She is just like every other actress in the film business. She has starred in some very successful blockbusters16d0 ( Sp
-
rizdek — 14 years ago(September 05, 2011 04:46 AM)
Very possibly jostange is a trollposted in April and never returned to respond to anyone in the thread.
But anyways, jostange who are you talking about that has rated her? If someone or some group has rated her, then what makes you think she's "over" rated? It's their rating.
I'm not gonna do your homework for you. If you are interested, look up her movies on IMDB and go watch some of them. Which one(s) have you seen? If you aren't interested, then neither am I. -
darksusan50-8-754143 — 14 years ago(March 29, 2012 09:52 AM)
I'd answer your questions but you are on imdb you could just look up th2000e names of the films that she's been in. She is a fantastic actress, who actually acts and doesn't just play on her looks like some actresses.
live and let live -
Ysquare — 13 years ago(August 24, 2012 07:12 AM)
Th111cere are different kinds of actors. Some are more of a 'blank slate', good at playing very complex characters (Daniel Day Lewis) while others have an immense likability,charm and screen presence, basically a personality you can't help but recognize and are best at entertaining, starring in movies which need someone like that or otherwise there would be no 'character' at all. Then again there are those that can do both. However, not everyone needs to be Meryl Streep to be deserving of being called a good actor.
In all honesty, a good leading actor needs likability more than the dazzling skill of completely disappearing inside a character. Sandra Bullock clearly has entertained millions of people so far and there is nothing wrong with that.
especially in: