PDA

View Full Version : Meryl Streep not THAT good...discuss.


Halardfan
Feb 12th, 2007, 11:31 PM
Meryl Streep is a good actress, and has given some fine performances down the years, but I just had a glance at her Oscar nomination record and she has been nominated FOURTEEN (might have lost count) times in the acting categories, though interestingly only winning twice.

I just think that if she is in anything half-decent, she gets a default nomination, and I think it is just unfair on all those actresses out there who never get anything like that recognition but are just as talented.

Judi Dench for me is a similar example of the same effect...too many undeserved nominations.

Mother_Marjorie
Feb 12th, 2007, 11:34 PM
Meryl Streep is a good actress, and has given some fine performances down the years, but I just had a glance at her Oscar nomination record and she has been nominated FOURTEEN (might have lost count) times in the acting categories, though interestingly only winning twice.

I just think that if she is in anything half-decent, she gets a default nomination, and I think it is just unfair on all those actresses out there who never get anything like that recognition but are just as talented.

Judi Dench for me is a similar example of the same effect...too many undeserved nominations.

From your signature:

"Currently watching...Romy and Michelle's High School Reunion"

Okay, that explains it.

Monica_Rules
Feb 12th, 2007, 11:37 PM
She is pretty damn good in the devil wears prada, kinda make the film better with her performance alone.

WorldWar24
Feb 12th, 2007, 11:38 PM
don't you realize that when people talk like this about people like that, it only adds up to the hype. But she is good so shut up and stop adding to the hype so she can become that sort of great indie actress like Anabel Croft or whatever her name was lol

cellophane
Feb 12th, 2007, 11:40 PM
She was kinda blah in The Hours.

tennismaster8820
Feb 12th, 2007, 11:42 PM
Meryl Streep is a good actress

You got it wrong from the start! She's the best actress, realy amazing, makes all bad movies better with her appearance!:worship:

GoDominique
Feb 12th, 2007, 11:43 PM
She was very good in She-Devil.

Sam L
Feb 12th, 2007, 11:45 PM
No she's that good. I'd say there's only 1 or 2 nominations that are questionable. This is her full list of nominations:

1978 (51st)
ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE -- The Deer Hunter {"Linda"}
1979 (52nd) *
ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE -- Kramer vs. Kramer {"Joanna Kramer"} [statuette]
1981 (54th)
ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE -- The French Lieutenant's Woman {"Sara Woodruff/Anna"}
1982 (55th) *
ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE -- Sophie's Choice {"Sophie"} [statuette]
1983 (56th)
ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE -- Silkwood {"Karen Silkwood"}
1985 (58th)
ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE -- Out of Africa {"Karen"}
1987 (60th)
ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE -- Ironweed {"Helen"}
1988 (61st)
ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE -- A Cry in the Dark {"Lindy"}
1990 (63rd)
ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE -- Postcards from the Edge {"Suzanne Vale"}
1995 (68th)
ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE -- The Bridges of Madison County {"Francesca Johnson"}
1998 (71st)
ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE -- One True Thing {"Kate Gulden"}
1999 (72nd)
ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE -- Music of the Heart {"Roberta Guaspari"}
2002 (75th)
ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE -- Adaptation {"Susan Orlean"}
2006 (79th)
ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE -- The Devil wears Prada

If anything the problem is Meryl is nominated she deserves it but others aren't. That's the problem. There are a lot of other actresses who are also good enough to be nominated but aren't.

WorldWar24
Feb 12th, 2007, 11:48 PM
She was very good in She-Devil.

yeh that too. But she was amazing in that movie where she played the old grey lady with many hair follicles in the mandiibular region and eyebrows, with the little children who ran away from home to a big volcano and the ugly one fell inside. I think her character was called Gandalf. She was great there. Even better than Nicole Kidman's nose in the hours. Brilliant

controlfreak
Feb 12th, 2007, 11:48 PM
I do think she is "THAT good" but at the same time 14 is an awful lot. Perhaps the ballot makers should take a moment to consider giving a nod to some of the other talented actresses out there before they nominate the Streepster yet again. I am sure the unbiased viewer could find 5 better performances than hers most years (especially when you consider how many eligible films are made these days), but of course AMPAS is hardly a club for unbiased viewers.

Hulet
Feb 12th, 2007, 11:49 PM
Kinda agree. Even though, I only watched two movies in which she acts: "Adaptation" and "The Bridges over Madison County". Both excellent movies and not because of Streeps acting but despite it, I thought. I don't know how much of a representative of her work those two performances are but, based on those, she tends to over-act parts. And, her accent in the latter movie was cringeworthy.

MrSerenaWilliams
Feb 12th, 2007, 11:53 PM
Meryl Steep isn't that good. Just like Serena :rolleyes:











THEY'RE THAT GREAT! MERYL FUCKING ROCKS! EVERY ROLE SHE PLAYS IS AMAZING! Even Death Becomes Her and Prime. I find myself watching movies JUST for HER sake....she's not that good? Well you wouldn't know good acting if it shoved and Oscar or two up your ass :o

Apoleb
Feb 13th, 2007, 12:01 AM
From your signature:

"Currently watching...Romy and Michelle's High School Reunion"

Okay, that explains it.

:haha:

This was occasionely good from Mother Marjorie.

I'd say Meryl deserves more than two Oscars.

Gonzo Hates Me!
Feb 13th, 2007, 12:19 AM
From your signature:

"Currently watching...Romy and Michelle's High School Reunion"

Okay, that explains it.

ahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!

Marshmallow
Feb 13th, 2007, 12:27 AM
Meryl Steep isn't that good. Just like Serena :rolleyes:

THEY'RE THAT GREAT! MERYL FUCKING ROCKS! EVERY ROLE SHE PLAYS IS AMAZING! Even Death Becomes Her and Prime. I find myself watching movies JUST for HER sake....she's not that good? Well you wouldn't know good acting if it shoved and Oscar or two up your ass :o

Agreed, even with the vulgar ending :p. But seriously, this must be one of the more shocking threads i've read. How can someone say something so ridiculous.

Meryl streep should have won more Oscars than she has. I have never been disappointed in her performances, not one. She makes you forget all the other characters she has ever done, and makes you forget 'Meryl' (the characters are totally unique), and she makes you believe the scenes.

She is THAT good. I think maybe some roles don't allow her to shine, but she has to be one of the most talented, EVER.

