Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

I cannot believe Meryl Streep made such a horrid, dreadful movie called Hope Springs. It is PURE DRECK!

The movie is embarrassing it so bad and such low quality.

Painful to watch!

by Anonymousreply 11604/03/2013

Worldwide: $109,003,985t. Pays the bills for a lot of people. Be my guest if you can do better. My daughter is having a divorce over here, do you have to challenge me every night????

by Anonymousreply 104/01/2013

Don't worry, M. Your precious Mamie is spending the night with Harry and me. She needed a warm, comforting shoulder to cry on, so naturally she showed up on my welcoming door step. And I agree with OP, Hope Springs was painful. You should really choose your projects more wisely, M. Must go, Mamie is crying out for me. Best to Don.

by Anonymousreply 204/01/2013

I watched 2/3 of Hope Springs on cable this weekend and I was horrified.

I could not finish watching it.

The script and dialogue were horrible and so simple-minded as to be very insulting.

For two such fantastic actors (Meryl and Tommy Lee Jones) to be in such dreck is unbelievable.

by Anonymousreply 304/01/2013

Wait... who is Maeve?

by Anonymousreply 404/01/2013

Richard Roeper said it was one of the best movies of the year. A+!

by Anonymousreply 504/01/2013

R4, Maeve Kinkead, Meryl's sister-in-law. She was on "Guiding Light" for many years.

by Anonymousreply 604/01/2013

It really was awful.

by Anonymousreply 704/01/2013

They should've spent more on her wig. It looks like they just recycled the one from One True Thing.

by Anonymousreply 804/01/2013

There are a lot of geezer baby boomers worldwide who love this kind of dreck. So expect more and more of it until they are all in nursing homes and not buying movie tickets.

by Anonymousreply 904/01/2013

It just shows you that even Streep has to be in dreck to pay her bills.

by Anonymousreply 1004/01/2013

She had to have a down year - she'll be back with August Osage County next year and bitch will be nominated again.

by Anonymousreply 1104/01/2013

She has a family to support. Lord knows none of the Gummers generate any income.

by Anonymousreply 1204/01/2013

R9, I am the OP and R3 and I am a baby boomer.

I was shocked and horrified by what terrible dreck Hope Springs is.

One of the worst movies of all time.

Just gargantuanly horrid.

I still cannot believe that Meryl and Tommy Lee Jones were in this horrendous film with its ridiculous script and dialogue.

I guess Meryl has stooped to idiot films to make money just as Robert Dinero has.

by Anonymousreply 1304/01/2013

HOW COULD YOU? IT"S MANNA FROM HEAVEN!!

by Anonymousreply 1404/01/2013

I'm sorry, but in terms of Streep dreck, nothing can top the horror that is "Mamma Mia!" And really, if you look at her oeuvre over the past decade, most of it is crap. "It's Complicated"? "Rendition"? Such a pity M. is so quick to whore out her "talents"...

by Anonymousreply 1504/01/2013

Streep has done more shitty movies then good ones. Why are you surprised OP?

by Anonymousreply 1604/01/2013

The only good thing that I can say about that film is that Streep got to work with Tommy Lee Jones (they are great together), and it addressed a taboo subject for Hollywood (sexual desire for women). But it was schmaltzy and I hate how David Frankel used music in the film.

It has been noted before, but Streep needs to work with better directors. I would love to see her work with David Fincher, Martin Scorsese, and Paul Thomas Anderson. Tarantino wants to work with her, so she can um, elevate? Or Almodovar, that would be great.

by Anonymousreply 1704/01/2013

Meryl and Almodovar? THAT would be interesting. Especially if Pedro could uncork Meryl's perpetually clenched ass.

by Anonymousreply 1804/01/2013

I noticed how terrible the musical sound track was too, R17. It was very noticeable in its awfulness. Very schmaltzy music with silly inane lyrics.

by Anonymousreply 1904/01/2013

I can't think of any roles in movies of Scorsese, PTA, etc, recently that she could play. She's a rainmaker, getting things made on her name alone - they're crap, but no other over-40 actress can say the same.

by Anonymousreply 2004/01/2013

There's other actresses over 40 that get greenlighted but profit is another thing. Meryl plays it safe with chick flicks and Oscar Bait films.

by Anonymousreply 2104/01/2013

Boring.

And nothing like watching Mer' diddle herself whilst watching with your mom (although, mums probably didn't have any idea what was going on).

by Anonymousreply 2204/01/2013

She obviously has plenty of money. It could be that she craves the attention/spotlight.

by Anonymousreply 2304/01/2013

Sandra Bullock and Meryl Streep may be the ONLY actresses over 40 that can get things green-lit now. Maybe Julia Roberts when she comes out of the barn and throws on some makeup. Everyone else is fighting for scraps in indies or television, or a supporting role.

