[val-holla-ing]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

maybe these pictures will help clarify?

 

 

 

T-I-T-S

TITS AHOY!!!!! sweed lord almighty!

[LifeDistortion]

That first pic is probobly the sexiest pic she's done, not because of the lack of clothes but the lack of make-up, compare her face with the first pic to the other two, the second she looks like she belongs in "Blade Runner", the third she looks like a drag queen. I hate when beautiful girls wear a ton of make-up, the first pic proves, less is so much more, in more ways then one.

[davenotdead]

I used to love Scarlett, lately I dont know...that Timberlake video was awful...but i will forever like her in LIT and Ghost World and Girl with a Pearl Earring...Match Point was sexy, but the 2nd time I saw it, was kinda annoying...I dont know if thats her fault though (I blame Woody)....

MRs Norton and Depp are fantastic...you dont know what you are talking about if you dont like their abilities. that or you are a pretentious fuckwit too 'hip' for your own good.

Barrymore is kinda bland...i think she's tries to be interesting by dating guys like tom green...i dont know...dont really have an opinion of her...her acting doesnt blow me away...she's ok in some things...

Sevigny is an interesting one at least...she's not uber attractive in the traditional sense, and she's come to be the reigning queen of NYC/Indie-dom in film and fashion/incrowd stuff...and someone had to do it...her acting is pretty good most of the time too....

[_slavo_]

I just want to underline this:

"scarlet - has nice tits

edward norton - is not a bad actor, and not a pretty boy either, so he's not annoying"

[LifeDistortion]

Originally Posted by Kegmama

Chloe Sevigny- I hate her for very personal reasons; I almost got in a fight with her at the first Dinosaur Jr reunion show in LA.

ALMOST? Damn, that's a story I'd love to hear.

[sonicl]

Drew Barrymore was hot when she was making her comeback and posing in Playboy, but she's a bit lukewarm these days.

Johnny Depp gets to do naughty things with Vanessa Paradis, who is hot, and therefore he is hot by association.

Can we try to separate the fact that an actor/actress is dishy-looking from the fact that they are technically and emotionally versatile? All of the above have been in at least one movie that I have enjoyed (particularly Norton) , apart from Jahansson. That still doesn't convince me about their acting abilities. It just seemed that in those movies the director was carrying the movie, rather than the actor/ess.

[davenotdead]

well krop, I thought she was wonderful in LIT...I love how Coppola didnt allow Bill and Scarlett to see each other's dialogue, so that it would seem more like 2 regular people talking...and it does...watch how she always reacts with a smile and a little laugh everytime Bill says something...it may seem goofy if you dont know what the movie's about...but its just refreshing, and even beautiful in a sense...

[sonicl]

Okay.

Drew Barrymore - Seems to be cast in, and to accept, too many cutesy chick flick roles (50 First Dates / Music and Lyrics) that make it difficult to tell if she has the depth to carry off something more weighty.

Johnny Depp - The absolute opposite of the above, seems able to only accept arty thespian roles. When given a more lightweight role cannot resist the oppourtunity to ham it up.

Edward Norton - What was the racist/skinhead one that he was in a few years ago? [edit - American History X] He was brilliant in that. I can't think of any other films that he's been in.

Scarlett/Chloe - Are names rather than actresses whose performances I can remember.

Originally Posted by davenotdead

well krop, I thought she was wonderful in LIT...I love how Coppola didnt allow Bill and Scarlett to see each other's dialogue, so that it would seem more like 2 regular people talking...and it does...watch how she always reacts with a smile and a little laugh everytime Bill says something...it may seem goofy if you dont know what the movie's about...but its just refreshing, and even beautiful in a sense...

That film is rubbish and the story/script is insipid. That sort of acting is also pretty commonplace these days, as well as the way that it's been shot. A highly overrated movie that got way too much praise. Pleasant enough to watch it, but it left me totally empty inside.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by sarramkrop

Can we try to separate the fact that an actor/actress is dishy-looking from the fact that they are technically and emotionally versatile? All of the above have been in at least one movie that I have enjoyed (particularly Norton) , apart from Jahansson. That still doesn' t convince me about their acting abilities. It just seemed that in those movies the director was carrying the movie, rather than the actor/ess.

sure.

edward norton is a damn good actor. american history x, fight club... i recently saw him in the painted veil and he managed to remain almost invisible which is what i htink this required. not at all like keanu reeves in "dracula" faking an english accent, jeezus. no man, edward norton is totally an american actor but he's really good. and you dream.

johnny depp is great, come on-- his "pirates" is hilarious, then you get edward scissorhands on the other end of the spectrum. watchu want porks? more range? insane willy wonka, dead william blake in dead man. former undercover cop in teenybopper drama "21st jump street". the libertine, i admit, sucked blood clots, but ... ed wood? oh cmon, you're baiting-- are you baiting?

---
about drew barrymore yes, she sucks in every way, and chloe sevigny is famous for being indie but i don't think she acts much (sorry chloe). and scarlett-- well, scarlett has those tits. she's good in certain roles though, she did great in lost in translation, as well as match point. she's no jessica lange though-- jessica lange! that's a real actress.