!<blocparty>!
Feb 13th, 2007, 12:50 AM
What a pathetic thread.

Meryl Streep is widely considered the most respected and talented actress of her generation. She is THAT good.

Dava
Feb 13th, 2007, 12:54 AM
There is no denying that Merly is a great actress in all she has achieved, however I can understand why people may find her annoying. Its almost like sheover acts, or at least wants to make people aware of how fab she is. I much prefer her when she relaxes and does roles like Devil Wears Prada or that generic thriller she did last year. She just seems to relax and act better.

BigB08822
Feb 13th, 2007, 12:54 AM
Meryl Streep is an AMAZING actress. Just because she has been nominated many more times than she has won means NOTHING. She has still given amazing performances year in and year out that are worthy of a nomination in the Academy's eyes. She can't always be THE best but she is always ONE OF the best. She can't be everyone's favorite but I don't see how you can watch her movies and not admit she is an amazing actress, one of the very best of her generation.

Sally Struthers
Feb 13th, 2007, 12:58 AM
being nominated 14 times means she is consistently good . Even though it is cliche, being nominated for an Oscar is a true honor unlike for some awards.

égalité
Feb 13th, 2007, 01:14 AM
I'm distantly related to Meryl Streep! :hearts:

And yeah, she's more than good enough for all the awards and nominations she's garnered.

venus_rulez
Feb 13th, 2007, 01:14 AM
I have to repeat what's already been said Meryl Streep is an acting god and one of the most talented people on the planet. If anything, I think the general concensus is that she should have at least one more Oscar to go along with her 14 nominations (that count is sure to go higher mind you) I think the trick to her is she makes you unaware she is acting because she fully embodies the characters she plays. I mean i could see you saying she wasn't you favorite or this or that but to say that Meryl Streep is a "decent actress" at best is well...ridiculous

stevos
Feb 13th, 2007, 02:02 AM
1988 (61st)
ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE -- A Cry in the Dark {"Lindy"}

She was amazing in that, blew me away.

hu2891601
Feb 13th, 2007, 02:28 AM
and YES, Meryl Streep is AMAZING!!!!! I watched several of her movies!! AMAZING!!! it's really kinda weird for someone to say Meryl's just a pretty good Actress!! She's won Oscar MORE THAN Vivian Lingh!!

and her movie "Out of Africa" with Robert Redford!! OMMMGGG
That's still THE FAV. movie for me!!

vejh
Feb 13th, 2007, 02:54 AM
She makes you forget all the other characters she has ever done, and makes you forget 'Meryl' (the characters are totally unique), and she makes you believe the scenes.

This is true, and the key to her talent and hence success. When I watched Sophie's choice, I watched a beautiful Pole (?) recount her struggles in the war. I didn't see Meryl. I was there, I felt it. When I watched the bridges of Madison County, I saw a completely different character. Then I watched a comedy like "Death becomes her" and it's a totally different actress; she makes me laugh. And I think it's so cool that even as she ages she will get great roles, diverse roles, and deliver great and diverse performances. I'm never one to rave about movies, actresses or actors, but she gets my respect in terms of her talent.

DemWilliamsGulls
Feb 13th, 2007, 03:04 AM
From your signature:

"Currently watching...Romy and Michelle's High School Reunion"

Okay, that explains it.

LOL OKAY!?!?!?! THANK YOU....Meryl Street is a dynamic actress...she deserves those nominations..she's been around for a while and she has a talent in acting...what's wrong with this boy/girl yall???

stevos
Feb 13th, 2007, 03:05 AM
You are HELLA wrong.

Discussion over.

hu2891601
Feb 13th, 2007, 03:23 AM
You are HELLA wrong.

Discussion over.



:lol: :lol:

wta_zuperfann
Feb 13th, 2007, 04:31 AM
I first saw her on Broadway in Bertolt Brecht's "The Happy End". The year was 1976. She was just awesome on stage and I have sung 'That Old Bilbao Tune' to myself ever since!

Halardfan
Feb 13th, 2007, 04:39 AM
See, Ive clearly stumbled on the Meryl Streep appreciation society, where any view other than she deserves every last damn nomination can't be tolerated...

Did I say she was a good actress? Yes. Did I suggest she had given plenty of fine performances down the years? Yes.

Again my position is that fourteen nominations is excessive.

Romy and Michelle is lightweight but likeable and fun, and Id rather watch it than some CRAP like Death Becomes Her!:p

Randy H
Feb 13th, 2007, 04:49 AM
I haven't seen even half of the movie's Meryl's been nominated for through the years so I'm not going to say definitively that she's been deserving of all nominations or not...But, from the ones I have seen, I've been very impressed and thought she was definitely worthy of the accolades she received. :)

And I must also stick up for Death Becomes Her, that movie is a classic ;) And I actually love Meryl in that movie! Every sarcastic jab, over the top reaction, or quiet moment where it's all in the facial expressions is terrific :D (But I do love Romy and Michelle too ;))

Apoleb
Feb 13th, 2007, 04:53 AM
See, Ive clearly stumbled on the Meryl Streep appreciation society,No, you've just stumbled on what most people think. The fact that very few people think that she got appreciation more than deserved (even though what she got is a lot) says even more about her talent and her influence. Meryl is a genius in acting, and saying 14 nominations is excessive is outright shit, period. And we're also talking about someone who won multiple People's Choice awards even though people know barely a thing about her private life (which is a rarity with popular celebrities).

Halardfan
Feb 13th, 2007, 04:58 AM
I haven't seen even half of the movie's Meryl's been nominated for through the years so I'm not going to say definitively that she's been deserving of all nominations or not...But, from the ones I have seen, I've been very impressed and thought she was definitely worthy of the accolades she received. :)

And I must also stick up for Death Becomes Her, that movie is a classic ;) And I actually love Meryl in that movie! Every sarcastic jab, over the top reaction, or quiet moment where it's all in the facial expressions is terrific :D (But I do love Romy and Michelle too ;))



At least you put your point in a fair and reasonnable manner Randy...

Death Becomes Her I found annoying...don't like Goldie Hawn and its one of Bruce Willis worst performances...and whisper it but Meryl isn't very good in it. Tell no one I said that!:o

pcrtennis
Feb 13th, 2007, 05:13 AM
Meryl Streep is a good actress, and has given some fine performances down the years, but I just had a glance at her Oscar nomination record and she has been nominated FOURTEEN (might have lost count) times in the acting categories, though interestingly only winning twice.