Streep is one of the few commercial movie actresses. She makes money for studios. That said, yes, elevate.

by Anonymousreply 2404/01/2013

Streep is having the career that Davis only dreamed of having. I think we take granted her acting talents. All the accent stuff gets boring. But she is very watchable. Even in this shit. I agree with R17. Great chemistry with Jones. Imagine them together in a real film about older people falling in love.

Scorsese doesn't really like complex, mature women in his movies. He is still making films to impress other boys.

Would love to do a comedy like "Auntie Mame" . See how she is in drag. She should play Momma Rose.

by Anonymousreply 2504/01/2013

r16 is correct.

Meryl is fun and lovely and very talented, but she made a lot of mediocre to bad films. Other than a few great arias, she is simply not as good an actress as Jessica Lange, Julianne Moore, Bette Davis, Maggie Smith, and others.

Her list of good films is very short, and her choice of material is eclectic but strange. I don't think that she looks for good scripts as much as personal challenges to explore new tricks and techniques. There can be no other reason.

She likes to try to play ordinary people but excels only in grand portrayals with lots of busy business. She is very good at comedy, too.

Technically she is very good, but not as great as some others where the seams don't show so much in their work.

I like her though. She knows that she is good, but gets that she is an empress with little clothing, and that she could never sustain people's interest in a great television role. She is the aria, not the full opera.

by Anonymousreply 2604/01/2013

Scorcese has always struggled with female roles. That's the reason he made Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore. He wanted to prove he can make a female centric film. Luckly he had a great actress but hasn't attempted that again.

by Anonymousreply 2704/01/2013

Streep has made good films. Sophie's Choice, The Devil Wears Prada, Kramer vs. Kramer, Out of Africa, The Bridges of Madison County, Julie & Julia, Doubt, The Deer Hunter, Silkwood, and Adaptation. I am against the meme that only men can make good films, so I try and give her credit where it's due.

by Anonymousreply 2804/01/2013

There's plently of women who have done great films. In fact, I think people recognize more female great actresses then male actors r28.

But you must remove Julie&Julia and Doubt from that list. Thank god you didn't include the Iron Maiden.

by Anonymousreply 2904/01/2013

And don't you bitches forget Action Figure Meryl from The River Wild!

by Anonymousreply 3004/01/2013

I like Doubt, for the four great performances. No comment regarding The Iron Lady.

by Anonymousreply 3104/01/2013

I liked her a lot in this movie. She showed her arm waddles and gave Tommy Lee Jones head in a movie theater. I thought this movie had a strong point of view about communication in long term relationships.

It wasn't perfect and it wasn't one of the best movies of the year but it wasn't nearly as bad as you queens suggest.

by Anonymousreply 3204/01/2013

The last thing the world needs is to see Tommy Lee Jones getting head in a movie theater.

by Anonymousreply 3304/01/2013

I think she is commercial (synonym: whore). If there's money to pay her, and likely to be money on the backend, she'll do it. She doesn't challenge herself. She could "afford" to do theater and many of the great English actresses did return to the stage until age or illness stopped them -- it meant they were always interesting. She could afford to do interesting indie movies, in fact, on her name, a fascinating and challenging director could get a potentially brilliant project funded. But she only wants the money of the faithful, and their unthinking praise (Julie and Julia? As big a piece of shit as ever there was. Dan Akroyd was a better Julia Child!!). She has long ago forgone any sense of "art". I know that's a bad word in America today, but she is one of the few "stars" who could do something about the truly awful movies that clog the drains of the multi-plexes. I actually know her, and I have a lot of contempt for her in the business; she's nice enough and certainly not a monster, but she's a coward, stingy with her gift.

by Anonymousreply 3404/01/2013

r28

This is not a best Meryl Streep films thread.

I agree with all of your choices except Julie and Julia, a bad and completely pointless film, except for the rolling out of a new Meryl impersonation.

Take those good films, and add Death Becomes Her and The Hours and you pretty much have it. Credit where due. Not bad, but...

Not a filmography that matches her exalted reputation.

Someone once critiqued Bette Davis' later career saying that only bad films were good enough for her to show off her art. They were not being kind. Meryl is getting close.

She needs to work with some great directors, but maybe they don't want her? She is more likely to take over for Shirley Maclaine. Showy character parts in some good and some terrible movies.