[nicfit]

Originally Posted by sonicl

Johnny Depp gets to do naughty things with Vanessa Paradis, who is hot, and therefore he is hot by association.

Those are no more naughty things when you're married. With children.

Yeah, but take two actors like Dennis Hopper or James Gandolfini (both excellent at playing the meanie), and then compare them to the most violent scenes in Fight Club. Norton lives off an already poor script and fails to overturn it into something good, and in American History X he lives off a good script and that's about it. Both the actors that I have mentioned could have turned those movies into something great, at Norton's age.

Edit - &***%%

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by sarramkrop

Can we try to separate the fact that an actor/actress is dishy-looking from the fact that they are technically and emotionally versatile?

In that case it's probably fair to say that Ed Norton is the most talented. A lot of people talk up Johnny Depp in this way but he's just more original in his casting decisions than anything else, IMO.

Scarlet Johansson is decent but losing ground after taking on some terrible roles recently (Kirsten Dunst being her (slightly) more credible equivelent.)

Drew Barrymore hasn't really shown any talent since ET - apart from an ability to appear quirky.

[_slavo_]

I will probably download the three pictures of Scarlett into my computer.

Now that I'm looking at them, it does strange things to my body.



(evil laugh)

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by sarramkrop

Yeah, but take two actors like Dennis Hopper or James Gandolfini (both excellent at playing the meanie), and then compare them to the most violent scenes in Fight Club. Norton lives off an already poor script and fails to overturn it into something good, and in American History X he lives off a good script and that's about it. Both the actors that I have mentioned could have turned those movies into something great, at Norton's age.

Edit - &***%%

i dont know about gandolfini's range though-- before the sopranos, he had been forgettable. norton is more of a... hm an anglo saxon, his emotional expression is quite restrained-- has more of a stiff face, tight lips, wooden expression. but that's cultural-- not everybody can play some hot blooded don juan. so he was very good in the painted veil, where he plays this very stiff british doctor/public servant-- his intensity is more restrained, he doesn't move his hands when he speaks. of course pair him against marlon brando and he's going to lose big. he's still a good actor though, does his job well, but yeah he's no dennis hopper, eh.

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by sarramkrop

Yeah, but take two actors like Dennis Hopper or James Gandolfini (both excellent at playing the meanie), and then compare them to the most violent scenes in Fight Club. Norton lives off an already poor script and fails to overturn it into something good, and in American History X he lives off a good script and that's about it. Both the actors that I have mentioned could have turned those movies into something great, at Norton's age.

Edit - &***%%

I'm glad you said 'at Norton's age' in reference to Dennis Hopper, who's been a diminishing talent for quite some time now.

Most actors are bound to a certain period of their life that will forever define them. Jack Nicholson is a perfect case in point in that his entire career is now largely defined by the series of movies he made between One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and The Shining. Actors that have managed to remain interesting throughout the duration of their career are few and far between. Paul Newman never really did. Robert DeNiro LOOKED like he was able to but then descended into a kind of pointless self-parody. For that reason, Marlon Brando remains one of the true Hollywood greats in that he can be identified with so many varying roles in films as different as A Streetcar Named Desire, Last Tango in Paris and The Godfather.

[nicfit]

Originally Posted by Nefeli

not thrilled by any, but here:
Scarlet Johansson -first noticed her in a teen/alter movie with christina ricci and liked her there. she is ok, dont relate to the hype, but she is ok.

Ghost World!
To answer the topic:
Scarlet Johansson = I think she's NOT a really good actress, plus she is totally overexposed [ads, music videos ( why, JT, why??), music, too many movies per year], and actually I think she's not SO good looking to deserve this kind of attention, but I suppose she's just making the most out of the moment, her fame will probably fade quite fast (unless she does a really , reaaaally nice flick)

Ed Norton = he's one of those guys (Kevin Bacon?) capable of doing great performances followed by BAD movies. His expressions/acting in the first part of American History X is truly amazing, imo, and he's good (very good) ni fight club and 25th hour.

Drew Berrymore = She is not THAT bad (confessions of a dangerous mind) but at the same time not that good.. I like the fact that she's also a producer. Evan Rachel Woods will take her place soon (drugs, rehab, light hearted movies).

Johnny Depp = I really like him, he did great "career choices", his tattoo is great, he's been with some of my favourite ladies in the businness, AND he's quite a wise guy. So, thumbs up for him.

Chloe Sevigny = I don't like her, but some of her expressions ( no, I didn't say blowjob) are really good, even better when she does not speak (thi is not an insult, but a compliment on her face).

[Gulasch Noir]

Ad Scarlettim: http://www.truescandals.com/pics/ind...nsson&pg=1&f=t

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Nefeli

norton has potentials i believe, he has this sparcle in his eyes.

exactly, norton's intensity is very internal, doesn't come out in grand expressions and gestures, which was my point.

but to parallel someone else, de niro used to be that way as well (take taxi driver), and in spite of his latest blunders de niro remains a superior actor. still that doesn't meant norton is bad or that his reputation is undeserved-- he's a good movie actor.