I just think that if she is in anything half-decent, she gets a default nomination, and I think it is just unfair on all those actresses out there who never get anything like that recognition but are just as talented.

Judi Dench for me is a similar example of the same effect...too many undeserved nominations.

Then you don't understand nor appreciate good acting.

Meryl Streep and Judi Dench are astonishingly good actresses

Halardfan
Feb 13th, 2007, 05:47 AM
For goodness sake...Im not saying they aren't...

What Im saying is that 14 is rather too many nominations.

Take classic hollywood actress Jean Simmons...been in more truly great films than I care to name...oscar nominations...2...Jim Carrey, Man on the moon and Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind star and Truman show star...Zero nominations.

Jim has been bloody funny in some dumb comedies with some misses along the way... but damn good in some serious roles too.

The academy has its favourites and it has those it doesnt care for...FACT.

Cage
Feb 13th, 2007, 05:49 AM
I thought her new movie was the best movie ive seen in ages and she was good in it :yeah:

azinna
Feb 13th, 2007, 06:48 AM
.....What Im saying is that 14 is rather too many nominations.....Jim has been bloody funny in some dumb comedies with some misses along the way... but damn good in some serious roles too....The academy has its favourites and it has those it doesnt care for...FACT.

Actually, your last assertion isn't fact; just speculation/opinion. But even if we were to allow that the Academy voters had their favourites, you'd have to look at the female performances of each year in which Streep was nominated to claim undue preference.

In "fact," the general buzz during the 1980s and 1990s on Meryl among the Academy voters was that she was too good, too ridiculously capable of assuming a perfect accent, perfect walk, smile, laugh, eye twitch....They of course awarded her with nominations because she regularly put in one of the top 5 acting performances in any given year. But by the time Silkwood came out, voters were looking to spread the statuette wealth around. And when, in Out of Africa, she did Karen Blixen better than Isak Dinesen would have if she'd been exhumed, the soft backlash was set. Her great performances would get recognition, but the Oscar would always got to someone else who hadn't received a couple already. Ironically, this is pretty close to what you're recommending...

Halardfan
Feb 13th, 2007, 07:48 AM
So the 14 nominations mean they are anti-Meryl?

(sigh)

Again, my assertion is that 14 is an awful lot of nominations for anyone, and that perhaps a few of them are undeserved, and the result of lazy academy voters.

The academy's tastes often stray to the worthy but dull.

Jakeev
Feb 13th, 2007, 08:51 AM
Just not sure why one would correlate multiple Oscar nominations and losses with if an actress like Meryl Streep is good or not.

How freaking stupid.

Katherine Hepburn and Bette Davis lost more nominations than they won and I don't see anyone doubting their credibility as actresses.

Meryl being nominated so many times is a testament to how good her body of work is. The fact she lost more than she has won, tells you how much better (or not) her competition has been on any given year.

*abby*
Feb 13th, 2007, 09:23 AM
judi dench is amazing, you really should go see notes on a scandal
one word-brilliant!
she should get an oscar for that

Halardfan
Feb 13th, 2007, 10:52 AM
Just not sure why one would correlate multiple Oscar nominations and losses with if an actress like Meryl Streep is good or not.

How freaking stupid.

Katherine Hepburn and Bette Davis lost more nominations than they won and I don't see anyone doubting their credibility as actresses.

Meryl being nominated so many times is a testament to how good her body of work is. The fact she lost more than she has won, tells you how much better (or not) her competition has been on any given year.

Yeah thanks for explaining that...

The thrust of my point was NOT about the ratio of wins to nominations, which I mentioned in passing.

It was that 14 nominations seemed too many, and that the Oscar voters sometimes get things wrong and have their own predictable voting patterns.

People, read my original post, you might disagree with it but I think some people have been uneccessarily aggressive in their replies, to which perhaps I have answered in kind.

jrm
Feb 13th, 2007, 10:56 AM
Someone hasn't seen Sophie's Choice :rolleyes:

Meryl is the best actress of all time!!!

Slumpsova
Feb 13th, 2007, 11:07 AM
:rolleyes:
Meryl is god.
and Judi is a god mother.

Halardfan
Feb 13th, 2007, 11:29 AM
:rolleyes:
Meryl is god.
and Judi is a god mother.

You'd think she was, with the aggression with which some people have defended her.

!<blocparty>!
Feb 13th, 2007, 02:38 PM
No, you've just stumbled on what most people think. The fact that very few people think that she got appreciation more than deserved (even though what she got is a lot) says even more about her talent and her influence. Meryl is a genius in acting, and saying 14 nominations is excessive is outright shit, period. And we're also talking about someone who won multiple People's Choice awards even though people know barely a thing about her private life (which is a rarity with popular celebrities).

Thank you very much.

LOLz, Halardfan. Jim Carrey?!!! :haha:

Says it all really.

Halardfan
Feb 13th, 2007, 03:15 PM
Thank you very much.

LOLz, Halardfan. Jim Carrey?!!! :haha:

Says it all really.

Which is just snobbery.

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Man on the Moon, and The Truman show are all movies where an oscar nomination wouldn't have been out of place for Jim...that he didn't get one for Man on the Moon is a scandal.

Plus the Oscars are never gonna see Carrey's broader dumber funnier work as 'worthy', despite the fact that I think it takes more talent to be funny on screen than it does to catch the eye in relatively obscure oscar friendly dramas.

Oh and Jim is about 1000-fold better in Lemony Snicket than a certain Meryl Streep.

Viktymise
Feb 13th, 2007, 04:39 PM
Streep is utterly fantastic and has deserved every oscar nomination she has recieved, its a crime she hasn't won more than 2 :o, Judi Dench on the other hand you could have made this thread about i mean getting nominated last year for "Mrs Henderson Presents", that film was absolute shit

tennismaster8820
Feb 13th, 2007, 04:49 PM
Which is just snobbery.

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Man on the Moon, and The Truman show are all movies where an oscar nomination wouldn't have been out of place for Jim...that he didn't get one for Man on the Moon is a scandal.

Plus the Oscars are never gonna see Carrey's broader dumber funnier work as 'worthy', despite the fact that I think it takes more talent to be funny on screen than it does to catch the eye in relatively obscure oscar friendly dramas.

Oh and Jim is about 1000-fold better in Lemony Snicket than a certain Meryl Streep.