We'll always have Africa. Sophie's gorgeous face and music. And Silkwood, her best film.

by Anonymousreply 3504/01/2013

Can I get a triple Mary with 4 snaps up?

by Anonymousreply 3604/01/2013

I think her reputation will start to take a hit from pretty much what r34 is saying.

Before, it was rare for someone to say she was a bad actress during her career high, but now I've seen more recognition of doing bad films with meh performances. Might be the undeserved nominations lately that are causing this shift.

by Anonymousreply 3704/01/2013

Americans nowadays don't write many great characters for women (young or old) in movies. TV is where it's happening. Deneuve who is also a senior citizen often appears in much deeper and more interesting material than Streep does.

by Anonymousreply 3804/01/2013

You may need to take St. Meryl off the cross. She has August: Osage County and The Homesman coming up. These seem like traditional dramas, which are needed at the movies.

by Anonymousreply 3904/01/2013

What R38 said. It also seems like Meryl is such a control freak she can't work with a director that might actually get the upper hand. There are alot of newbie directors on her resume of late.

by Anonymousreply 4004/01/2013

[quote]Robert Dinero

Too funny, R13!

by Anonymousreply 4104/01/2013

This was a remake of the silent film classic that starred Isadora Burnwood. She played it on stage in London. remakes never work out well.

by Anonymousreply 4204/01/2013

[quote]Sandra Bullock and Meryl Streep may be the ONLY actresses over 40 that can get things green-lit now.

If that's true then why doesn't she use her influence to get good scripts financed? She can't possibly think that Hope Springs is anything but shyte.

I tend to believe that R34 is closer to the truth.

by Anonymousreply 4304/01/2013

Uh, maybe she just has pedestrian taste.

by Anonymousreply 4404/01/2013

Sometimes when a good actor does a crap movie, it might be a bit of horse trading. For instance, if the studio gives Meryl Adaptation, she agrees to do a studio shit film as well and she just picks the best of the bunch.

by Anonymousreply 4504/01/2013

Streep has never been an edgy artist.

by Anonymousreply 4604/01/2013

Don't say dreck

by Anonymousreply 4704/01/2013

So Meryl gives Tommy head in this? Well, I have to see that scene at least.

by Anonymousreply 4804/01/2013

Hope Springs is meh. Move on. She probably thought, I know David Frankel and I get to work with Tommy Lee Jones. I hope people like it and it makes money. The end. She's never been a producer, or edgy, and I think whore is kind of harsh. She's just an actor. Success triggers jealousy.

by Anonymousreply 4904/01/2013

R45, its not the 1940s and I don't think anyone is telling Meryl what to do. Also, when Adaptation was made she hadn't fully made her comeback yet. Adaptation was sold as the new movie from the Being John Malkovich crew.

by Anonymousreply 5004/01/2013

But how can [R38] KNOW what is being written? Does s/he see the scripts that get to the point of circulating among people who might invest in a production? A big star like Streep could have made a difference -- though it's getting late for her now -- choosing to alternate smaller or carefully budgeted movies about interesting and complex women, with the movies that kept her rep as a commercial power alive.

Without spending a lot or even any of her own money she could have been involved in the development and production of movies that do feature strong women's parts. One can deride Clooney as some do here, but once he became very rich (which Streep has been for thirty years) he began to produce smaller movies about subjects that interested him and were of interest about America in the 20th century. They are simply done and not all masterpieces but most are interesting, provide him with powerful roles and say something about how we live now. I believe he has spent some of his own money in doing this, but is enough of a star to keep the dough rolling in through The Oceans Eleven series for example. It's a far more serious and compelling career than what Streep has chosen to do. He may be less talented but I think he's more meaningful, Streep has whored her talent out to very well paying crap like Mamma Mia or The Iron Lady, another sentimental, right wing piece of propaganda shit, or the recent embarrassing crap like Jules and Julia or the "I'm a feisty and still sexy older lady" soaps, badly written and foolish in content. It's a waste.

by Anonymousreply 5104/02/2013

I am impressed with both of your posts r51.

If she really is the serious actress that some think she is, then why no stage work and more complex roles in unexpected films.

Angels in America was pretty great, but a long time ago now.....

Disappointing.

by Anonymousreply 5204/02/2013

OP must've missed It's Complicated.

by Anonymousreply 5304/02/2013

Love the bitches on DL!

Long lists of clunkers in Bette Davis' career and in many other careers including male actors as well. Does the name DeNiro strike a bell? No more or less in Streep's career.

by Anonymousreply 5404/02/2013

[quote]She obviously has plenty of money. It could be that she craves the attention/spotlight.

An ACTOR craves the attention/spotlight? C'mon, get outta here. She doesn't want to produce. She's an actor and takes what is offered at her price and as close to home as possible.

