« Casino Royale gets PG-13 | Filmstalker | Saw IV and V? »


The Painted Veil trailer online

ThePaintedVeil_Poster.jpgThere's a trailer popped up for a film I had heard little about, The Painted Veil starring Edward Norton, Naomi Watts and Liev Schreiber. Looking like a period forced love tale and looking quiet painful through the whole experience, it doesn't really fill me with excitement. However for period lovers everywhere this will come as a great surprise I would imagine, it ticks all the boxes.

This is an interesting remake, because the original was in 1934 - well done Hollywood, more than ten years between the two! The original starred Greta Garbo as the big name star, in this remake do you really think that's Watts? The story is about Kitty who marries her father's research assistant Walter, a man she doesn't love. While he is away on one of his treks she has an affair with Charlie and when Walter returns he is an embittered man. He whisks her off to China to clean up a Cholera infected province and she, out of duty, goes with him. Soon, as you can see, they grow closer together...

You can see the trailers below and it will definitely help you make up your mind. What do you think?

Super Hi-Res, Hi-Res, Medium. All sizes and formats are available through Coming Soon.



it doesn't make any difference whether watts is as big a name as the iconic garbo, it's a fact that naomi watts is the official LEAD and 1st billed actor of this film (as per the warner's website and the trailer), hence you're wrong to list her after edward norton, who is 2nd listed, and imo no bigger a name than watts.

unless you want to:

1. slight oscar-nominee naomi watts against edward norton;

2. discriminate an actress & a female against an actor & a male, either consciously or subconsciously.

however you're right to say the story is about kitty (the lead character played by garbo in 1934 and watts in 2006). walter (played by marshall in 1934 and norton in 2006)was kitty's doctor husband.


Hey steandric, how was this post discriminating? You just lost me there.

By the way, welcome to Filmstalker.

Actually it does, the film is a direct remake of the classic Garbo film and the original was built on the strength of her as a leading lady when Hollywood stars really were stars.

The listing was as I wrote it, there is no wrong, it's what significance you place on the order. Actually there is none, it's just how I wrote it.

As for discrimination, I think you're being overly PC there. I do believe Norton to have the stronger career than Watts, male or female.

It's Ed Norton that will make me want to watch this.

yes, after mulholland dr & 21grams, i would agree w/many critics that watts is the best actress of her generation. (norma shearer, oscar winner for the divorcee, was probably better than garbo w/o an oscar, though shearer was killed by the stupid production code.) & after king kong & the ring, she is obviously a star.

btw, if you have seen the original version, you would know it murders the novel--almost like the original quiet american. the garbo version was a joke. that was not garbo's fault anymore than many did not like ring2, to which watts was obliged after accepting the ring. as for films in which watts was not the lead, she can hardly be blamed for those.

Well,in fact it is Anthony Wong who makes me want to see this film, so can i say The Pinted Veil is starring Anthony Wong, Naomi Watts, Edward Norton and Liev Schreiber?

Or for that matter, I always love Charlie Chan Warner Oland, can i say The painted Veil (1934) was starring Warner Oland, Greta Garbo, Herbert Marshall and George Brent?

I think the official cast order and not an order based on personal favorism should be used for the sake of both accuracy and fairness, IMHO.

Yeah, you can say it anyway you want. It's how you're interpreting it that makes the issue.

What is the "official order"? It's changed from film to film, sometimes it's based on personal negotiated contracts, pay scale, order of appearance, alphabetically...

None of this affects their amount of time onscreen, billing on posters, etc, or pay.

Going back to the original point though, I still don't think Watts is the iconic role that Garbo was at the time of the original. In Hollywood I do believe we lack that huge iconic star status that once existed.

you're very funny indeed, but ignorant. the official order is the order of how the studio wants to present the cast of a film to the public "officially". it is also the credits order appearing "officially" at the beginning or the end of a film.

robert de niro is an iconic and probably one of the highest paid actors in hollywood, but if he were in a supporting role only, or had just a cameo appearance, then no matter how iconic he is, how high his salary is, or at what time did he appear in the film, no studio would have him listed first in the cast order of the film, the most he would get would be ".....and robert de niro".

naomi watts may not be iconic yet, but she is the official LEAD and first billed actor of this film the painted veil, BEFORE edward norton, who is second billed and therfore not lead, no matter how great or stronger his career you think he is. and the studio wants them to be credited, recognized as such for this project, and to be made known and reported as such to the public, officially, regardless of anything else.

you're obviously slighting or discriminating oscar-nomiee naomi watts' official position and the credit she is given here against someone for whom you've a personal favoritism. this is misleading information and is neither accurate nor fair, and therefore have to be pointed out and corrected.

Glad you think I'm funny, but I'm far from ignorant.

The credits have not yet been seen for this film since it hasn't been released. So what do you suggest now?

Regardless, it's you that's placing such weight on the order that just a few of the cast are listed above, indeed the full cast isn't listed, neither are the gaffers, clapper loaders, etc. Should we mention them all whenever we mention the title of a film? I think not.

The very fact that they appear on the credits of the movie is the official recognition from the studio and filmmakers. The order I list the selective few I have decided to mention in an article I've written doesn't affect their standing in Hollywood or the film.

There's nothing like going for someone personally as soon as they disagree with your point of view! I am neither slighting or discriminating against anyone.

I'm pointing out my validly held belief of two actors. Actually you'll find I never compared their careers together, you did this, I merely agreed that I thought Norton to have the stronger career (which he does).

Once again the order I listed them in is just the order I wrote them down. This site is not an official Studio site, nor is it a comprehensive official listing of cast and crew on movies, therefore it does not require to list full cast and crew in studio order. I should know, I run the site!

There is a link to IMDB which lists the first three actors in credits order and the rest alphabetically. So if you want to complain to them about their misrepresentation of the other artists feel free.

Neither is this information inaccurate. The listed cast members appear in this film, the statement in the story compares the iconic role filled by Garbo to that of Watts today. Anything after that has been carried from your assumption that I was deliberately pitching Norton against Watts, which I wasn't. I just wrote them down as I read them, you inferred some hidden meaning and menace.


Add a comment


Site Navigation

Latest Stories


Vidahost image

Latest Reviews


Filmstalker Poll


Subscribe with...

AddThis Feed Button

Windows Live Alerts

Site Feeds

Subscribe to Filmstalker:

Filmstalker's FeedAll articles

Filmstalker's Reviews FeedReviews only

Filmstalker's Reviews FeedAudiocasts only

Subscribe to the Filmstalker Audiocast on iTunesAudiocasts on iTunes

Feed by email:


My Skype status


Help Out


Site Information

Creative Commons License
© www.filmstalker.co.uk

Give credit to your sources. Quote and credit, don't steal

Movable Type 3.34