It's your right to like whoever you want, even if most people feel differently!;)
I respect Jim Carrey even if I don't like him, but to say he deserves an oscar is just soooo :haha:!

Halardfan
Feb 13th, 2007, 05:06 PM
It is not as outlandish as you claim, he is twice winner of Best actor (in a drama and in comedy/musical) at the golden globes...which would normally mean an oscar nomination might be expected. I didnt say he should have won one but that he should have picked up a nomination by now.

moby
Feb 13th, 2007, 05:11 PM
It's your right to like whoever you want, even if most people feel differently!;)
I respect Jim Carrey even if I don't like him, but to say he deserves an oscar is just soooo :haha:!Have you watched him in a serious role? I'm guessing not. A nomination for ESOTSM wouldn't be undeserved.

Apoleb
Feb 13th, 2007, 05:35 PM
It is not as outlandish as you claim, he is twice winner of Best actor (in a drama and in comedy/musical) at the golden globes...which would normally mean an oscar nomination might be expected. I didnt say he should have won one but that he should have picked up a nomination by now.

*yawn* Fine, he probably deserved some Oscar nominations, but bringing Meryl to contrast him (as someone who got more acclaim then she deserves) is competely ridiculous. The public and the critics agree that she's an acting genius (and that is also a rarity among artists) and you have to be movie-illiterate to disagree. That's all. :lol:

Halardfan
Feb 13th, 2007, 05:46 PM
So Im right about Carrey? Thanks for admitting that.

What IS stupid is the over-reaction of some of her fans in this thread...

Youd think this threads title was “Meryl Streep is a load of sh*t” by some peoples insulting and unpleasant reactions...

To repeat...Meryl Streep...good actress...many fine performances, though in my opinion FOURTEEN oscar nominations is rather too many.

Helen Lawson
Feb 13th, 2007, 06:08 PM
She's one of the best ever. She's very versatile. A few of her nominations are a bit questionable to me, just like a weak year and she's a good one to fill in in a less than stellar film, but I'd say only a few are questionable.

Devil Wears Prada is not one of the questionable ones, to me. And "only" winning twice is normal, even for 10 plus nominations, it's tought to win three times. She's the premier film actress during the last half of the 20th century.

fnuf7
Feb 13th, 2007, 06:14 PM
I love Meryl, she's like Jack Nicholson for me where I could almost watch any of their films for days on end without getting bored :yeah: She is among my favourite actresses of all time. In fact I just bought The Devil Wears Prada on dvd today :dance:

I'm torn for this year's Oscar as I like all the actresses who are nominated...although I haven't seen Notes on a Scandal (seeing it next week :cool: ), Little Children or Volver yet... :tape: Helen Mirren probably gets the edge this year though ;)

Halardfan
Feb 13th, 2007, 06:18 PM
She's one of the best ever. She's very versatile. A few of her nominations are a bit questionable to me, just like a weak year and she's a good one to fill in in a less than stellar film, but I'd say only a few are questionable.

Devil Wears Prada is not one of the questionable ones, to me. And "only" winning twice is normal, even for 10 plus nominations, it's tought to win three times. She's the premier film actress during the last half of the 20th century.

Helen, thanks for the sensible input...I think several of her nominations are quite possibly deserved but that 14 is rather too many, I think she is good, but not as good as some do. Thats all.

Helen Lawson
Feb 13th, 2007, 06:27 PM
Helen, thanks for the sensible input...I think several of her nominations are quite possibly deserved but that 14 is rather too many, I think she is good, but not as good as some do. Thats all.

What might explain the 14 nominations is: I DO think she largely works based on projects she likes that will showcase her talent and be a challenge to her. Thus, while she has the occasional dud, she doesn't really work for "the dough" and she's probably not a crazy spender so she can afford to only take precisely what she wants. I'm not saying she's not well-paid, but I don't think money is the primary consideration. Thus, she turns out a lot of good quality work and her work gets maybe a "pass" if it falls short of being really good. Thus, but being choosy, I think that helps the level of respect for her work because she rarely does plain commercial junk or a truly bad film. A lot of other actresses, particularly former greats from the 40s like Bette Davis, spend crazily and then are/were broke by middle age and had to take junk to pay the bills after that. I think Bette Davis was a far better actress, but with the exception of Baby Jane (which some would still call crap), she didn't make a quality motion picture really after 1952 or so. Had she kept her standards up, I'm sure she'd have more than 14 nominations instead of the 10. Just my thoughts.

Halardfan
Feb 13th, 2007, 06:44 PM
Maybe my tastes are too commercial...when I see trailers for films aimed at sweeping up the oscars, my heart sinks...I generally go to the cinema to escape the worlds problems rather than be reminded of them.

That said my own film of the year would be the bleak Children of Men. So there you go.

One modern actress, also an Oscar darling, who I rate higher than Streep, would be Jodie Foster, whatever the movie it picks up when she is onscreen.

For me, Streep is an actress I admire but don't enjoy watching.

Volcana
Feb 13th, 2007, 06:51 PM
She's actually that good.

I think Cher said it first, but I've heard four or five different actors and actresses repeat it. Meryl Streep is an acting machine. The original quote was "Meryl Streep is an acting machine the way a shark is a killing machine."

I agree with the sentiment. In both cases, there's not much there that ISN'T purely designed for what they do.

Kart
Feb 13th, 2007, 07:04 PM
Fourteen nominations is a lot but I'm not sure that says as much about her as it does about her competition.

She is a very good actress after all and frankly not many others spring to mind that are consistently good like she is.

Death Becomes Her was awful though.

Helen Lawson
Feb 13th, 2007, 07:10 PM
Fourteen nominations is a lot but I'm not sure that says as much about her as it does about her competition.

She is a very good actress after all and frankly not many others spring to mind that are consistently good like she is.

Death Becomes Her was awful though.

Hon, I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE that movie! But Goldie steals it. Meryl may be a far better overall actress, but Goldie is a far superior comedienne. Just her timing and facial expressions are far more natural for comedy.

Apoleb
Feb 13th, 2007, 07:10 PM
To repeat...Meryl Streep...good actress...many fine performances:haha: See, here in many people's eyes, you directly lose credibility, cause Meryl Streep is not just a "good actress." It's your opinion not to think of her very highly (and no one is going to convince you otherwise) but I think it's good to be aware that most people think of her as phenomenal, and you're in the very small minority, so if I were you, I wouldn't ask anyone to discuss whether she's overrated and that she's not "that" good.

