Looking back - I love this post in the early stages of the race when others disagreed - just concise and to the point.

And on Hillary Swank, right now I agree she isn't there yet but her next 10 years could lead her more in the direction of the bigger females on the list. Only time will tell.

I mean we will look back on them that way 20 years from now. So partly what they've done, partly what I think they have the potential to do.

Maybe the fact that I can't stand the site of Swank's face plays some role in my opinions. Not that an actress has to be pretty to be good, Meryl Streep proved that, but Swank makes my eyes hurt, there's something harsh and arrogant about her.

I agree with that, I think she is harsh looking on the screen, which is why it didn't bother her being a women boxer in MDB.

On the list, there are others who for me, fell into the same category.

Katharine Hepburn - never liked her looks on screen - maybe because she was so hard in most of her roles. So I can't say she is one of my favorites even though most love her.
Ingrid Bergman
Bette Davis
Olivia De Havilland
Sally Field
Jane Fonda
Jodie Foster
Glenda Jackson
Vivian Leigh
Elizabeth Taylor

You're crazy.

@Archie? Kiera? It wouldn't happen to have anything to do with her face, for opposite reasons than Hilary would it?? :razz:

Cate Blanchett, Nicole Kidman, Julianne Moore, and Kate Winslet. I agree.

As much as I respect Swank's range at playing masculine poor white trash that meets a tragic fate characters, it's hard to believe she's beaten out Julianne Moore, Kate Winslet, and Annette Bening (twice!) for her two Oscars. Think about all the great actresses who don't even have one....those I just mentioned and Joan Allen, Laura Linney, Michelle Pfieffer, Sigourney Weaver, Uma Thurman, and Emily WAtson. Seems strange, doesn't it?

The Keira Knightley part was a joke, right?


I think the "modern" legendary actresses will be Cate Blanchett, Uma Thurman, Nicole Kidman, Kate Winslet and Julianne Moore.

No it's not a joke, and it makes me chuckle that right after that you name Uma who has made a long career off basically being a big breasted blonde, she's an alright actress but nothing special.

Keira on the other hand is a solid actress with a terrific screen presence, which is a rare thing. I'm gambling, guessing, about how her career will shape up later but not joking. Since her mother is a playwright, I expect her to take acting seriously. Hopefully she'll end up more like Blanchett than Uma.

Uma Thurman? Oh please.


Anyways, I'd say Keira has a better chance than Natalie. Why? Keira's got spunk. Natalie is a bore.

Uma? I wouldn't say she's done anything other than Kill Bill that's impressed me, and even then she wasn't in the top 5 of the year.

Before Kill Bill, I wouldn't have said it, even though she was amazing in Pulp Fiction (and was rightfully nominated for that one). After Kill Bill, which was one of last year's best performances, I just see much more potential in her, potential, I haven't seen in Keira Knightley at any point.

I'm not really an Uma Thurman fan, but I think this is going to be a big year for her. Kill Bill was an iconic role and I think she'll get an Oscar nomination this year coming off her snub for that. I'm not sure if it will be for The Producers or Prime, but she'll be in the mix somewhere.