Natalie Portman or Kirsten Dunst... who do you prefer?

[Eskimo]

These two have a lot in common, they are both young female movie stars, and they both star in HUGE movie titles (spider man, star wars) But they aren't so identical to have the same talent level... so which one do you think is better?

(i personally think Natalie Portman... i'm a fan of all her movies, and she can act a wide range of characters, her performance is always great to watch)

[Lazy Boy]

I'll go with Kirsten Dunst.

I'm not too much a fan of Portman. While I thought she was quite good in THE PROFESSIONAL, she hasn't "wowed" me that much recently.

On the other hand, I've followed Dunst's career since INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE, and, while I don't feel she's a great actress, she does possess that quality. She's almost there. She has that one performance to give that will catapult her onto the A-list. CRAZY/BEAUTIFUL (criminally underrated, more like it) showcased her in a brilliant performance, and I hope she continues to do likewise in the future.

[miguel_montes]

I prefer Natalie Portman.

She's a great actress, and not in just Star Wars. Her role in "Beautiful Girls" (1996), for example, was awesome.

I'm kinda worried that she has lesbian tendencies, though... http://www.joblo.com/ubb/smile.gif

[EBastard]

Natalie is gorgeous(AND SHE'S INTO GIRLS!),but Kirsten is probably the only blonde i'd ever bang in my entire life(I'm into brunettes),so I pick Kirsten.

[This message has been edited by EBastard (edited 07-11-2002).]

[urbanlegend23]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by ETphoneHOME:
Kirsten Dunst all the way. Better actress and better looking. </font>

Ditto.

[BloodiedCelticVengeance]

Natalie Portman...

I think she's much more beautiful, much more talented.

This is not to slam Kirsten, I think she's quite lovely and talented...I just happen to think Natalie is so damn remarkable.

These two...along with Thora Birch, Christina Ricci, LeeLee Sobieski, Erika Christensen, Jenna Malone, Sarah Polley, Scarlett Johansson, Julia Stiles...give us Schmoes quite a lot to look forward to. Young, sexy, talented...ahhh...certainly 'tis grand , yes?

[Helen]

i would have to say kirsten dunst, not that natalie portman is a bad actress, it's just that kirsten's movie are more my type...

[flowrchild]

I like Natalie Portman better. I think she's the more talented of the two and she steers clear of the cheesy teen movies, unlike Dunst. I don't have a problem with Dunst either but I have more respect for Portman.

[Danny L]

I prefer Miss Kirsten. As the people here above said, I don't think miss Portman has been that impressive since THE PROFESSIONAL.

Kirsten is a treat. Go and see her in VIRGIN SUICIDES, a brilliant film.

[EBastard]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by BloodiedCelticVengeance:
These two...along with Thora Birch, Christina Ricci, LeeLee Sobieski, Erika Christensen, Jena Malone, Sarah Polley, Scarlett Johansson, Julia Stiles...give us Schmoes quite a lot to look forward to. Young, sexy, talented...ahhh...certainly 'tis grand , yes? </font>And not one young black actress yet...DAMN!

I guess Julia Stiles could be...fuck that,HELL NO!

[Zed]

I prefer Natalie Portman.

What can I say?

She's my favorite!

[Hypothermia]

Natalie Portman is better looking. Neither of them have consistently proven they are really good actresses, but Natalie was great in The Professional and Beautiful Girls, so she gets my vote.

[Favourite end]

Honestly said, I can`t stand neither the first nor the second one.But after having seen Spider-man, I think Kirsten Dunst is cuter and somehow not that...hm, sorry but I can`t find the exact word now.

[Bullet Tooth Tony]

Shit how can you make me choose!

But Natalie has always been my Number One...voted her number one for the last three years on FHM 100 Sexiest.

Plus she's not a bad actress either http://www.joblo.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

[ColinM]

Kirsten Dunst by a mile when it comes to looks. Not as close when it comes to acting talent, but she still wins. If you think Kirsten is just a pretty face, check her out in Crazy/Beautiful, The Virgin Suicides and Interview with the Vampire.

[cobain]

Natalie Portman is my favourite star.Special in The Professional, she is a good actress.So i vote for her

[Grebdron]

I liked The Professional, but can't think of anything since that I've liked her(NP)in.