One can argue that when an actor/actress reaches this status, it becomes too easy to garner praise for every little step they make. This is a valid criticism and could explain the many nominations she got, just like Aretha Franklin nowadays gets Grammy's when she sneezes. But you can't argue that she's overrated. There are certain artists in their fields that have proven to have rare and immense talent beyond any shadow of doubt, and she's one of them.

Helen Lawson
Feb 13th, 2007, 07:13 PM
I'm kind of hoping that she wins the Oscar for The Devil Wears Prada. Not because I think it's really Oscar-worthy, but she does deserve No. 3 and it would be an interesting choice. I also am a little tired of all the hype around "The Queen."

Kart
Feb 13th, 2007, 07:14 PM
Hon, I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE that movie! But Goldie steals it. Meryl may be a far better overall actress, but Goldie is a far superior comedienne. Just her timing and facial expressions are far more natural for comedy.

Well if you love it, then I take my criticism back - I love it too now ;).

Goldie Hawn :worship:.

Randy H
Feb 13th, 2007, 07:54 PM
Hon, I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE that movie! But Goldie steals it. Meryl may be a far better overall actress, but Goldie is a far superior comedienne. Just her timing and facial expressions are far more natural for comedy.

Finally someone else that appreciates Death Becomes Her :hearts: :worship: ;)

Just out of curiosity Helen, which of the few nominations Meryl received did you feel could be considered questionable?

CondiLicious
Feb 13th, 2007, 07:59 PM
Meryl Streep is amazing. I used to not like her so 'cause I was obsessed with Sigourney Weaver and read that Sigourney wasn't that keen on her (they've been "rivals" since college) but then I realized that it was a pathetic reason not to like Meryl so now... YAY! She's awesome. But I still prefer Sigourney. However Meryl has made the most out of her talent, always chooses roles wisely unlike that silly Sigourney who has wasted her talent time and time again.

Halardfan
Feb 13th, 2007, 08:15 PM
I feel like Henry Fonda in 12 Angry Men in this thread...;)

Won't say who is playing the Lee J Cobb role...

Halardfan
Feb 13th, 2007, 08:29 PM
Or perhaps Winston Smith in 1984, accused of thought crime, finally broken down til he declares his love for Big Brother.

Or Meryl in this case.

Never gonna happen, Im too much of an awkward so and so...;)

Apoleb
Feb 13th, 2007, 08:33 PM
Or perhaps Winston Smith in 1984, accused of thought crime, finally broken down til he declares his love for Big Brother.

Or Meryl in this case.

Never gonna happen, Im too much of an awkward so and so...;)

:rolleyes:

I don't think anyone cares about who do you like. You asked for people's opinions on whether they think she's overrated, and you got their responses.

GoDominique
Feb 13th, 2007, 08:57 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsTuJ9FcvbU

PamShriverRockz
Feb 13th, 2007, 08:59 PM
Pffft I love Meryl Streep. She's an amazing actress. And not full of shit like a lot of 'stars' nowadays ;)

fnuf7
Feb 13th, 2007, 09:02 PM
OMG! Death Becomes Her is one of the finest comedic films made. Ever.

It is a piece of genius and everyone in the film just seems to have been right on with their timing, expressions etc. I love everything about that film :yeah:

jrm
Feb 13th, 2007, 09:13 PM
Death Becomes Her is like one of my favourite comedies of all time :lol:

watch it every time when it's on

Meryl is hillarious :bowdown:

Halardfan
Feb 13th, 2007, 09:18 PM
My opinion is some of the replies in this thread show a STAGGERING lack of tolerance for somone else's opinion...

Here are a few choice quotes...which are soooooo hilarious to you schoolyard bullies out there...

These are about my gall in suggesting Streep is a good actress, who has had many fine performances...

'how freaking stupid'

'You have to be movie illiterate...'

'Shut up'

you wouldnt know good acting if it shoved an oscar or two up your ass.'

'this must be one of the more shocking threads ive read, how can someday say something so ridiculous'.

'what a pathetic thread'

'ridiculous'

'really kinda weird'

whats wrong with this boy?

'you are hella wrong. Discussion over.'

'outright shit'

you dont understand or appreciate good acting.'

Halardfan
Feb 13th, 2007, 09:20 PM
Smell that tolerance! Bask in it! Makes you proud.

Kart
Feb 13th, 2007, 10:34 PM
My opinion is some of the replies in this thread show a STAGGERING lack of tolerance for somone else's opinion...


Not all of them do.

Halardfan
Feb 13th, 2007, 10:46 PM
As I said...some...

Its absolutely subjective, most think she is an all-time great actress, and they are entitled to that opinion.

I think she is good, and has perhaps deserved several but not all of her 14 oscar nominations.

The blame for those excessive nominations is not hers but the Academy voters, who have a long history, again in my opinion, of getting it wrong.

Again, I query whether that position justifies some of the comments in this thread. I say not. The supposed tolerance of some posters is wafer thin.

Kart
Feb 13th, 2007, 11:12 PM
Again, I query whether that position justifies some of the comments in this thread. I say not. The supposed tolerance of some posters is wafer thin.

This is WTAworld - you know the score, you've been here longer than I have :p.

The Oscars are all about academy politics I agree but then the same could be applied to most award ceremonies :shrug:.

Jakeev
Feb 14th, 2007, 03:20 AM
My opinion is some of the replies in this thread show a STAGGERING lack of tolerance for somone else's opinion...

Here are a few choice quotes...which are soooooo hilarious to you schoolyard bullies out there...

These are about my gall in suggesting Streep is a good actress, who has had many fine performances...

'how freaking stupid'

'

Sorry but I am not apologizing. Perhaps if you has a more valid argument I might have even respected your opinion.

Perhaps you need to reread what you wrote and perhaps you might understand why nobody is throwing you a bone......

Apoleb
Feb 14th, 2007, 03:27 AM
:haha: @ that list of insults. I almost spit my water, though I do think it's kinda fair and sums up this thread pretty well.




Its absolutely subjective.

No it's not. Otherwise, not so many people would have thought she's great. Anyway, one reason your arguments were treated so harshly is that you brought nothing to defend them. In which movies did you think she didn't deserve a nomination? Who was more worthy in that particular year? What is the bad thing about her acting? What you said is not dissimilar for example from someone saying Stevie Wonder is overrated. Those people have just so much wide respect, that you better be prepared for a good argument to back up whatever you're saying.