[quote]She won't commit to a project unless she's guaranteed nights at her Connecticut home. For "One True Thing," which was shot in Princeton, N.J., Streep commuted to work every day by helicopter. "My kids have no interest in what I do all day long," she swears, "but they do care that I'm home at night to tell them where their clean underwear is."

Lots of actors make their movie, do the promotion and never think of it again. Many never see the work. Most of you think of actors as real Norma Desmond's sitting home having movie nights of their own films. She probably hasn't thought of this film since the day it opened and she said thank you to limo driver who brought her home from the last talk show.

by Anonymousreply 5504/02/2013

"she is simply not as good an actress as Jessica Lange, Julianne Moore, Bette Davis, Maggie Smith"

how cute.

Lange has played the same spaced-out character for 30 years, and Smith plays an aristocratic bitch in every single movie.

But yes, Meryl Streep - who is radically different from role to role - is a lesser actress than those two overrated performers.

LOL!

by Anonymousreply 5604/02/2013

Who cares if the movie was maudlin dreck?

Streep turned in a stellar performance, as usual, and so did TLJ.

And it bears repeating: why don't the 'great directors' such as Scorsese et al. write interesting parts for women her age?

True to sexist fashion, everyone is jumping on Streep for not appearing in 'elevated material' -- instead of going at the source, which happens to be controlled by MEN.

Btw, Alomodovar refuses to work in Hollywood, and Streep doesn't speak Spanish. He's also past his prime.

QT is too gimmicky a director. She would be reduced to a cartoon character in his films.

And Scorsese churns out over-produced, boring films these days. Why should she even approach him?

She ought to work with Lars von Trier or Michael Haneke. THAT would be interesting.

by Anonymousreply 5704/02/2013

'Her list of good films is very short'

Jessica Lange's list of good films is even shorter.

by Anonymousreply 5804/02/2013

'She likes to try to play ordinary people but excels only in grand portrayals'

She excelled as ordinary women in Marvin's Room, One True Thing, Bridges of Madison County, Silkwood, Deer Hunter, Kramer vs. Kramer, and yes, Hope Springs.

The detractors are reaching, as usual.

by Anonymousreply 5904/02/2013

Actually R34, she doesn't necessarily do it for the money. When she was filming The Iron Lady she regularly waived overtime fees because it would've bankrupted the production.

by Anonymousreply 6004/02/2013

[quote]Her list of good films is very short

THE list of good films is very short. Of all the thousands of films produced each year, how many are actually good?

The only actor who is deemed to have a perfect record was John Cazale who made five classics in a row starting with his debut in "The Godfather", Coppola's "The Conversation", "The Godfather Part II", "Dog Day Afternoon", and "The Deer Hunter" and promptly dropped dead. He met Meryl during "The Deer Hunter" and were in a relationship when he died.

by Anonymousreply 6104/02/2013

It was not a great movie but it was not as bad as you bitchy film queens make it out to be. It was an honest portrayal of a late middle-aged couple's marital woes and ultimate re-commitment to each other.

by Anonymousreply 6204/02/2013

Streep makes the art film and then she makes the Bread and Butter film.

Pity for the actor that only makes the Bread and Butter film: Rudd, Aniston, McCarthy and so on and so on.

by Anonymousreply 6304/02/2013

She is an artist. She goes where her inspiration takes her, and obviously feels she can inhabit the characters she picks - rather than slumming it with the one-dimensional female roles found in Tarantino/Scorsese movies.

She doesn't do theatre because she wants her work to be preserved on film. Theater is ephemeral; celluloid is for the ages.

For a talent such as hers, there is an artistic imperative to preserve one's work for future generations.

No-one would have accused Mozart of 'not branching out enough'. Why should she?

Meryl is at home in the medium she chose for herself, and her choice has served her genius well.

by Anonymousreply 6404/02/2013

She still does theater. She spent two hot new York summers in 2001 in Chekhov's "The Seagull" and in 2006 with Brecht's "Mother Courage and Her Children" and that don't pay shit.

by Anonymousreply 6504/02/2013

OP are you the same troll who posted the Heath Ledger was the most overrated actor post?

by Anonymousreply 6604/02/2013

Why won't anyone ever take notice of me?

by Anonymousreply 6704/02/2013

The Streep Troll is an idiot. It is like the Fundy Christian Trolls. No matter what is said it has a grandly stupid counter. It is the moron who thinks a very lucky movie commodity is "a genius like Mozart". Mozart wrote in EVERY form available at the time, from that era's pop music, to a large amount of the most intellectually demanding music then being written -- and he died at 35!!! Streep says she's 63.

