Living proof that looks won't get you far.
-
oldfarcut — 12 years ago(November 03, 2013 12:19 PM)
Wow OP, kinda harsh don't you think! O.K., admittedly she's no Kat Hepburn or even a Meryl Streep, but she has worked regularly for the last thirty years. No hint of scandal, no tabloid articles about being a diva on the set, nothing negative about her career that I know of. Not every actress explodes big and eventually goes on to be an Oscar winning Sandy B. Without a backdrop of dependable "second level" actors and actresses there would be no one else to cast in a film besides the "big" star. Compare her career to all of those actresses who made a big initial splash in the 80's, and were never heard from again. Not too shabby. Not at all.
Know the Death of Religion, Know the Death of Hate and Fear -
Tetra123 — 12 years ago(December 20, 2013 12:36 PM)
I understand what you're saying, Metallolives, but I don't think it applies to Lea Thompson. She has an expressive face and a subtle acting style she doesn't "chew scenery" and she emotes in a way that sneaks up on the other characters. How she has allowed herself to be presented, onscreen, has been similar; she always comes across as a natural beauty, who is just primped enough to look respectable but is not displayed as a production some diva or obvious bombshell.
She was an 80's "it girl" but was an interesting it girl, who had as presented to the male audience girlfriend or wife appeal, as well as sex appeal. I think it's harder to grow-up with "sexpot" status, than it is to be the "interesting girl", who the audience notices is beautiful, only after the character motivations have been established. Even in "Some Kind of Wonderful", Mary Stuart Masterson is presented more as the "sexy" character, although a trendy tomboy (possibly because an 80's audience had to be gently introduced to an unconventionally feminine, girl-the-guy-gets, over Thompson's character; a couple of years later, this wouldn't have had to be explained, as the "cool girl" ideal would flip in favor of the tomboy) and Thompson is the natural beauty, who catches an artist's eye. In most of her mainstream films, Thompson is not the obvious "hot girl", although she is beautiful; that would be Erika Eleniak, Kelly Preston or Claudia Wells. -
ludances — 11 years ago(May 30, 2014 07:17 PM)
She's doing fine, and maybe she has the career she wants. Not everyone wants to be Meryl Streep or Sandra Bullock. Some actors will take what roles they can get, and do well by them. Some actors nowadays are happy with a variety of roles. Not like the old days where A lister actors would avoid television.
Knock if off Napolean make yourself a dang quesadil-la! -
DirectorzCut — 11 years ago(August 01, 2014 03:54 AM)
Lea is not a bad actress. She's not belonging in the elite but she has a very good timing with her charm in the movies.
Eg Howard the Duck, it was like meant to be bad acting during half the movie because it was a "fun movie." It gulped a bit for her, I think. But in the Back to the Future trilogy she was really good. So she not only has the look to live by.
Haven't seen any recent performings from her. -
JRichardSingleton — 12 years ago(June 21, 2013 03:47 PM)
She's literally still on TV. Yeah, she's over 50. That's past most male actors prime too.
Thora Birch was nominated for a Golden Globe. 14 years later, she didn't have an agent. She's about 32 now. And unemployed. -
fluffchop — 10 years ago(April 26, 2015 01:38 AM)
In Some Kind of Wonderful she was very pretty playing a teenager. But you're right she's really not been much of an acting talent over the past 30 years.
Scientologists love Narnia, there's plenty of closet space.