>All of the so called "acting" in this movie was highly
>overrated.
>
>I didn't see where any of the roles required much ACTING.

Julia Roberts plays Julia Roberts in half of her roles.

Tom Hanks plays Tom Hanks in half his roles.


Both are, however, GOOD ACTORS despite the fact that they
don't always have to bend their personality in their roles.


You are making the classic artsy fartsy film buff mistake
of equating "acting" to "new personality," which is why everyone
who plays a retarded person in a decent film tends to get
nominated, regardless of whether or not the acting was
really any good.

Understated is often very underrated. Sometimes the best
acting performances involve nailing the basics, not
portraying a psychotic depressed hermaphrodite
nymphomanic.

Jennifer Hudson SMASHED her role.

I, nor you, should give a fuck if the role was close to her
actual personality or not, nor do we have the right
to say how much acting went into the role.

At the end of the night, we simply ask the following
questions:

a)Did the actress/actor communicate the character's
hardships, personality nuances, and make us, the
audience CARE.

b)Was the actor/actress consistent from scene to scene?

c)Did we see many sides of the character, and were they
all convincing(a slept on detail that good
actresses/actors do well)?


The answer to a-c is a thorough HELL YES for
Jennifer Hudson. It is fact, not only a HELL YES,
its a HELL-ER YES than any actress performance
I've seen this year(not even close, imo).

Its also true for Jaime Foxx, and Eddie Murphy,
and to a lesser extent, Beyonce.

Overall, it was a well done movie. Very well done.
Well acted. Well shot. Well directed.


>After seeing the movie again, I honestly thought it was quite
>average and highly overrated both by the press and
>moviegoers.


And after reading your post again, I honestly think you
are forcing the contrarian viewpoint.