She's just an actress; no one says she isn't talented, though the hype is preposterous. She has used needing to be "home for the kids" as an excuse not to do plays she had committed to, but evidently didn't like having to learn all those lines and say them every night.

As usual here the discussion devolves into aggressive assertion by a loon with a psychological wound -- the Streep troll -- and those who counter it sometimes with too much vehemence, and sometimes with sense.

Someone as famous (and rich) as she has options to do work that many great (but less successful) actresses do not. She hasn't taken those options. There's no law that she had to. But that she didn't makes her simply flesh for hire, IMO. And I have a certain contempt for that. But go on and jerk off a dozen times to silly pulp like The Devil Wears Prada, and this time compare her to, oh, I don't know PROUST.

by Anonymousreply 6804/02/2013

Oh R68, stop slumming and go back to watching your VHS of "The Sorrow and The Pity". You're too good for us here.

by Anonymousreply 6904/02/2013

You go r68, and stay please.

Elevate the conversation and call a loon a loon and you get attacked?

Carry on!

by Anonymousreply 7004/02/2013

r68 (and his asslicker at r70) are exhibit A of the sexist Meryl detractor, complete with lame speculation ('she doesn't want to learn lines!'), and sundry other bullshit.

It's amusing how these people attempt to put her in her place, by appointing all these 'boundaries' for her:

'she must work less!', 'she must make room for Patty Duke and Karen Black!', 'she is Jessica Simpson until she does theater!', 'she mustn't be interested in public approval!', 'she mustn't get rich though her work!', 'she must admit Jessica Lange is a better actress!', 'she really wants Viola to win! She doesn't even want that Oscar herself!'

You would NEVER hear all this bullshit about a MAN. Ever.

A man is allowed to be ambitious; a woman is expected to know her 'boundaries', to be demure, non-competitive, to take the backseat; and she must continually justify her success by working twice as hard as a man. In this case, doing theater until everybody can find new boundaries for her.

Why is no-one accusing Daniel Day-Lewis of doing no theater? In the last 20 years, Meryl has done twice as much stage work as Daniel has.

Yet you don't hear the idiots braying about DDL. Quelle surprise!

And yes, the comparison with Mozart - and Proust, if you will - was apt, for that very reason.

Mozart was supremely gifted, and worked in projects suited to his talents.

Streep is supremely gifted, and is working in projects suited to her talents.

Both are very versatile, more so than any of their contemporaries; but in the case of the woman, it is never enough.

You say she was selling out with 'Devil Wears Prada'. But it allowed her to create one of the most admired performances of her entire career. Why, then, should she have turned it down?

Hardly comparable to DeNiro who IS selling out, because he does NOT use commercial films to also work on his craft. Streep shines, DeNiro sleepwalks.

End of story.

by Anonymousreply 7104/02/2013

And yet:

HOPE SPRINGS is an AWFUL movie.

(Agree with everything you say about how men are allowed success whereas women are punished for it.)

by Anonymousreply 7204/02/2013

I like Streep but comparing her to Mozart just makes her look bad by comparison.

by Anonymousreply 7304/02/2013

Well I liked it, it was better than I thought it would be. Did she have an accent in Hope Springs? Seemed a little different. It made me laugh so that's enough. Love Meryl in comedy, it seems to be closer to her real life persona. Put her in a Judd Apatow film!

I think she commented that she wished Scorsese would write a good female role. So it's not like she's not trying, it's just the paucity of good female roles, especially for her age.

So she takes what is there and since she's a box office titan now she gets all the good ones, also nobody else could really do a lot of them. If they're in bad movies or with bad directors, well what can she do. She does stuff that interests her.

by Anonymousreply 7404/02/2013

I love R68. Finally, some intelligence.

by Anonymousreply 7504/02/2013

Scorcese films with major women characters:

ALICE DOESN'T LIVE HERE ANYMORE

NEW YORK, NEW YORK

THE AGE OF INNOCENCE

CASINO

THE AVIATOR

AFTER HOURS

KING OF COMEDY

GOODFELLAS

by Anonymousreply 7604/02/2013

I eat shit.

by Anonymousreply 7704/02/2013

Well, well, well, people are finally starting to realize that old biddy Meryl plays it safe and isn't as epic as her Oscar nomination repertoire would imply.

All I can say is, I agree! And I can't wait to surpass her in a few years!

Love,

Fellow 2-time best actress Oscar winner,

by Anonymousreply 7804/02/2013

Streep is really good, better than DDL, if you ask me. Lange is over-rated. Foolish to compare actors, or anyone, to Mozart, who had a weird gift that comes to like 3 people a century. . .

by Anonymousreply 7904/02/2013

The Streep troll is not a debater, and sometimes we forget on the internet that there are people who simply harass and attempt to silence others.

