MovieChat Forums > Brooke Shields Discussion > Not A Believable Actress at all....

Not A Believable Actress at all....


Every time I see her acting in something, I just see her and not the character she's playing. I can't even recall any of those characters she supposedly tried to portray! I just see Brooke Shields in anything she's starred in.

To be fair, I thought she did a better job in her younger years like in The Blue Lagoon (1980) and Endless Love (1981). She seemed believable then and I guess it was because she was a 'new face' to the Hollywood industry.

I guess the fallout afterwards hasn't been too kind. She's basically acted in nothing too noteworthy and was always 'mugging' up the publicity as herself with her Calvin Klein commercials and legal problems and appearances on those Bob Hope USO shows overseas.

I had to laugh when a tabloid tried to play her up as the next female version of 'James Bond' with her upcoming role in 'Brenda Starr' (1989), saying it would skyrocket her to super stardom. That movie turned out to be a dud as was another hyped up feature of her's, Sahara (1983).

She's always been known for 'bad' movies and for just being herself. That pretty well sums up her career.



The more I study it, the greater the puzzle becomes.
The Golden Voyage of Sinbad

reply

I completely agree.
She was a beautiful kid and pretty much had a chance to build a career, but her complete lack of talent kept that from happening. She is not mediocre, she is awful. I've seen Endless Love on cable last night, she was horrible even back then, however she was striking and it was a weak movie altogether so she could get away with it.

reply

My guess is because she relies on her looks to get her through her roles, rather than any discernible talent she might have.

For example, I was STUNNED when I found out she was replacing Bebe Newerth in the role of Morticia Addams on Broadway several years ago. Bebe is totally believable as Morticia, as was Anjelica Huston in the movie role. But Brooke as Morticia? Nope, couldn't and still can't see it. She just doesn't have the look or the ability to pull that role off.

reply

Soooo true. What exactly is it that people like about her? She isn't even pretty!

reply

She is just a so-so dramatic actress in my opinion, but I think she does comedy roles rather well. For 49, she is still a strikingly beautiful woman and doesn't seem to take herself too seriously in the interviews I've seen. She comes across as very intelligent as well.

reply

She's pretty damn great in this, playing totally against type:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKRogu-r5SA

reply

I could not agree with you more. While she is/was extraordinarily beautiful---I would even go out on a limb to say she may be the most beautiful face in the history of Hollywood/modeling, as in the WINNER of the genetic super lotto--but she has no talent whatsoever.

And what makes it even worse is that because of her one in a billion looks, she had every possible opportunity imaginable for an actor--epic opportunity--and is so void of talent that she couldn't even turn just one of those opportunities into something memorable or successful.

Now THIS should be her next book! Stop blaming the mother--Brooke's failures are a direct result of having 'everything' we think we would want, yet a magnificent face (in her case, the best face) means nothing when you have zero talent behind it.

reply

There are other famous beautiful women,I think Jaclyn Smith when she was younger was one of the most beautiful famous women ever,with a totally naturally gorgeous perfect face, I'm pretty certain that she never had any nose jobs unlike Brooke.

What do you think was so exceptionally beautiful about Brooke Shields face when she was younger?

reply

She only got into acting because she was an exceptionally beautiful girl. That's no secret.

reply