Rather overrated actress actually. No where near the likes of Florence Pugh, Mia Wasikowska, Dakota and Elle Fanning. She is very plain jane too.
shareYou can't say that if you haven't seen ' Death Defying Acts ' (2007). Saoirse Ronan is a great actress.
I disagree. I think she is a very good actor and very beautiful.
shareHell, she’s not a serious actress at all. No critical acclaim. No awards. Hasn’t been in a comic book movie, and no one’s made a topic about her beauty. What a loser.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saoirse_Ronan
That last sentence was not about Saoirse.
No critical acclaim? Do you pay attention to the critics?
shareDid you bother to read my link? She is the best actress of her generation.
Do me a favor. Put me on Ignore.
To answer your question: critics, yes. Reviewers, no. You tell me the difference.
You can’t.
My link cites critics.
A critic states his/her personal criteria, often supported by source documentation to support that view, and then examines how well the subject (work, performer) meets those criteria. This is hard, scholarly and disinterested work. A reviewer says whatever the fuck s/he feels like saying, based on personal taste.
Critics, not reviewers? Critic yes, reviewers no?
You are a fucking wackadoodle. Or a troll.
When people talk about professional critics, they are typically talking about the sort who get their reviews in publications like magazines, newspapers, major websites. That's who I was referring when I wrote "the critics", and they have given her plenty of acclaim.
And people will often use the word reviewer to refer to them as well. This distinction you're making between reviewer and critic 1. has nothing to do with my response. I wrote critic, which is the commonly accepted word to use when referring to that group of people. 2. is not something that you'll find in a dictionary. It's your opinion, not part of the broadly accepted definitions of the two words.
This is the second time you've responded to something I posted in this kind of way. The word reviewer never appeared in my post, so it makes absolutely no sense to insult me for not knowing what you think the difference between a critic and a reviewer is. When people refer to "the critics" the way I did, it's generally understood who it is they mean. I don't give a damn what your personal criteria is for who should be considered a critic, who is "scholarly and disinterested" enough, you stupid, nasty fuck. I was using the word in the commonly understood sense.
That group of people have given Ronan generally positive reviewers for many of her films.
And I will happily put you on ignore at this point.
She's not a knockout beauty but she's a nice looking young woman.
More importantly, she is a fine actress. She's got a pretty good track record of performances. Reputation well deserved, in my opinion.
I agree that she's overrated. Not that she's bad, or worse than the actresses you mentioned necessarily, but overrated? Yes.
shareThis. She is a decent actress but not some treasure of the era. She is annoying off screen but so what. I won't avoid her films nor will I seek them.
shareI liked her in Grand Budapest Hotel. She was a good choice. As long as she gets the right role, she's fine. I don't get the whole "amazing actress/actor view. It all depends on the role.
share