In person his ridiculous rhetoric and insulting attempts at superior thinking just get him avoided or give me a chance to intimidate him in other ways. Some of us are men out here and his kind of crazy can get someone hurt. He won't back down of course, but he is all hysterical, bitter entrails.

His only reason for being is to worship Meryl Streep and he knows enough of other arts and artists to seem articulate on the subject.

This is a raving, aggressive and pretty sad lunatic, who in person could only yell over people like the worst of political zealots.

He makes his points and then finesses with what is meant to be a "that is all" dismissal.

I really hoped he was gone or committed elsewhere, but this is his mission in life. It is a free board even if he doesn't respect free speech and alternate views.

He is too passive-aggressive, and yes passive because of the forum that he pontificates from. He is a bit of pity and the kind of fan that Meryl or any other celebrity would alert the authorities about.

Go on, you well spoken fool. It is all double speak, with no objectivity anyway.

You will not tolerate any other opinion or challenge of your chosen deity and that makes you a very disreputable expert.

I realize that you will never tire of your attempts to make others appear stupid in support of your insanity. Go for it. Quote out of context and continue with your non sequitar attacks.

Maybe Meryl will sing badly at your funeral. The wind beneath my wings.

by Anonymousreply 8004/02/2013

I don't find the Streep troll at all annoying. Jesus, some of you motherfuckers are so pissy and huffy. What I do find upsetting is the insanely high degree of misogyny and contempt for women that this board licenses, encourages, cheers, and promotes.

by Anonymousreply 8104/02/2013

Can I eat your shit R81?

by Anonymousreply 8204/02/2013

r82, is that meant to be flattering?

by Anonymousreply 8304/02/2013

LMAO at R78!

I really do hope that fucking Hilary "Hildawg" Swank receives another Best Actress Oscar or two to surpass Meryl "pisses rosewater" Streep, just to witness the collective conniption fit on DL!

by Anonymousreply 8404/02/2013

r81

You haven't had enough exposure to the Streep lunatic antics if you think that intelligent posters are misogynist and huffy, just because they question Meryl's position as the world's greatest actress or the most admirable human, ever.

He is cray. Crazy. Mean and pathetic. He most often posts the "I eat shit" line when he has been bested or is on a thread that he can't work Meryl Streep into. I do try to ignore him, but I would crack his head open if I ever met him. He likes the abuse - that is why he is so insulting. Develop some insight. He is cray.

Read Streep Troll's posts elsewhere. He always states that "He eats shit", whatever that means. I suspect it is quite literal.

I don't feed into that.

by Anonymousreply 8504/02/2013

I knew that The Streep Troll would ruin another interesting thread (well, maybe not interesting, but not stupid).

By the way, The Streep Troll must be in Europe as we don't hear from 'it' during nights here in the US.

I'd say, like with other mentally ill, The Streep Troll should not be engaged, just politely ignored.

R68 is right on.

by Anonymousreply 8604/02/2013

You all are a bunch of raging misogynists, and this has nothing to do with Streep, it has to do with the unbelievable amount of virulent misogyny you license and allow and encourage, all over this board.

by Anonymousreply 8704/02/2013

Katharine Hepburn is someone who truly has a great cinematic output. Only a handful of clunkers over seven decades. She has the best track record out of any actress. Except maybe Garbo.

Bette Davis would have matched her had she stopped doing movies after Sweet Charlotte.

by Anonymousreply 8804/02/2013

Streep Loon, if she was worried about her celuloid legacy lasting, she'd pick better scripts.

by Anonymousreply 8904/02/2013

So easy to throw stones.

by Anonymousreply 9004/02/2013

Meryl is GREAT in Deer Hunter, Sophies Choice,Kramer, Silkwood, Postcards, Bridges, Adaptation, Prada, Iron Lady.

Meryl is REALLY good in French Lieutenant's Woman, Plenty, Heartburn, Angels in America, Ironweed, Marvin's Room, The Hours and Doubt.

That is a pretty incredible track record. Who, either currently working or golden age can match that?

by Anonymousreply 9104/02/2013

Sequel to Mama Mia?

by Anonymousreply 9204/02/2013

R91 how could you

by Anonymousreply 9304/02/2013

"Sequel to Mamma Mia!?" Yes!

by Anonymousreply 9404/02/2013

My bad. Streep is GREAT in A cry in the Dark perhaps her greatest role after Sophie. Cry is a good movie, SC is not.

by Anonymousreply 9504/02/2013

This was the best thing about Mamma Mia

by Anonymousreply 9604/02/2013

Not Streep's fault that women get offered shit parts.

