|
|
#42
07-22-2007, 10:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: inexplicable leading ladies
I think there is something annoying about Palthrow but then again i can't point out what it is. She isn't unattractive by all means, she's not the worst actrice out there and she isn't even the most annoying. But somehow if you put it alltogether she is.
|
|
#43
07-22-2007, 03:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: inexplicable leading ladies
The level of rave about her makes her almost sickening by default. You kind of feel like you're obligated to love her and think she's the best thing ever. Like that girl Felicia whatever, who when she first hit the big time with her own t.v. show was raved about so ridiculously that it became almost unbearable to watch her.
|
|
#44
07-25-2007, 02:16 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: inexplicable leading ladies
Okay, here's an odd duck - Sally Field.
How is it that Sally Field has managed to be a leading lady for 40 years? Don't get me wrong, she's good and all, but if you looked at all the actresses around in 1965, who would have picked Gidget to still be around 42 years later? She's not a raving beauty by anyone's standard, but she has managed to remain cute and everyone's little sister or favorite aunt all this time. Decent actress, but not really considered the top of the game at any time, despite 2 Oscars. She just keeps rolling along. My guess is, she's got a great work ethic, is easy to work with on the set, takes care of herself, and has a great sense of what will work for her. That gets her lots of offers where the more beautiful but troublesome divas get passed over. Those wanting a long Hollywood career would do well to study her.
|
|
#46
07-25-2007, 05:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: inexplicable leading ladies
[ QUOTE ]
Cate Blanchet Jodie Foster Julianne Moore Any of these three can make me dislike a movie with an intensity of epic proportions... [/ QUOTE ] wow, I love all three. guess we won't be seeing any movies together
|
|
#47
07-25-2007, 05:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: inexplicable leading ladies
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Cate Blanchet Jodie Foster Julianne Moore Any of these three can make me dislike a movie with an intensity of epic proportions... [/ QUOTE ] wow, I love all three. guess we won't be seeing any movies together [/ QUOTE ] That's okay Dom - I don't think that was ever really an option anyway [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] Juliane Moore's performance in Freedomland was one of the most painful cinematic experiences I have ever witnessed. Cate Blanchett as Galadriel in the LOTR series was such a mis-casting that it threatened to derail an otherwise great movie. Jodie Foster... Well, I think the last movie with her in it that I was able to watch without being annoyed at her was Panic Room...
|
|
#49
07-25-2007, 11:46 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: inexplicable leading ladies
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Ever see Rachel McAdams w/o makeup? [/ QUOTE ] Are you serious? First, she's a pretty darn serviceable actress. Second, she looks absolutely drop dead gorgeous everywhere I've seen her. Like, staggeringly so. [/ QUOTE ] Agree I can't imagine her being any less than stunning even w/o makeup. At least post a no-makeup pic to back up your statement. I second the vote for Darryl Hannah, she was so wooden and awful in Wall Street, and not even very attractive IMO.
|
|
#50
07-25-2007, 12:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: inexplicable leading ladies
[ QUOTE ]
Okay, here's an odd duck - Sally Field. How is it that Sally Field has managed to be a leading lady for 40 years? Don't get me wrong, she's good and all, but if you looked at all the actresses around in 1965, who would have picked Gidget to still be around 42 years later? She's not a raving beauty by anyone's standard, but she has managed to remain cute and everyone's little sister or favorite aunt all this time. Decent actress, but not really considered the top of the game at any time, despite 2 Oscars. She just keeps rolling along. My guess is, she's got a great work ethic, is easy to work with on the set, takes care of herself, and has a great sense of what will work for her. That gets her lots of offers where the more beautiful but troublesome divas get passed over. Those wanting a long Hollywood career would do well to study her. [/ QUOTE ] I think she has an extraordinary ability to be indentified with as the common woman. Her turns in Norma Rae and Not Without My Daughter were deeply affecting. She also got surprisingly sexy in her day, like in Pumping Iron. But still kept the cuteness and basic likeability. She's not classically beautiful or bust-out sexy, but many women like that, even if they act reasonably well, don't have that thing in them that makes you think they would be more than a curiosity as a friend(or maybe not a real friend at all). Fields' ability to get you to completely empathize with her makes her seem as real as your favorite sister. I don't think she's overrated, and think she deserves her Oscars, too. I wish we had gotten to see a lot more of her. She didn't really put out too many movies.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