I hated Interview, but not because of her(KD)and KD is much cuter, so I'll have to go w/her.

[Thursday's Child]

I don't see what's so great about Natalie Portman, she's not THAT good looking and she's not THAT much of a talented actress, but the exact same thing can be said about Dunst.
Althought I do tend to agree Portman is more versatile in her acting, Dunst gets my vote, and i'm not really sure why.

[Helen]

wow... look at all those comments, but think, this isn't a beauty contest!

[mattjk_17]

So tough to choose... well I haven't had Miss Portman as my desktop wallpaper yet so unless I can be bothered find a real good desktop wallpaper of her then I'll have to say Miss Dunst http://www.joblo.com/ubb/wink.gif

[BloodiedCelticVengeance]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Helen:
wow... look at all those comments, but think, this isn't a beauty contest!</font>


Really? That's what you decided to gather from the responses? Well, as of this posting, there were 21 replies, and 14 mentioned the acting abilities of both young actresses. That's a robust 66%, two out of every three. And that's discounting your post, and the one by ebastard which was just a retort to my original opine.
And, if it does morph into beauty contest, I ask you...is that really our fault? Or, is it a residual effect of the way Hollywood chooses to market and employ young actresses...
Face it, Hollywood has an obsession with marketability. And one of the hugest hooks is a hot, young actress. This is not to say that I support the aesthetic...but, I'm not going to totally slam it, either. It's a fact of life that is so painfully obvious.
I mean, do you seriously think studio honchos were pounding down...say...Heather Matarazzo's door for "Bring it On", or "Episode One"? Hell no! They were on the fuckin' hunt for a sexxy young thing to fill those roles.
But, that does not mean Matarazzo is not worthy of Studio pursuit...she sure as hell is. I think she's very under used. She has proven herself to be a genuine talent, just not one posessing the conventional "beauty" that the great majority of execs hanker for.
I'm not saying that the only criteria for judging an actress is her looks...far from it. As a matter of fact, my two favorite roles by teens have to be Thora Birch as Enid in "Ghost World", and the aforementioned Matarazzo in "Welcome to the Dollhouse". Neither of them fell into that stereotypical chasm of conventional "Hollywood" beauty...though Birch was undeniably sexy as Enid. Matarazzo was a tad too young to view as anymore than a very cute kid with tons of talent.
Now, some of the truly beautiful young actresses out there CAN act, and have compelling screen presence. I reeled off the names of the girls I truly admire in my previous post. And, hell yeah, there are SCORES of beauties that cannot act their way out of a fuckin' wet paper bag...but, I'm not the one who keeps offering those vacuuous bimbos roles...nor do I plunk down the cash to see their remarkably putrid "films".
In this particular case, though, both Nat and Kiki are extremely gorgeous, sexxxy young ladies...'tis true.
BUT...
They are both actresses who have exhibited tremendous potential in their most challenging roles, thereby whetting the appetite for future projects. I agree with some here that Dunst has made some cheesy-ass flicks, no doubt. And Nat has had a few clunkers in there too. My favorite, Thora Birch, has to carry the god-awful "Dungeons and Dragons"...no actress/actor has a perfect resume. That's especially true for younger thespians, for too many scripts in their age genre are formulated hack tripe that I usually find downright insulting and pandering to the lowest common denomonator in the most pathetic fashion. There are exceptions, yes, but they are pathetically few and far between.
So, though Hollywod is misguided in it's handling of young talent, that's not going to stop a beautiful actress from also being talented. There's no crime in that, nor is it a crime for us to appreciate it when it's the whole fantastic package.
In a perfect world, talent would be the benchmark..but, if you are a fan of cinema, you'll know that tinseltown is FAR from perfect. Thank god for the indies, and for those casting folks who have the integrity to allow the "quirky" girls to have their moments...

[PorcheRacer]

I wouldn't throw either one off of my bed.

MMMMMM..both of them.....I'm the penut butter....

http://www.joblo.com/ubb/cool.gif

[Kastman]

This is easy for me


KIRSTEN DUNST

[ToasT]

I've seen this topic too many damn times before on other... non-mentionable message boards. And on the other threads, the votes usually go towards Natalie Portman. So please, enough with this!