How many scripts a year do you think Streep reads that are any good?

What, is she supposed to found and fund a repertory theater company and only do Ibsen and Chekhov at a loss for the rest of her life?

And please don't tell me Hepburn made nothing but masterpieces. MORNING GLORY? CHRISTOPHER STRONG? SYLVIA SCARLETT? DRAGON SEED? GUESS WHO'S COMING TO DINNER? Maybe you like A LION IN WINTER, but I think it's shit. ON GOLDEN POND is shit. THE IRON PETTICOAT? Seriously? She made a lot of crappy films early on, she made embarrassing tripe way late, she was always the same, she played CHINESE, hello, in DRAGON SEED. Moreover, Hepburn made 44 films - not counting TV - in her career; Streep has made, so far, counting AUG/OC and not counting TV, 52. Hepburn was 87 years old when she made her last film. Streep is now 64. Streep likes making movies more than Hepburn did, and Streep, unlike Hepburn, has never worked in the contract system. . . Streep has had to hunt down her projects. So it's not entirely fair to compare the two women in terms of the chances they got to make interesting films.

That said, Hepburn's most memorable films, if you ask me, include ALICE ADAMS, HOLIDAY, BRINGING UP BABY, STAGE DOOR, THE PHILADELPHIA STORY, WOMAN OF THE YEAR, THE AFRICAN QUEEN, SUMMERTIME, SUDDENLY LAST SUMMER.

Streep (I'll include only starring roles, to be fair): KRAMER VS. KRAMER, SOPHIE'S CHOICE, SILKWOOD, A CRY IN THE DARK, ADAPTATION, OUT OF AFRICA, and I include POSTCARDS and DEVIL WEARS PRADA and IRON LADY not because they're good films, but because Streep's performance in each of them guarantees that people will want to watch them in 50 years.

What's more, if you care about this kind of thing: Hepburn was never in a film that won Best Picture; Streep has been in 3 Best Pictures: DEER HUNTER, K VS K, and OUT OF AFRICA. She was also in one of the best movies of the '70s, MANHATTAN.

I think the two women are comparable in terms of having appeared in films that people will still want to watch in 50 years. And Streep's film career has coincided with Hollywood's complete loss of interest in movies built around complicated women under the age of 30. Streep made a lot of prestige films from '77 to '88 or so; but movies had lost interest in women by the middle of the 1980s, and as Streep got older, she had fewer and fewer options.

Plus: the most interesting US directors over the past 20 years - Tarantino, Bigelow, Spike Lee, the Coen Brothers, Paul Thomas Anderson, Scorcese - are minimally interested in building films around the kinds of complex real-life women - not cartoon characters! - whom Streep is good at playing.

by Anonymousreply 9704/02/2013

Thank you R97. Film has relevance only if people support it.

by Anonymousreply 9804/02/2013

Thanks [R97] AND The Streep Troll.

Maniacal hatred of Meryl Streep is one of the weirder preoccupations on this site.

You don't like her or you're not a fan? That's fair but only the deranged would question her talent and accomplishments.

OP just got around to Hope Springs? How topical.

by Anonymousreply 9904/02/2013

I meant "over age 30," not "under," oops.

by Anonymousreply 10004/02/2013

"Hope Springs" is on every film lovers wait in line list.

OP got around to it I guess, because like many, we tend to keep giving Streep the benefit of the doubt - hoping that something fantastic will transpire.

It didn't, it seldom does.

by Anonymousreply 10104/03/2013

"Wait in line list" must mean DVD queue.

Film lovers go to see films.

This movie played in theaters for quite a while as it was popular.

It was a NICE amiable well made innocuous vehicle for the two stars.

Using it as pretext to trash Meryl Streep again is deranged.

She needs the benefit of your doubt? She hasn't done enough that was fantastic?

by Anonymousreply 10204/03/2013

What I like most about DataLounge is that you will surely, always, find a gasbag like R97 around.

by Anonymousreply 10304/03/2013

r102

Yes, you got my sarcasm.

But let's be clear. There are many innocuous movies with stars.

Hope Springs was a terrible movie, a piece of shit. It happens. There was nothing to enjoy, including the performances. Don't try to make people think that they should enjoy shit.

That is that troll's job.

Of course he posts anonymously too?

by Anonymousreply 10404/03/2013

Fuck you, r103. It's not my problem that you're so fucking lazy and smug and tragic.

by Anonymousreply 10504/03/2013

I'm sorry r97 but no way in hell people 50 years from now will watch Iron Lady, Devil wears Pravda and Postcards. People hardly watch them now!

