed in real life!

If these unnoticable details are why critics are slamming this movie, then wow.just wow.

[oceanbreeze5]

These reviews are starting to make me ill. These reviews show they went in to this film with a closed mind. I got the vibe this last reviewer has a problem with Kentucky. I can't really explain why, I just got that feeling.

AAAHHHHH!! Ok, I'm better now. Anyway, I never let these things influence the films I go see. I think films are supposed to have flaws in them. That's what makes them real to me. And the reference that they never charge their cell phones. HELLO!, it's a movie for crying out loud. You're suppose to suspend reality on these things. That's why they're fiction.

I tell you, these things make me want to start writing my own reviews for real people. Sheesh. Ok, sorry, I'm just angry right now.

I BELIEVE!!!

~Ivy~

[Suzie]

Not even going there.  I read the first paragraph and stopped DEAD!  I am sick to death of all this crap!  Two months ago this movie was destined for big things and now after the Film Festival circuit it's a miserable failure?

These idiots can f:censor:ing bite me!

Well said, Adrianne. I am personally growing sick and tired of reading these so-called "reviews." And this "reviewer." Maybe he would have enjoyed the movie had he not set his heart on nitpicking every minute detail. Movies are entertainment, NOT science, my friend. Let's see. Mr. Jeff, I would imagine you HATED Star Wars and LOTR as well , since they are way too far-fetched ( hey come on, an innocent and kind young boy turning into Darth Vader? That's too outrageous, right? And how about the fate of the world resting on the shoulders of a little hobbit named Frodo? Too preposterous, heh? ). If this is how you see every single movie, then you are missing out a LOT, amigo.

[Guest Mechev]

The critics like to mention that some things in the movie aren’t believable, but a movie is fiction, even if it is based on normal things in daily life. A movie or literature or every way of narration is allowed to have things that may not be so much believable, because again, that is the thing about fiction, it doesn’t follow the “truth” of reality. Where did this people go to study? They should know about this.

Anyway, I can notice every time, critics love to put high expectation on a movie so then they can take it down, real down, and feel good about it. At least that is the vibe I`m getting as a conclusion.

On the other hand there was a fan report that the audience in TFF seems to have liked it a lot. There were a lot of laughs and some touching moments there, so I think that is good, but then, the critics aren’t mentioning the reaction from the audience.

Edited by moderator for grammar.

[TithenFeredir]

I am personally growing sick and tired of reading these so-called "reviews." And this "reviewer." Maybe he would have enjoyed the movie had he not set his heart on nitpicking every minute detail. Movies are entertainment, NOT science, my friend. Let's see. Mr. Jeff, how about the fate of the world resting on the shoulders of a little hobbit named Frodo? Too preposterous, heh? ). If this is how you see every single movie, then you are missing out a LOT, amigo.

And why didn't they just enlist the eagles to fly them over to Mount Doom and drop the ring in? ANSWER: Then there would be no story.

I agree with the nitpicking angle. I went to see "Must Love Dogs" the onther night. It was full of not-so-likely details too, but I still enjoyed it. (By the way, the Etown trailer played before the feature, and people laughed, in a good way, including guys.) It is the rare movie of any sort that doesn't rely on things that are unlikely. If movies were perfectly realistic they wouldn't be interesting.

I can't help recalling the reviewer from Venice who hated Etown but just loved some guy and Bjork sawing their legs off and becoming whales. THAT is good, but an empty plane to Kentucky is intollerably unlikely? (Yes, I know I'm talking about two different reviewers)

I admit to being biased and hypersensitive about any criticism of Orlando's projects. I'm not upset that the reviewer walked out on Terry Gilliam's film, and I do like Terry Gilliam. BUT, the elements of elitism, pointless meaness and slavishly following a dubious hierarchy in "artistic" circles get on my nerves. I think I've said before that the movie business at times looks to me like high school on acid.

I especially hated the bit about Mr. Whozit Hotshot Critic getting up and looking at the audience as if to ask why they didn't follow him out. It is a shame that any cedibility at all is given to someone who is so obviously a vicious, self-important, graceless ass.

Then I marvel at how tough the people directly involved in making movies, especially the writers, directors and actors, have to be to put it out there and risk this kind of treatment.

And I am rambling.

Rant over.

~TF

:paperbag:

[zoe_bear]

Ok ladies and gents. I just finished the impossible. I went back and read ALL of the E-town reviews that have come out since Venice from so-called "professional" movie critics. Here's what I found (and this is just MY theory, so take it with a grain of salt):

While there are a few negative comments about Orlando's performance (and I'm not sure I can count the guy from Time Out after reading his press conference notes), none of the criticisms are as caustic and down-right mean spirited as some of the KOH reviews.

Every reviewer, even those that gave the film an overall positive review, criticized the pacing and the length of the film. And many of them felt the film was "unfocused." (Very few agreed on which aspects needed to go, however.) These are all problems that can be attributed to the writer/director of the film. And therein lies the problem.