[MiddleEarthArwen]

Ok, this is going to sound shallow and unethical...but, I choose Natalie, not because I think anything special of her, but because I dislike Kirsten oh so much. I think Natalie is a fair actress, and I think Kirsten is, admittedly, an ok actress as well...but....she just bothers me. So...yeah, Natalie.

[SAI]

Natalie Portman gave what I consider one of the best performances ever given by a child in Leon (aka The Professional), indeed I would say it was THE best if not for Alakina Mann's performance in The Others, but that's another thread.
She also impressed me in Beautiful Girls. Since then I've been very disappointed with what I've seen from her, she's just plain awful in the Star Wars films and her other work has been mediocre at best. Shame.

Kirsten Dunst also impressed me from the start, she's excellent in Interview With The Vampire and while they aren't exactly actors films I enjoyed her performances in Jumanji and Small Soldiers (a film that was far better than I expected it to be). But Dunst gets my vote for one reason and one reason only: The Virgin Suicides.
Much as I like her though she still isn't MJ

[vtadave]

I wouldn't mind being the meat between that sandwich!

Kirstin has slightly better tits, so I'll go w/ her.

[Orion]

Natalie Portman is better in actting and Kristen Durst is prettier.

[Hannibal21]

I think they"re both extremely overrated, but of the two I'd prefer Kirsten Dunst, she's more talented than Natalie even though Natalie is much more beautiful (too bad she sucks at acting).

[Jasonite]

Natalie Portman every time baby...


J

[Buck Turgidson]

Natalie. It's not even close.

[Bullet Tooth Tony]

For fucks sake

That question to me is like asking Anne Heche boys or girls?

I love them both...but talent wise...ok Natalie.

There I said it!

[BloodiedCelticVengeance]

I just hope the two of them somehow resist the urge to turn into the next Meg/Julia/Sandra...there's more to acting than just cashing a paycheck from a ridiculously vapid flick, though one would find it hard to believe from the roles that those three take.
As the terrible troika gets on in years, Hollywood must pluck some fresh ingenues to assume the "SWEETHEART" persona, and, FUCK, they already snatched Reese...let's hope Nat and Kirsten resist. Highly unlikely though...'tis a shame.

[BakeTheMooCow]

I find Natalie Portman so fucking annoying, I can't even express it in text. You'd have to be standing next to me and hear the words straight from my mouth to truly understand my utter disgust and hatred for her.

Kirten Dunst is alright. She's very pretty but she chooses roles in movies I don't enjoy that much.

[robk]

This is a tough one.
They are both hot, talented babes.

I must say, though, that Kirsten had more of a chance to develop her character in Spider-Man than Natalie had in The Phantom Menace & Attack of the Clones.

[Nate6]

Natalie is a better actress (in the films where she can develop her characters) and is much, much prettier.

[Jason Voorhees]

Kirsten Dunst for me. She's better looking and a superior actress. In all honesty, I haven't seen a performance from Portman that I would rate higher than ''decent''.

[screamer581]

Originally posted by flowrchild
I like Natalie Portman better. I think she's the more talented of the two and she steers clear of the cheesy teen movies, unlike Dunst. I don't have a problem with Dunst either but I have more respect for Portman.

I completely agree. I think Portman is the better actress, but she also picks the better roles,well besides Where The Heart Is...*shudders*

[Annie Hall]

If only for my intense dislike for Kirsten Dunst, I would have to go with Natalie Portman. I'm not sure if she is a great actress yet, perhaps she has just not had the opportunity to show her "range". I have (so far) been rather unimpressed by her, but, time will tell.

[Buck Turgidson]

It's been vaguely alluded to here by previous posters. The plain fact of the matter is, that the girl puts so many strictures and requirements on the roles that she takes, she really limits herself and her career prospects. She has stated again and again that she doesn't really feel acting is her passion and she's also always talked about pursuing Psychology as a career. (There are going to be so many pathetically horny guys lining up outside any office she ever sets up...)