Halardfan
Feb 14th, 2007, 03:28 AM
Not expecting apologies not wanting them.

If I didnt know the score before I do now.

stevos
Feb 14th, 2007, 03:36 AM
I love that you changed your sig :haha:

Peer pressure is still alive and well :hug:

Halardfan
Feb 14th, 2007, 03:45 AM
It IS subjective...if I say I dont like film x and I found her performance annoying, then that is my truthful opinion...but I cant PROVE it was anymore than you can PROVE it wasnt...

If some think its the best film ever, than that too is only there opinion.

You theory that if only Id critcised more specific things, or MORE movies things would have been better, is funny!

If my gut instinct was that she was overrated before, its only redoubled now.

Apoleb
Feb 14th, 2007, 03:53 AM
It IS subjective...if I say I dont like film x and I found her performance annoying, then that is my truthful opinion...but I cant PROVE it was anymore than you can PROVE it wasnt...

If some think its the best film ever, than that too is only there opinion.

You theory that if only Id critcised more specific things, or MORE movies things would have been better, is funny!

If my gut instinct was that she was overrated before, its only redoubled now.

It is partly subjective, I agree, but there are also stuff that the big majority of people agree on, so it's not like you can say Madonna is the best actress ever and still get away with that.

Anyway, yes, if you brought a specific criticism, things would've been better. Instead, you came up with such a big statement that she isn't "that good" (i.e she's overrated) without really backing this up with anything. So it's natural why people would get on your ass (and rightfully too), because the public and the critics agree that she's a phenomenal talent. Anyway, *yawn*.

Halardfan
Feb 14th, 2007, 04:04 AM
Yawn is right.

TennisSTUD
Feb 14th, 2007, 06:06 AM
Its Not About who Hasnt Been Nominated Yet, Its About who Is Better That Year And Every Year She Beats Someone Out. She Is Just That Much Better.

Jakeev
Feb 14th, 2007, 06:07 AM
It is partly subjective, I agree, but there are also stuff that the big majority of people agree on, so it's not like you can say Madonna is the best actress ever and still get away with that.

Anyway, yes, if you brought a specific criticism, things would've been better. Instead, you came up with such a big statement that she isn't "that good" (i.e she's overrated) without really backing this up with anything. So it's natural why people would get on your ass (and rightfully too), because the public and the critics agree that she's a phenomenal talent. Anyway, *yawn*.


Thankkkkkkkkkkkk youuuuuuuuuu!!! but the poster isn't getting it anyway so frankly this particular topic is actually over at least for me......

Stamp Paid
Feb 14th, 2007, 06:08 AM
Do I have poor taste, or is Death Becomes Her one of her greatest performances? :o

wateva
Feb 14th, 2007, 06:20 AM
she has 14 nominations because she gave one of the five best performances for that year. what's so mind-boggling about that?
if we put it to tennis terms, she's a top player who consistently reaches the latter stages of a tournament. the others have an occasional good run in a tournament but seldom repeat their performances though. ;)

Halardfan
Feb 14th, 2007, 08:01 AM
The tennis thing doesnt apply as tennis relies on actual results directly achieved by a player...

Oscars come from the subjective opinions of Oscar voters...

Do I believe she has been nominated too often, yes.. Am I allowed that opinion, yes. Is it of equal worth to anyone elses, yes.

Is it possible to somehow prove me right or wrong? No. Because I am free to like a film or not, to enjoy a performance or not.

jrm
Feb 14th, 2007, 11:32 AM
If she isn't 'good' what makes that others :shrug:

What makes her great: bad movie, bad script and she still pulls an excellent performance :bowdown:

Halardfan
Feb 14th, 2007, 12:12 PM
All of which opinion you are totally entitled to.

For me there are many actresses I would rather watch and appreciate...not for you, for me.

Generally speaking, I dont enjoy the kind of films in which she appears...personally they leave me cold, while I can appreciate there is real talent there, it doesnt grab me...

That doesnt make the various charming things people have said about me in this thread true...while some but not all of you are more knowledgable about films than me, I love movies and have a real passion for them.

At the end of the day the opinions of people who love everthing she does are not going to change...and my opinion wont change either...

Refering back to my first words in the thread, I think she is a good actress who often gives fine performances. My praise isnt high enough for many tastes, but there it is.

vesanto
Feb 14th, 2007, 12:22 PM
Meryl Streep is a GREAT actress, she is amazing in everything she does...she deserves all the credit she has.

Zummi
Feb 14th, 2007, 04:44 PM
This is very subjective. Not everyone has been overawed by Meryl's acting skills. Katharine Hepburn, for instance, was dismissive of Meryl's acting as was documented in her posthumusly-published biography. Halardfan is not alone here.

At first glance, you might think there might be some sort of regional bias involved since Meryl is American and most Academy members are American as well. But then while she has been nominated 14 times at the Oscars, she also holds 11 BAFTA nominations so obviously, the respect and esteem comes from all sides.

I'm curious why Halardfan refuses to state which nominations he thinks were undeserved. And who was more deserving of a nomination that year. Looking over her 14 noms again, the only one I think she might have gotten on name alone was 1999 with "Music of the Heart"...

Helen Lawson
Feb 14th, 2007, 04:50 PM
This is very subjective. Not everyone has been overawed by Meryl's acting skills. Katharine Hepburn, for instance, was dismissive of Meryl's acting as was documented in her posthumusly-published biography. Halardfan is not alone here.

At first glance, you might think there might be some sort of regional bias involved since Meryl is American and most Academy members are American as well. But then while she has been nominated 14 times at the Oscars, she also holds 11 BAFTA nominations so obviously, the respect and esteem comes from all sides.

I'm curious why Halardfan refuses to state which nominations he thinks were undeserved. And who was more deserving of a nomination that year. Looking over her 14 noms again, the only one I think she might have gotten on name alone was 1999 with "Music of the Heart"...

I thought Postcards from the Edge was pretty weak. She's not gifted at comedy and was too old for the part. I just thought she was not believable and was miscast.

BigB08822
Feb 14th, 2007, 05:11 PM
It would be so much better if you just came on here and gave up specific examples of which movies you think she SHOULDN'T have been nominated for. Id be surprised if you could even name 5 movies Meryl has done without googling it, much less argue your point. You don't like her, fine, but don't dismiss her talent without being ready to defend your reasons.