She's be remembered for a few films but not that many (ex. Sophie and for the line 'dingo ate my baby'). Most of her films are ok to good because of her but she doesn't have a full complete great film like Godfather, raging bull or Silence of the lambs.

by Anonymousreply 10604/03/2013

SILENCE Of THE LAMBS is not a great film. I have never liked the GODFATHERS. So sue me. I will give you RAGING BULL, a great film. But do people watch only "great" films? A lot of people watch films because they like the actors, and Streep's acting will be studied for 100 years, because she is one of the icons of screen acting. In the history if film acting. Pickford, Keaton, Chaplin, Garbo, Davis, Hepburn, Cagney, bogart, Grant, Clift, Branfo, Monroe, Jane Fonda, Henry Fonda, DDL, Streep. . . These are actors who have defined screen acting at various points. Stanwyck. Hatte McDaniel, yes. People will always be wstching their movies. Garland, Gene Kelly. . .

by Anonymousreply 10704/03/2013

oh Lord, I think that "Silence of the Lambs" IS a great film and Godfather, part two even greater. Raging Bull, meh. So these things are about taste and parsing of words, between good and great.

When some claim that a piece of shit like "Hope Springs" is remotely good because Streep and Tommy Lee Jones are in it, that is different.

I like your random list of great film actors, and I don't think that anyone said or implied that Meryl Streep would not be among them.

Add or subtract. You missed a few, and were generous to a few others.

Why can't we have more fun out here?

by Anonymousreply 10804/03/2013

When R104 says the following, he is absolutely accurate:

Hope Springs was a terrible movie, a piece of shit. It happens. There was nothing to enjoy, including the performances. Don't try to make people think that they should enjoy shit.

by Anonymousreply 10904/03/2013

It doesn't matter if you liked those films, the point is that they are regarded as some of the best works and those actors have these great works that will keep them in the list of "greats". Streep may have great performances but she will always have a void of great complete films.

by Anonymousreply 11004/03/2013

r80, I love your flowery prose! And I love that you spent all this energy thinking about me, and writing about me.

Thank you.

See, on top of all the evil things you say I am, maybe I'm just a performance artist at heart -- I want people to react to my 'art', to take up the baton; I derive satisfaction from infecting you creatively.

May I say you just confirmed I am quite successful at it?

Extra tender *kisses* for you, Schatzi!

by Anonymousreply 11104/03/2013

The movie was very much an art film, it was very subtle and mature. I was happy to see the film do as well as it did, since most of the audience today thinks crap like The Transformers is great filmmaking.

by Anonymousreply 11204/03/2013

r97, I agree with everything you said, but I take issue with your Scorsese list at r76.

The Aviator, King of Comedy and especially Goodfellas only had SUPPORTING female characters. NOT lead roles. Those movies were about M-E-N.

And the female lead in After Hours is hardly memorable, even though it is a cute movie.

Scorsese simply isn't a director for complex women's roles. The Sharon Stone part in Casion is a cartoon character, and New York New York is just as forgettable. Only Alice stands out. Needless to say, he never attempted to do a big woman film afterwards. It's simply not who he is, as a filmmaker.

Age of Innocence = he didn't come up with it; and again, it's a story where a MAN is at the center of things. The women may be complex, but they're secondary elements.

Bottom line is: Scorsese not working with Streep speaks volumes about HIM, not her.

by Anonymousreply 11304/03/2013

R97 Katharine has many films that are beloved by people. Whether you like them or not is of no importance. Yes, she has made a few clunkers, but many of her films are still being shown on a regular basis decades after they were released.

Little Women, Stage Door, Woman of the Year, Bringing up Baby, Adam's Rib, African Queen, Long Days Journey into Night, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner just to name a few can all rightfully be considered classics. And several of them frequently make best movies of all time lists.

by Anonymousreply 11404/03/2013

r85 and r108, the poster writing "I eat shit" obviously isn't me, but the deranged Viola Davis troll and self-appointed sheriff of all DL awards threads.

Get with the program.

Needless to say, he fails to silence me every single time.

How frustrating for him!

by Anonymousreply 11504/03/2013

And yet, r114, KH was a movie star first, and actress second.

She is perceived as that, even now (to use your paradigm).

Streep is considered an ACTOR first, and movie star second.

As such, it is much less important for her to be in 'popular movies for the ages'. Her popular allure is her talent, which doesn't need all-time great directors to function; KH popular allure was her movie presence, which needed a great director / popular material in order to work.

Thise fine distinction is conveniently ignored by the Meryl relativists.

by Anonymousreply 11604/03/2013
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.