>>opposed to citin' less-than-convincing Hollywood pablum...
>he doesn't have to fill Jimmy Stewart's shoes. he's done
>enough good work to stand on his own. and when it's all said
>and done, you can bet your ass that he's gonna be remembered
>in the same breat as all the legendear leading men. like it
>or not.

Convenient that you elected to ignore other actors cited, especially international ones or aren't you familiar w/ 'em?

>no, i just have my head on straight enough to realize that
>there are alays been shitty movies, and there will always be
>shitty movies. if you would start living in the now, you'd
>see that there are plenty of good movies being made in
>Hollywood's assmebly line.

No, there's a complete division b/w when Hollywood was churning out entertainment AND art and now, when it's just entertainment...

>and i still go back to what i said. you want to criticize
>her acting ability..fine. i'm not going to defend that. but
>i don't see how you can say that she's not at least trying
>to do good work.

She's not - it's evident to anyone w/ who knows film apart from Hollywood...

>all of this from someone who started their post. "So I have
>BET on in the background..."
>hilarious.

Ad hominem argument gets you nowhere - especially since it's also a non-sequitur... Get it? Good - now go study up on cinema from 1860 or so...