She's got tons of potential, but with her refusal to do any form of sexual material, nudity, any real violence, any onscreen cursing, ad infinitum, she's really cutting herself off commercially and (especially) artistically. She should take a lesson from Julianne Moore, Halle Berry, Angelina Jolie, Ashley Judd, Virginie Ledoyen, Audrey Tatou... (I could go on and on), and just act like a professional and do the job. That goes double for Dunst who has some talent, but is nowhere near Natalie in acting skills. (Beat me up if you like, it's still true.)

[Annie Hall]

Originally posted by Buck Turgidson
It's been vaguely alluded to here by previous posters. The plain fact of the matter is, that the girl puts so many strictures and requirements on the roles that she takes, she really limits herself and her career prospects. She has stated again and again that she doesn't really feel acting is her passion and she's also always talked about pursuing Psychology as a career. (There are going to be so many pathetically horny guys lining up outside any office she ever sets up...)

She's got tons of potential, but with her refusal to do any form of sexual material, nudity, any real violence, any onscreen cursing, ad infinitum, she's really cutting herself off commercially and (especially) artistically. She should take a lesson from Julianne Moore, Halle Berry, Angelina Jolie, Ashley Judd, Virginie Ledoyen, Audrey Tatou... (I could go on and on), and just act like a professional and do the job. That goes double for Dunst who has some talent, but is nowhere near Natalie in acting skills. (Beat me up if you like, it's still true.)

I totally agree. If you're gonna make movies, MAKE MOVIES. Give it your all...don't pass it off as an idle passtime and not do what it takes to be great. Even if she does end up being a psychologist, why not (a) make movies that have violence or language or *something*...and show her talent. Or (b) quit making movies and stop putting out work that is obviously not the best she can do. Sorry that this is rather harshly worded, but...I feel that the movies she chooses to make are not...good enough to show her potential, yet she stops herself from reaching it. I find it very sad.

[Memento8291]

I'ma have to go with Portman...having loved her in both Leon and Beautiful Girls...she obviously has talent that she is wasting now and days...yes, yes...I agree with just about everything else people have been saying...however...theres no doubt she showed much more promise as a child than Kirsten did....and in my opinion, she still has that talent whether she wants to express it or not.

And, hey...she had a decent amount of swear words in Leon...hush hush

[bskutle]

Tough call, but I've gotta go with Natalie, whom I've been a fan of since "The Professional."

[Buck Turgidson]

Originally posted by Annie Hall I totally agree. If you're gonna make movies, MAKE MOVIES. Give it your all...don't pass it off as an idle passtime and not do what it takes to be great. Even if she does end up being a psychologist, why not (a) make movies that have violence or language or *something*...and show her talent. Or (b) quit making movies and stop putting out work that is obviously not the best she can do. Sorry that this is rather harshly worded, but...I feel that the movies she chooses to make are not...good enough to show her potential, yet she stops herself from reaching it. I find it very sad.

I always compare her, in my own mind. w/ Ledoyen. They remind me physically of one another, and each have that special spark of charisma that lets you know you're watching a star.

Where they differ, however, is in the kind of films they do. I know Virginie was in the dreadful Leo vehicle The Beach, but most of her French films (particularly Jeanne and the Perfect Guy, A Single Girl, In All Innocence and Late August, Early September) are emotionally intense and intellectually challenging. I think outside of the generally (and deservedly) highly-regarded Leon/The Professional, Beautiful Girls and Anywhere But Here, most of Nat's movies have been beneath her.

The Star Wars films, and Where the Heart Is? Please.



http://www.natalieportman.com/images/movies/love_paris/bigkiss.jpg

From a new anthology film she's doing in France. Maybe Paris will loosen her up a bit.

:p (*Crosses Fingers*) :p

[Jasonite]

Originally posted by Buck Turgidson
It's been vaguely alluded to here by previous posters. The plain fact of the matter is, that the girl puts so many strictures and requirements on the roles that she takes, she really limits herself and her career prospects. She has stated again and again that she doesn't really feel acting is her passion and she's also always talked about pursuing Psychology as a career. (There are going to be so many pathetically horny guys lining up outside any office she ever sets up...)