So many of these reviewers admire Cameron Crowe's work. They've stated it in their reviews. Many have been talking about E-town for months ("one of the most highly anticipated films of the fall"). They went into the film with certain expectations, expecting certain things from a "Cameron Crowe film." Suddenly, they see problems. Problems that are the responsiblilty of the man they admire. I really think many of these reviews have been written from the point of view of an "acolyte suddenly discovering that their idol has feet of clay." (Hopefully, this makes sense to you guys). There is almost a sense of anger and betrayal underlying their reviews.

I also have to wonder how many of them, if any, saw the movie with a regular audience. So far, it's sounding like most of these reviews are coming from critics who sat in a theater with a bunch of other critics. As much as a someone may try to remain objective, I believe you're still influenced by what's happening around you. A very receptive audience could make a reviewer sit up and take notice. Then again, the completely egocentric, haughty, elitist would probably just consider the audience members a bunch of low-brow idiots for enjoying such cloying drivel, so who knows.

I don't know if any of this makes sense to anyone else. I, for one, am very much looking forward to seeing this movie at the Chicago Film Festival. And if it's a little shorter, but CC and the rest are happy with it, then I'll be happy too.

Sorry this got so long and was so convoluted, but I really needed to work through it for myself.

ZB

[MovieImp]

Well here is an interesting answer in today's Q&A with the USA Today's Movie Guy:

St. Paul, MN: I love your chats. Have you seen Elizabethtown? Is it a chick flick or will guys like it due to the storyline? I would like to see it and I am a guy. Also, why are people still obessed with exorcism movies? Wasn't 10 enough?(it seems like it anyways). Thank you!!

Scott Bowles: The buzz is excellent on this film about an unlikely romance that blooms during a man's funeral preparations for his father. The movie received a standing ovation at the Toronto Film Festival, and awards talk is heavy for star Kirsten Dunst. While it leans toward chicks, the movie is directed by Cameron Crowe, who knows how to keep the guys interested.

[CatsbyCat]

Whoa. That is interesting, but

A standing ovation for a film that has been shredded by the critics? Something smells fishy here, and I'm not talking about the content of Pepe's trousers! :pepe:

Thanks for that little snippet, MI.

Cheers

CC :meow:

[Donna]

Oops, I am editing this post because I got the festivals mixed up. Am not thinking straight (even less than usual). Been a bad day, but it's good to hear something positive, even if it does seem odd after everything else we've heard. :huh:

Edited September 12, 2005 by Donna

[Lianna]

Awards buzz for Kirsten! That's wonderful. She has definitely paid her dues in this business by playing a long string of relatively thankless secondary roles, and she is an excellent actress (IMHO). It would be wonderful to see her get some sort of recognition here. A Golden Globe nomination would be nice.

I think what we're hearing here is that the reaction at the regular screenings was dramatically different from that at the press screenings. Interesting. Of course, many of the people at the regular screenings wouldn't know Cameron Crowe from Cameron Diaz. And maybe that's the point.

[Elvira]

Jeff Well's review of E-Town

I wish there was some way for me to believe this movie isn't dead, dead.deader than dead. But I really think it is.

Do you know why, Mr. hotshot critic Wells? Because guys like you kill it!

ETA: I was interrupted while writing this, so I'd like to add that from now on I'm trying my best not to be affected by any critic. What they write is their opinion (although it annoys me no end that their opinion is sometimes widely read and may influence someone's decision to go and see a film or not), but when the criticism concerns Orlando's films, I cannot be objective.

There seem to be two schools of thought emerging, one that loves this film and another that can't bear it. From what I've seen this far, it's going to be wonderful, funny, quirky and reminds us of the positive things in life. The critics may go to see it with preconcieved ideas, ready to hate it, I'm going with an open mind and ready to love it.

[TithenFeredir]

Whoa.  That is interesting.

A standing ovation for a film that has been shredded by the critics?  Something smells fishy here, and I'm not talking about the content of Pepe's trousers!  :pepe:

You have to wonder, especially who gave the standing ovation. Is there more than one screening at TIFF? Maybe the critics were being.what they are, and the public were so appreciative? It's getting curiouser and curiouser.

~TF

:paperbag:

[zoe_bear]

You have to wonder, especially who gave the standing ovation. Is there more than one screening at TIFF? Maybe the critics were being.what they are, and the public were so appreciative? It's getting curiouser and curiouser.

~TF

:paperbag:

Hey TF.

I'm pretty sure the press screening for E-town was on Friday night, with the Gala premiere being on Saturday night. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong. But I think the walk-outs that Jeff Wells referred to happened at the press (read: critics) screening, while the standing O happened at the Gala premiere. Two COMPLETELY different audiences, in more ways than one. :wink:

ZB