Halardfan
Feb 14th, 2007, 05:12 PM
Two interesting posts...although Helen has stated in this thread her immense respect for Streep, and that she rates her as the premier actress of the late 20th century, she is reasonable enough to see that some of the nominations at least open to sensible question and debate...

Zummi, the main reason I dont want to name particular nominations now, is that Im weary of it all...Ive had plenty of abuse in here already so I dont want to attract even more by slagging of their most beloved films...havent got the energy.

Apoleb
Feb 14th, 2007, 05:14 PM
It would be so much better if you just came on here and gave up specific examples of which movies you think she SHOULDN'T have been nominated for. Id be surprised if you could even name 5 movies Meryl has done without googling it, much less argue your point. You don't like her, fine, but don't dismiss her talent without being ready to defend your reasons.

:haha: Exactly.

Halardfan
Feb 14th, 2007, 05:19 PM
It would be so much better if you just came on here and gave up specific examples of which movies you think she SHOULDN'T have been nominated for. Id be surprised if you could even name 5 movies Meryl has done without googling it, much less argue your point. You don't like her, fine, but don't dismiss her talent without being ready to defend your reasons.

I didnt dismiss her talent read what I said. So many people havent read what I bloody said.

It would be soooooo much better to name a film I didnt like....yeah right...that'll cut out the abuse!


:lol:

cellophane
Feb 14th, 2007, 05:20 PM
The Oscars are shit anyway. In the stuff I've seen from Streep, she tends to overact and grate.

Helen Lawson
Feb 14th, 2007, 05:21 PM
Two interesting posts...although Helen has stated in this thread her immense respect for Streep, and that she rates her as the premier actress of the late 20th century, she is reasonable enough to see that some of the nominations at least open to sensible question and debate...

Zummi, the main reason I dont want to name particular nominations now, is that Im weary of it all...Ive had plenty of abuse in here already so I dont want to attract even more by slagging of their most beloved films...havent got the energy.


Well, hell, I'll do it. The one where the dongos took her baby, "Cry in the Dark." It was ok, but I think if a lesser-known actress did that part, or an actual Australian one, there would have been no nomination. Again, I've identified Postcards from the Edge. The one Zummi identified is another. I personally couldn't stand Ironweed or Bridges of Madison County, but I can't say they didn't rate a nomination. Loved Silkwood, French Lt's Woman, Kramer, etc. Oddly, I don't think Sophie's Choice has aged well, not the performance, just the film itself, but that's abviously her tour-de-force. Adaptation, I thought she was marvelous, and a very different role. She seemed truly miffed when she lost the Oscar. I think it was her best chance for No. 3.
I watched Death Becomes Her last night. Great!!! Goldie really made that film, but Streep held her own, she can do comedy, but not like Goldie Hawn.

cellophane
Feb 14th, 2007, 05:23 PM
No it's not. Otherwise, not so many people would have thought she's great.

If a million people buy Britney's music, it doesn't mean she is great. :shrug: Well, that comparison is sorta silly... but it's true.

Apoleb
Feb 14th, 2007, 05:31 PM
If a million people buy Britney's music, it doesn't mean she is great. :shrug:

That has nothing to do with what I said. My point was that it's not all subjective. There's also some level of objectivity in judging a good actor/singer or whatever. And anyway, not a lot of people think of Britney as a great musician.

When it comes down to it, yes, Meryl was probably given a couple of undeserved nods, and like I said in a previous post, that's natural, because when someone reaches such a status, it becomes too easy to award everything he/she does (like the Grammy's do nowadays with Aretha and Stevie). But that doesn't mean that she doesn't deserve all the acclaim and the respect she has. I think she's easily in the top 4 of the best actresses in her generation. And that's really a very hard point to argue against, unless you come with specifics.

Halardfan
Feb 14th, 2007, 05:33 PM
Right Ive checked the list...out of the 14 believe it or not there are ones I havent seen, sacrilige I know!


Ill name three films I dont like...

Bridges of Madison County...

Postcards from the Edge...

And here's the one that will outrage people...

Out of Africa.

Ah, that cleared the air... (cough)

cellophane
Feb 14th, 2007, 05:40 PM
That has nothing to do with what I said. My point was that it's not all subjective. There's also some level of objectivity in judging a good actor/singer or whatever. And anyway, not a lot of people think of Britney as a great musician.

Well, you did say that popularity means it's not subjective... meaning that we should go by it? Although, yeah, it's not that subjective... but awards/acclaim aren't really a measuring stick. Not the Oscars at least IMO.

Halardfan
Feb 14th, 2007, 05:42 PM
Oh, I missed out a Cry in the Dark, didnt rate it...

tennismaster8820
Feb 14th, 2007, 05:51 PM
Have you watched him in a serious role? I'm guessing not. A nomination for ESOTSM wouldn't be undeserved.

Yes I did and although he is a good actor he can't be compared with Meryl!
That's why I said it was funny!
I'm not a fan of Meryl Streep as a person because I don't know much about her, all I see is her acting and that's enough to say that she is in a league of her own! She always menages to transform herself to the character she is in a movie and you forget that it's Meryl!

Apoleb
Feb 14th, 2007, 05:51 PM
Well, you did say that popularity means it's not subjective... meaning that we should go by it? Although, yeah, it's not that subjective... but awards/acclaim aren't really a measuring stick.

No I didn't say we should go by "popularity." When most people agree about something, it can't be completely subjective. That's just simple logic, and part of the definition of objective/subjective. What I meant is that one's opinion doesn't necessarily have to be respected out of the "subjectivity pass" because clearly juding who's a good actor and who's not is not completely subjective. And your Britney Spears analogy is wrong, because it's not like she's seen as a great musician, even by those who buy her CDs. Musicmaking is complex and doesn't depend on just what the singer does. Those who liked Stars Are Blind (and I'm one of them) agree that Paris Hilton is not talented. LOL, I think we're getting in too deep. And I agree awards aren't a measuring stick, but when someone gets so much wide acclaim, then there must be something to it, you know.

alfonsojose
Feb 14th, 2007, 06:05 PM
A bit :topic: but what about Julian Moore? Will she be the next Glenn Close .. so close :sad:

cellophane
Feb 14th, 2007, 06:09 PM
No I didn't say we should go by "popularity." When most people agree about something, it can't be completely subjective. That's just simple logic, and part of the definition of objective/subjective. What I meant is that one's opinion doesn't necessarily have to be respected out of the "subjectivity pass" because clearly juding who's a good actor and who's not is not completely subjective.

