We Bought a Zoo (2011)

We Bought a Zoo (2011) Trailer

I think Scarlett Johansson is smokin hot, but as an actress I really don`t think she is as great as everyone thinks she is, but that is just me. I remember reading headlines that Crowe was considering casting Amy Adams, Rachel McAdams, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, and Scarlett Johansson for the lead female role in this movie and despite McAdams being my favorite actress, I really wanted Amy Adams to be cast in the role, because I can honestly imagine her playing a character who works with animals over Johansson, Winstead and McAdams.

I can see Johansson being in a Cameron Crowe movie, but I can also see Amy Adams and Rachel McAdams being in a Cameron Crowe movie as well and not only that, but I can imagine Adams and McAdams giving better performances than Johansson, but that`s just because I think they are better actresses than Johansson.

But that is just my opinion.

Yes. Crowe cast her so she must have displayed something the other choices didn't have. wait and see

"It's hard for me to watch American Idol because I have perfect pitch."

-Jenna, 30 Rock

She was fantastic. After seeing it, I can't picture Adams, McAdams, or anyone else in the role. And not for lack of talent, because I love all who were suggested. It's just that Scarlett did a fantastic job in the role.

I've heard that she's wonderful.

"So she can one day become president and declare war on Germany like back when we were awesome."

Any number of actresses could have played her role in this movie. There's really not a lot of scope there.

Maybe, but no one could bring the subtlety that she does to the role. Crowe chose her for a reason as someone else in the thread said - and I thought she was great.

just saw the screening and agreed. she's a pretty good actress, but her age difference with Damon doesn't make the romance believable. And I don't really buy her as a zoo worker.

Even someone like Emily Blunt, Kate Beckinsale, Jessica Biel, or Minka Kelly would make much more sense, if they need a hottie for the role.

But they didn't want just a hottie. They wanted an actress. Those four are totally substandard for a role like this. Scarlett was perfect in the role.

Any comment that suggests Emily Blunt is substandard is any category needed to make films, talent and looks, is ludicrous and should be disregarded immediately.

That said, I don't like how Scarlett seems to get criticized a lot for being too hot, but not a good actress.

She's probably not in the top tier of talent and maybe her range is a tad limited compared to other A-listers, but she's a LOT better than people give her credit for.

And, even just going by the trailers, you can see she's playing a character here that doesn't look like Scarlett in, say, the Island. The hair and her entire appearance is toned down, but it's still Hollywood, when do they cast unattractive people in their films?

Amy Adams is hot a hell. Just a different kind of hot. And, while Jim Carrey and Zooey Deschanel seemed age inappropriate, in the average film Yes, Man, I don't see that being the same problem with Matt and Scarlett.

Looks like a winner to me, from the cast (nice get with Elle Fanning in a supporting role) and the story. I, personally, can't wait to see it and think Scarlett was a terrific choice for the role and Amy Adams is my favorite actress and she'd be great in anything, playing every role.

Since she can't do every film, Scarlett is a terrific choice and looks good with Damon. With a film with this much heart, we'll see how much the romance even plays into the entire story, but if they have good chemistry together, I think this will be a wonderful film to end the year with because everything else seems set up for this to be a wonderful, uplifting movie.

Any comment that suggests Emily Blunt is substandard is any category needed to make films, talent and looks, is ludicrous and should be disregarded immediately.

What can I say other than kiss my ass - it's my opinion.  She has only been excellent in The Devil Wears Prada. Everywhere else - totally lackluster. And sorry gotta say her constant smoking and such as really gotten to her teeth and skin - she looks so much older than her age.

Scarlett is just like any other A-list actress - she's going to get criticized to no end on everything (looks, talent, whatever) BECAUSE she is A-list. She gets a lot of hate but probably no more than, say, Natalie Portman or Keira Knightley. And Scarlett is probably top tier in her age group based on talent. No doubt about it - any other dissimilar comment should be disregarded immediately. Or sit them down and make them watch the majority of her performances to see the truth.

And I've seen the film so the 'relationship' is played on in short spurts in the form of tension between the two (not including towards the end). But it never gets in the way of the story as a whole. There's actually two romances brewing in the film and the other one is played on more.

Your opinion is wrong. There are scientists willing to back me up on this.

Scarlett gets FAR more acting criticism than Natalie and Keira just seems to have a lot of haters who attack her about almost anything. Acting is just one of those things.

Keira is a terrific actress. So is Scarlett. Keira does have a better resume so far, to show off her acting chops, but Scarlett doesn't get a lot of credit for things like Ghost World before she was a star and sex symbol.

Good to know that the Elle Fanning role is bigger than the trailer lets on by you stating the younger romance gets more focus and screen time.

In acting, I've learned that Voice is one of an actor's tools and to me, that makes the most sense.

The way I see it...if an actor/actress has a good voice then I think they are good, but if they don't have a good voice then I just think they are bad.

I really don't like Scarlett's voice so naturally I don't think she is a good actress.

If you want more of an answer, I will try to explain. Johansson is much more than a "hottie." As is proven in this film and others she played. Sure, when she was younger, she was cast in sexy roles, so.. to quote a line from Crowe's production: "Why not?"

Well, obviously because TV/movie stars tend to get type cast -- e.g. lesser forms of humans tend to have expectations for subsequent roles. It reminds me of a piano student I once had: Tony Danza. At the time, he was worried and complaining about difficulty achieving feature film roles because of how particular TV roles had type-cast him. He referred to Ted Danson's small role in Saving Private Ryan. "Didn't it bother you?" I told him that I wasn't troubled in the least. That I liked the role and the rest of the film as well. And that, yes, I'd wasted plenty of my time watching the TV show 'Cheers.' We had a laugh over that. After which, I said that I thought type casting was *beep* Explaining that most people in the audience don't go there. Though, perhaps giving the human race too much credit for intelligence at that. In any case, he wasn't convinced. Actually, after I said the "B" word, his demeanor suddenly changed for the worse and, believe me, you don't want former boxer Danza getting angry at you. "What do you mean?" he bellowed. "That's what my agent is telling me."

Well, it was all in good fun. So they say here in tinsel town. Tony was a good student, practiced every day and learned a nice Prelude by Chopin. Which leads us back to Scarlett. As her physical presence in moving pictures is much like an exquisite, yet small ditty by the great Polish master pianist: fun. As in, the viewer almost immediately wants to play simple games with her. And that is, at least one reason why she was well cast for her role as a zoo keeper in Crowe's latest sentimental journey. For one, she doesn't have a supermodel face/body. And ..Zoo's cinematographer/director discovered well her studious side in close-ups. Which has always been there for anyone to notice. Of course, an actor needs a role to bring out certain talent. And that she got, wonderfully in this part.

Honestly, I don't remember her earlier roles that well. And this may be, partly because I am, like many in our age, somewhat saturated by all the acting/music everywhere. In that, I tend to forget stuff that happened years before. Which, itself may be regarded as a talent. That is, an audience member talent.

More specifically, her role as Kelly Foster was well cast/acted such as in the difficult dramatic situations where she silently watched and waited for appropriate moments to address the Mee's family struggles. Undeniably a "strong woman" and "smart woman" role. That seemed to be the main extent of her part. And also, that she was an experienced professional concerning her work with animals. Again, excellently written/played. If people aren't easy to recognize the former quality, her knowledge/acquaintance/timing over family psychology, it more likely is a result of their own lack of psychological well being than anything shortsighted about the casting or playing of her part.