posted on the imdb. just a shame he/she can't spell her name correctly

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000337/board/thread/23000443

why do people make the effort to post something such as that? they're obviously not a fan and therefore probably haven't seen all of her work. i'd reply but it seems pointless - just like their post

You are absolutely right nina...there is no point in replying to such garbage...
I have found most of the imdb posts--no matter who the actor or what the movie-to generally be inane...
Go Rachael! We love you!!
And p.s. "She's All That" is a truly wonderful movie that will forever stand the test of time...

He's just upset, and frankly he has every right to be. She probably didn't tell him how big her lawn was when she hired him.

I think he's only getting $30 a mow.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve:
He's just upset, and frankly he has every right to be. She probably didn't tell him how big her lawn was when she hired him.

I think he's only getting $30 a mow.

I am not sure he is smart enough to how to start the mower in the first place

Honestly, I'm inclined to agree with some of the comments on the IMDB board. She had potential. She had a good enough screen presence to make me sit through all of the maddening "She's All That." And the public had initially responded to her, because that movie didn't pull in $100 million with people wanting to see the utterly talentless Freddie Prince Jr. or the insultingly inane plot. It was Rachael that made people go see that movie.

Unfortunately, that was pretty much it. She went on to make the preteen-pleasing Josie and the Pussycats and a string of TERRIBLE movies. I've seen most of them and they uniformly stink. I have also seen her performances slipping in each successive role, which brings me to her wince-inducing accent she sported in the "Into the West" miniseries. I couldn't sit through her scenes. Seriously, that accent was bad.

Why did this happen? Maybe someone gave her some bad advice on role choices. Maybe she was trying to escape from the teen-movie craze going on about 5 years ago by going indie. Who knows? What I do know is that she has never starred in a worthwhile film and now she seems to be stuck doing TV or direct-to-DVD movies and that makes me feel sad. She could have been something great. This is not a flame, just the honest thoughts of a Rachael Leigh Cook fan.

Firstly i have to agree with your early comments about She's All That, but i'm biased because it's not my thing at all. Although i do think the kids paid to see it because that's what the they like, not just to see Rachael.

For me Josie is, if anything, less than preteen-pleasing. Sure it can be viewed as a lightweight no-brainer comedy but i believe it's barely moderate success was due to the fact that it takes a sideswipe at something the average viewer holds so dear to them - the pop music industry. I feel most of the digs and subtleties would have passed most of it's audience by. Effectively it was too 'clever' for the youngsters and too 'fluffy' for an older audience. Why, in my opinion, it wasn't as successful as it should have been.

I can't agree that her later movies "uniformly stink". Stateside is far from being a bad movie, in fact it's a great, well written, directed and performed film and it includes possibly Rachael's finest work to date. 11:14 isn't a bad film and neither is The Big Empty [i could go on]. As for Fearless - through no fault of her own the world missed out on something that could have catapulted Rachael into stardom. Only the studio and it's scaredy-cat bosses are to blame for that being a non-starter - Rachael, from what i gathered by watching the pilot, was perfectly capable of carrying off the role.

Again the issue of a "worthwhile" film rears it's head. What's the criteria for a film to be judged worthwhile? It's success at the box office, whether or not it goes straight to video? Good movies slip through the net all the time - and to be fair most of the blockbusters out there are NOT good films - they appeal to a mass audience, it doesn't make them good films - throw in some explosions, some guns and/or some moronic toilet-based humour and you're onto a winner with most audiences. I can think of plenty of her movies that are worthwhile [for one reason or another], it's not Rachael's or my fault that the masses want something more. I'm happy to judge each of her films by taking into consideration all the elements that go into producing them - it's hardly Rachael's fault if the writing or direction or whatever is below par. Sometimes she can only do her best with what's on offer.

I have to agree with Nina, although I did not see 11:14. Nina's analsis of Josie I totally agree with.

Well, there's only one really perfect person in the world. It's a Nobody.
I also can't say every movie with Rachael is one of the best. But there are a great part of them I really like. And I have to agree with Nina, not every blockbuster is a good film. Some of them don't have even a good story.

I must say that all of Rachael's movies that I have seen (I have not seen all of them) I have liked. I would not say "She's All That" is my favourite but I still like the movie.

To an extent opinions are pretty much down to personal taste though the guy posting at IMDb must have had some issues with Rachael to be that uncomplimentary (if not downright rude).

NINA is right on the money...there are so many great movies that 75-80% of people my age dont know anything about GOOD movies....i personally havent seen a movie i thought rlc could act in, but i dont know the ones that have slipped thru as nina put it...
BUT, i didnt think katie holmes could act until i saw pieces of april, a movie most havent seen
acting ability aside i just want to say i have met no girl that embodies everything i look for physically, but rlc is the closest....mmm, little 5'2 100lbs frame....toss that all around

so, let me get this right, you don't think rachael can act? is that what you're saying?