She's got tons of potential, but with her refusal to do any form of sexual material, nudity, any real violence, any onscreen cursing, ad infinitum, she's really cutting herself off commercially and (especially) artistically. She should take a lesson from Julianne Moore, Halle Berry, Angelina Jolie, Ashley Judd, Virginie Ledoyen, Audrey Tatou... (I could go on and on), and just act like a professional and do the job. That goes double for Dunst who has some talent, but is nowhere near Natalie in acting skills. (Beat me up if you like, it's still true.)


Well I for one have no problem with her refusing to do nudity or massive amounts of violence or cursing. What's wrong with having standards? I don't see Meryl Streep doing any of those things and I'd say she's had a pretty good career. I'm not saying Natalie is anywhere near as talented as Meryl, but neither is Julia Roberts and she's never done a nude scene, or spent movies killing people or cussed like a sailor in her movies either (the closest she's come here is Erin Brockovich, and yeah, she was a major star before that movie). I wish more people would take a cue from these people.


Jasonite

[Buck Turgidson]

I'm not necessarily talking about nudity per se (although according to your lights, Julianne Moore, Ashley Judd, Glenda Jackson, Gwyneth Paltrow, Kate Winslett, Emma Thompson, Jane Fonda, Catherine Deneuve...none of these people have standards?), I just mean an acknowledgement that sex exists. Almost any mention or depiction of it causes Nat to (figuratively) break out in hives. Read her interviews. She's almost pathologically obsessed with never, ever appearing in any sort of sexual context. That's a big damned bridge to burn as an actor.

I'm also not talking about Tony Montana levels of profanity. I mean an average NYPD Blue episode's worth. It's impossible to realistically depict the modern word in a drama at PG level. I'm sorry to make such a blanket statement, but it's true.

Unless you're going to spend your whole career doing period pieces (and after The Wings of the Dove, that's not the catchall it once was), you're going to have to step it up a little.


(Incidentally, Meryl Streep showed her breast, albeit briefly, in Silkwood)

Julia Roberts isn't an actress. She's a movie star.

That Oscar? To quote Sickboy "The Academy means fuckall."

[James Logan]

Close one, but Natalie gets it for me.

[Jasonite]

Well, coincidentally I don't have a lot of respect for Julianne Moore, Ashley Judd (who's horrible, there's no reason she should be a star), Gwyneth Paltrow, Drew Barrymore for that matter, or Jane Fonda. And yeah, my respect does dip quite a bit when a woman does a nude scene in a movie unless it's pretty damned necessary. I can think of only one or two that I deem necessary off the top of my head. Nine times out of 10, and that's not an exaggeration, it's because they want more money and nudity gives it to a movie.

I agree with you that getting hives talking about sexual or sensual scenes in a movie is pretty extreme, and I wouldn't have a big problem with portraying her in a scene that's fairly sensuous, but most of the 'valid' reasons people give today for nudity are simply facades for wanting to see their girl's tits on the screen.

And I'm sorry, but I think there should be less swearing in movies, not more. This is a bone I've been meaning to pick for a while. We had a helluva lot of quality movies up through the 60's without anything much worse than the word 'damn' or 'hell', and while I'm not opposed to swearing in all kinds of movies, it's called for a lot less than the movies use them. Again, I wouldn't be opposed to her saying stuff like damn or hell, or even shit, and yeah something that's about the same as an NYPD Blue episode would work, but I disagree with you that it's impossible to portray a drama nowadays without PG-13 levels of swearing in it. Indeed, the movie industry is only hurting itself by rating things R that are directly related to swearing, not helping itself. The Rookie was a pretty down to earth drama, and it was rated G. No it wasn't gritty, but I don't think all or even most dramas should be. I think too many people, especially those under 21 these days have only been exposed to regular and frequent swearing in film, so of course they think it's necessary. Do I think they should take it out of realistic depictions of life on the streets of New York? No. Do they need to put it into every drama we see? NO.


Jasonite

[freakandgeek]

i think its natalie portman, but definately a close race for me :D

[malcolm1980]

Kirsten Dunst. She seems more down to earth and approachable.

[freakandgeek]

Originally posted by malcolm1980
Kirsten Dunst. She seems more down to earth and approachable. true...in quotes i have read for natalie, she seems a little uptight....but i like her acting...kirsten is sooo close though...but a little more goofy in interviews and stuff which is cool...so like i said....its a close race