Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Emily Blunt is a classically trained British actor. People in the states are not used to this level of acting ability and prefer the Hollywood trained actors.

What does this mean? Being a waiter until you're discovered? Or being discovered, then becoming a bloated, washed up alcoholic or a shriveled drug addled junkie?

She is NOT classically trained or otherwise. She spent 2 years at A level college which included theater. She didn't train at a Drama school.

Seriously, get your facts right.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Emily Blunt is a classically trained British actor. People in the states are not used to this level of acting ability and prefer the Hollywood trained actors.

What does this mean? Being a waiter until you're discovered? Or being discovered, then becoming a bloated, washed up alcoholic or a shriveled drug addled junkie?

Many people who appear in the typical American movies are hired for their looks or bodies rather than their ability to act. The good actors tend to go toward Broadway or other serious regional theaters. When they get some roles on their resumes, they may go to Hollywood to earn money so that they can then continue in the theater...

Yes, many Hollywood blockbuster type movies hire for looks vs. talent. However, it's an over simplification. Dustin Hoffman, Bette Middler, or Al Pacino wouldn't have careers. You should watch Casting By: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1293751/?ref_=fn_tt_tt_7

Vast over generalization of where "good actors" go. There are plenty of terrible, classically trained British actors and plenty of classically trained American actors. Geena Davis, Elizabeth McGovern, and Phoebe Cates went to Juilliard. All attractive women, classically trained who still can't act. The Brits have Keira Knightly, Emma Watson, and Kate Beckinsale--all attractive women who can't act, yet have been in movies ad nauseum.

Anonymous wrote:She was also good (in an action role) in Edge of Tomorrow with Tom Cruise. I really like her!

I loved her in this movie. I don't think this film gets enough credit. It is a great movie.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Emily Blunt is a classically trained British actor. People in the states are not used to this level of acting ability and prefer the Hollywood trained actors.

What does this mean? Being a waiter until you're discovered? Or being discovered, then becoming a bloated, washed up alcoholic or a shriveled drug addled junkie?

Many people who appear in the typical American movies are hired for their looks or bodies rather than their ability to act. The good actors tend to go toward Broadway or other serious regional theaters. When they get some roles on their resumes, they may go to Hollywood to earn money so that they can then continue in the theater. In recent years, the Tony awards have been given over to Hollywood celebs to attract an audience. The serious actors must cringe when they are introduced by no-talent celebs. It reminds me of Audra McDonald having to step in for Carrie Underwood at the end of the live broadcast of the abominable "Sound of Music." Carrie's voice was gone after hours of shreiking, so McDonald sang the closing song of "Climb Every Mountain" to cover Underwood's inability to do so. Cringeworthy plus.

Anonymous wrote:Emily Blunt is a classically trained British actor. People in the states are not used to this level of acting ability and prefer the Hollywood trained actors.

What does this mean? Being a waiter until you're discovered? Or being discovered, then becoming a bloated, washed up alcoholic or a shriveled drug addled junkie?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Emily Blunt is a classically trained British actor. People in the states are not used to this level of acting ability and prefer the Hollywood trained actors.

If you want to see the difference in acting, watch one scene of Mark Rylance acting with Tom Hanks in "Bridge of Spies." Tom Hanks is thought to be a good American actor. His ability shrinks compared to Rylance.

+1

I actually like Emily Blunt a lot, even in not-so-great movies.

And I love, love, love Mark Rylance. Made Hanks look like an amateur.

And Mark Rylance's Academy Award acceptance speech was one of the few grace notes the entire night. Steven Spielberg's jaw dropped when Rylance made a creative, thoughtful comment about him. I don't believe any actor has ever been so lovely to him.

Anonymous wrote:I think OP is nuts.

+1 I thought she was great in Die Again Tomorrow (or whatever that action movie was called) and I think Sicario is very under-rated-- if it had been released later in the year it would/should have done well at the Oscars.

I think OP is nuts.

Love her in The Young Victoria.

She's definitely is on the side of pretty, and is fit.

She was great in Salmon Fishing in the Yemen, The Young Victoria, Sunshine Cleaning, Charlie Wilson's War, and The Jane Austen Book Club.

I think you've been watching the wrong movies, OP.

I really like Emily Blunt!

She is an AMAZING actress, with a lot of range and a strong propensity for comedy.

Plus she is absolutely beautiful.

Who started this thread? You total loser!

I think she's great.

I thinks she's very pretty. She has beautiful eyes that are full of emotion. I've liked plenty of her films.

She has been in quite a few successful movies. I'm not sure she gets the blame if any of the unsuccessful ones tank - she strikes me as a successful supporting role actress. She's also married and has kids with Jim from the Office - people love a celeb couple.

Sorry OP I don't think she's going anywhere any time soon.