What does whether a lot of people agree on something or not have to do with it being objective? :scratch: If you are not saying we should go by popularity, you are at least saying we should take it into strong consideration? Otherwise, why would you be saying it indicates it's objective.


And your Britney Spears analogy is wrong, because it's not like she's seen as a great musician, even by those who buy her CDs. Musicmaking is complex and doesn't depend on just what the singer does. Those who liked Stars Are Blind (and I'm one of them) agree that Paris Hilton is not talented. LOL, I think we're getting in too deep.Britney may not be the best example, but you can find tons of examples where a lot of people think (or thought) something is good, but that doesn't mean anything. It's like politics.

Apoleb
Feb 14th, 2007, 06:18 PM
What does whether a lot of people agree on something or not have to do with it being objective? :scratch: If you are not saying we should go by popularity, you are at least saying we should take it into strong consideration? Otherwise, why would you be saying it indicates it's objective.OK I'll repeat. No, I don't think popularity is a measuring stick, meaning if A is more popular than B, it doesn't mean we should all think A is better than B. BUT, when the big majority of people agree on something, and someone gets so much wide acclaim and respect, it must mean something, and I don't consider that a biblical truth either. But at least if you want to make an opinion against that, make sure it's very well supported or you'll come up as a fool. So I think it's quite straightforward on this issue. Popularity means something when it's nearly unanimous. The whole point I made about subjectivity/objectivity, is that you can't get away with any opinion because it's partly subjective. If you think that, say, Madonna is an acting genius, then you're fucking idiot.

Britney may not be the best example, but you can find tons of examples where a lot of people think (or thought) something is good, but that doesn't mean anything.Britney is actually a horrible example, cause you seriously can't compare the respect Britney gets with that Meryl gets. Who respects Britney?

vejh
Feb 14th, 2007, 06:20 PM
You know, you may not like a film, but still acknowledge the good acting. And where it specifically concerns an actress/actor, you can see the body of work and conclude that all across the board he/she is okay, average, horrible, not worth a lick, good, great, out of this world, extraordinary, etc ;)

Halardfan
Feb 14th, 2007, 06:36 PM
A bit :topic: but what about Julian Moore? Will she be the next Glenn Close .. so close :sad:

Now your talking...I think she is a class act...and as I mentioned, Children of Men is my own fave film of the year...

cellophane
Feb 14th, 2007, 06:47 PM
OK I'll repeat. No, I don't think popularity is a measuring stick, meaning if A is more popular than B, it doesn't mean we should all think A is better than B. BUT, when the big majority of people agree on something, and someone gets so much wide acclaim and respect, it must mean something.

That's only true for some things and not others. Acting maybe. Not politics. And anyway, Oscars are political.

Britney is actually a horrible example, cause you seriously can't compare the respect Britney gets with that Meryl gets. Who respects Britney?

I was using this example to say that popularity doesn't mean anything. But how is acclaim better?

meyerpl
Feb 14th, 2007, 07:17 PM
I believe one measure of the quality of an actor is whether they can emotionally affect audiences in a profound and lasting way.

Meryl Streep left an indelible mark on audiences with certain performances; Sophie's Choice comes to mind.

Apoleb
Feb 14th, 2007, 07:34 PM
That's only true for some things and not others. Acting maybe. Not politics. And anyway, Oscars are political.



I was using this example to say that popularity doesn't mean anything. But how is acclaim better?

So you first tell me that it may be true for acting, then you tell me it doesn't mean anything? Which statement I made about acclaim that you're critisizing anyway, cause I think you misunderstood what you first quoted. I don't recall saying that acclaim means everything, but if someone got so much wide respect, then it's most likely for a very good reason, and if you're going to make a counter-argument, at least make sure it's supported. That's what I said in the full post that you quoted a part of.

And ofcourse I wasn't talking about everything, but more specifically about arts. And the Oscars may be political, but that is no argument to say that Meryl is overrated, cause the respect she gets isn't just from the Oscars.

Geisha
Feb 14th, 2007, 08:04 PM
She is pretty damn good in the devil wears prada, kinda make the film better with her performance alone.

The Devil Wears Prada is an average movie with an average scripts and average writers. To me, it is no different than The Sweetest Thing.

Meryl turns it into something spectacular. An award-winning movie. She's incredible.

Halardfan
Feb 14th, 2007, 08:20 PM
To recap, Other actresses I rate...

Glenn Close
Jodie Foster
Zhang Ziyi (Though Im swayed by her immense beauty!)
Julliane Moore
Jennifer Jason Leigh
Nicole Kidman

Ill think of some others...

Halardfan
Feb 14th, 2007, 08:35 PM
Just totted up the total oscar nominations of the generally critcally highly acclaimed six actresses I mentioned above...

All together they have 15, one more than Meryl by herself...

I think Jodie Foster is better than Meryl, she has a relatively paltry 4 nominations.

14 by any sensible measure is an awful lot.

I still suggest too many.

cellophane
Feb 14th, 2007, 09:01 PM
So you first tell me that it may be true for acting, then you tell me it doesn't mean anything? Which statement I made about acclaim that you're critisizing anyway, cause I think you misunderstood what you first quoted. I don't recall saying that acclaim means everything, but if someone got so much wide respect, then it's most likely for a very good reason, and if you're going to make a counter-argument, at least make sure it's supported. That's what I said in the full post that you quoted a part of.

Well, I didn't say it didn't mean *anything* at all. I just don't think "if someone gets a lot of acclaim, it's for a good reason" is a good argument. Halle Berry gots lots of widespread acclaim for Monster's Ball... there is a slew of critics who thought she completely overacted. Yeah, I realize it's just one movie, but the whole point is that acting is sufficiently subjective.

champGS1452
Feb 14th, 2007, 11:00 PM
I'm not a big Meryl fan,but you can't deny she's brilliant and the best. I loved her in Death Becomes Her, which is her most underrated role IMO. The only time I believe she was really outacted was in The Hours by Julianne Moore,amazing performance. I can't believe Nicole (who was good but the weakest of the three) won the oscar over Julianne for that movie.

Though I'm not sure Meryl should have been nominated for Best Actress for Devil Wears Prada. Her role seemed more supporting to me.