5 Million Star Wars geeks' heads just a-sploded!
Aug 6, 2004 at 7:48 AM Post #32 of 79
My only respect for Natalie Portman is that she's a pretty good actress..I don't think she's really beautiful..just sort of ordinary looking...but a good actress.

As for her acting, I thought she did a really good job in Luc Besson's "Leon: The Professional", starring her alongside Jean Reno...that was quite a while ago, though..

and, as I stated earlier, the first three episodes of Star Wars are so bad that I see it as an embarrassment to the entire cast and I hope that they won't be defined by these three films. Not even the greatest cast can save you if you have a bad plot, an atrocious script, and make all your characters act in front of large blue screens all the time...

while it's true that the originals are worth watching, the preludes of Ep4,5,6 have ruined the entire thing for me. Take Boba Fett for example..I thought he was kind of cool, so enigmatic. We didn't even know if he was human. But now, after watching Ep2, we know that he's a clone, who's angry and vengeful, and probably in his mid-20s by the time 'The Empire Striked Back' rolls around
rolleyes.gif


[sorry about that rant
wink.gif
]
 
Aug 6, 2004 at 10:29 AM Post #34 of 79
hero_zero;

Quite a different world going from child actor to adult. People will be way less critical of the child, and there isn't usually much dimensionality to their role. They are usually (not always, i don't claim to say all) far less sophisiticated then an adult, especially when portraying complicated issues (love interest, or whatever purpose she serves in star wars). There are counter-examples but just using this for my argument here :] . The movie is so bloated with CG, and the whole star wars world, that the acting in the movie is just for contininuity to the next big, crazy, expensive action scene. I think it's ironic because in the originals all the actors were no-names. In this movie you got some really big actors. I do think the guy who plays anakin is a no-name actor though.


Anyways, I guess the one movie that comes to mind is that movie she was in with susan sarandon where she played the daughter that moved to another town. I think she can act, but I also think she is still very young and hasn't really honed her skill yet, or hasn't gotten a great role to work with. I think every great actor has that one role that sets the pace for their career. (Robert Deniro: Taxi Driver for example) I won't be so critical of her in that respect. I'll give the benefit of the doubt, so when I see her butcher a great role really bad, then I'll have an opinion. At this point in her career she has her choice of roles since she's a big star so it could be interesting to see which direction she chooses. That great success i guess can be either a blessing, or a curse since. Alot of could-be good actors take it to the head then just take stupid roles and are mediocre. So this is certainly a pivotal point for her.

These are just my opinions anyways.
 
Aug 6, 2004 at 6:28 PM Post #35 of 79
little boy body? naw, portman is strictly sugar and spice. she has lovely breasts (yes, i've seen them) and a delicate, femanine body. besides, i find her face her most attractive feature. by your standards, mjg, audrey hepburn wouldn't rate. but, to each his own. beauty and sexual attractiveness are very different for each person.
 
Aug 6, 2004 at 7:28 PM Post #39 of 79
you have seen them? Wow i'm impressed, yea i guess they gave her some butt pads in that pic : P laff

By my standards?

See Jessica alba. See Rebecca Romjin Stamos. Those are hot chicks. Natalie portman looks like a skinny little bad-breath girl, with hollywood makeup.
 
Aug 6, 2004 at 8:19 PM Post #41 of 79
"just look at those sharp knees. way below my standards..."
tongue.gif
face it mjg, if portman even talked to you you'd probably piss yourself.
 
Aug 6, 2004 at 8:41 PM Post #43 of 79
"What's the song used in the "Garden State" trailers?"

Frou Frou - Let Go is prolly what you are asking about....
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top