I think Uma would play Marlene much better than Paltrow could, like scott said Gwyneth is a good actress, but too passive to play the role of Deitrich.Foxie-Pooh said:
Deitrichtiffany said:^ that is a great suggestion, Tilda has such ... character, she could definitely pull off MarleneCate would also be a much better choice than Gwyneth (who is lovely, but I don't think she could portray Marlene convincingly)
Even like, Angelina Jolie, would have been better... Gwyneth is too bland.When is the last time Gwyneth actually had a successful film? She has done bomb after bomb. She is one of the most talentless and boring actresses there is and a perfect example of how connections can work for someone. Uma had huge success with Kill Bill and is a big star and Cate Blanchett, while she may not have the name recognition of Paltrow, is ten times the actress. The Oscar should have gone to her for Elizabeth-she was robbed imo. I am not too familiar wit Tilda but she has to be better than Gwynnie.mikeijames said:
stylegurrl said:When is the last time Gwyneth actually had a successful film? She has done bomb after bomb. She is one of the most talentless and boring actresses there is and a perfect example of how connections can work for someone. Uma had huge success with Kill Bill and is a big star and Cate Blanchett, while she may not have the name recognition of Paltrow, is ten times the actress. The Oscar should have gone to her for Elizabeth-she was robbed imo. I am not too familiar wit Tilda but she has to be better than Gwynnie.
When she did Elizabeth....then Ripely you could definitely see what kind of actress she was. The transitional type....one not too predictable and nontheless compelling. we need to separate the idea of talent and star power because we all know that it's star power that brings people to the theatre and not necessarily talent (remember: vin diesel commands twenty million a flick not because he was trained at yale's drama school)...i agree with you about cate blanchett. i don't think she is more or less talented however, i think that she has proven herself over and over again....she is extremely talented and i think in league with paltrow. paltrow has proven her box office success with crowd pleasers like bounce and emma and great expectations and the game. but she's also taken on difficult parts in the films i mentioned before. there's a quiet intensity about paltrow that i find lacking in blanchett. but no one can erase herself like blanchett did in elizabeth.stylegurrl said:When is the last time Gwyneth actually had a successful film? She has done bomb after bomb. She is one of the most talentless and boring actresses there is and a perfect example of how connections can work for someone. Uma had huge success with Kill Bill and is a big star and Cate Blanchett, while she may not have the name recognition of Paltrow, is ten times the actress. The Oscar should have gone to her for Elizabeth-she was robbed imo. I am not too familiar wit Tilda but she has to be better than Gwynnie.
Unfortunately, just as in the fashion industry, Hollywood tends to put hype/name over true talent. I can't speak for others, but what attracts me to a film is the subject matter. If the lead is an newcomer I don't mind. I am willing to give them a chance. I have been very impressed by (relative) newcomers recently and know that there are some really gifted actors out there. It's very unfortunate that "big names" are given precedent other others who could possibly/probably do a better job.mikeijames said:
for one thing, she did take time off. for a second thing, i want to know what this string of bad movies is that you talk about. the only bad movie she's made in the past couple of years was "view from the top" which she admits she did simply because she wanted to explore that side of her acting and which she further admits was not quite successful. sylvia had rave critical reviews and sky captain did exactly what it was supposed to do: have a strong opening weekend and make back the cost of the film...which it did. i don't know what actress you can point to that hasn't had some flops in her history. but i think that paltrow has chosen her roles carefully and has proven herself over and over again.stylegurrl said:
1. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1126413-sylvia/mikeijames said:
all i have to say is that i'm a big fan of cate blanchett...i think that cate blanchett stole much of gwyneth's thunder in 'the talented mr. ripley' but since 'elizabeth' i can't really think of anything i've gone to the theatre based on cate blanchett alone. yes, the aviator will raise her cachet a bit but not to the level of paltrow who like kidman and roberts and zellweger and others who on their name alone can drive a movie to box office success.ignitioned32 said:1. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1126413-sylvia/
2. I don't think it's that black and white, mike. First of all, with the release of The Aviator (which is the no. 2 movie in America today and a critical success plus her Golden Globe nomination, which she'll eventually bag on her way to an Oscar victory, trust me) she'll be more known. Second, it's just more than the actor or actress that makes a movie a blockbuster i.e. WHO DIRECTS, FINANCIAL BACKING, PUSHES FROM THE TOP HONCHOS LIKE MIRAMAX, PRESS, AWARDS, etc. Take a look at Gigli. You had two leads who can deliver a blockbuster... but did it become one?
