Actresses that can match up to Madhuri or Sridevi. - Page 3

In terms of ability and talent, I don't know if any of the current Bollywood actresses could ever match up to Sri/Madhuri. If anything, I think the real talent is in the south, with actresses like Samantha and Tamannaah. It's interesting that Tamannaah is doing the Himmatwala remake, if anybody could even attempt to fill Sridevi's shoes and do some sort of justice to it, it's her.

Another reason why I have respect for Actresses like Madhubala etc. is because these women were often discriminated by the Fanatic people in the society, as they thought women should not be in movies ( until 1930 women were not allowed to be in movies) but through actress like Zubeidaa , Devika Rani and Madhuabala these stereotypes and discrimination were broken. Through no madhubala or zubeidaa madhuri and sridevi would have never had the oppturnity to play in movies , as this issue would still exist.

Through devika rank , madhubala etc. a change in society came and India was not men dominated any more as women working hard and making their space in Bollywood as stopping this nonsense that women can not be in movies.

Respect to the actress of 1930, 40, 50 60

i dont think there was anything extra-ordinary about sri-devi. Its just since childhood our minds have been trained to follow "old is gold" thing and in today's times all we love to do is bash the current ones and love the old ones may be coz it makes us nostalgic, reminds us our childhood and makes us biased towards liking them more,

I never thought Madhuri was anything special...I think Konkona is a better actress than Madhuri...and as she grows...PC will evolve as good an actress and dancer as Madhuri.

Originally posted by: koiza.k

i dont think there was anything extra-ordinary about sri-devi. Its just since childhood our minds have been trained to follow "old is gold" thing and in today's times all we love to do is bash the current ones and love the old ones may be coz it makes us nostalgic, reminds us our childhood and makes us biased towards liking them more,

I think any one can be sri-devi. Madhuri i think was truly amazing but not in terms of acting, her true talent as an actor is yet to be explored!

I agree , I did not even know who Sridevi was, I actually found out about 3 months ago.

Originally posted by: -FSH-

Another reason why I have respect for Actresses like Madhubala etc. is because these women were often discriminated by the Fanatic people in the society, as they thought women should not be in movies ( until 1930 women were not allowed to be in movies) but through actress like Zubeidaa , Devika Rani and Madhuabala these stereotypes and discrimination were broken. Through no madhubala or zubeidaa madhuri and sridevi would have never had the oppturnity to play in movies , as this issue would still exist.

Through devika rank , madhubala etc. a change in society came and India was not men dominated any more as women working hard and making their space in Bollywood as stopping this nonsense that women can not be in movies.

Respect to the actress of 1930, 40, 50 60

Utter nonsense.

Devika Rani + Madhubala were not from the same era. You have no idea what you're talking about. The age difference between them is 25 years. Devika was born in 1908. Madhubala was born in 1933. That's 25 years exactly. That is the same age difference between Sridevi (1963) and Parineeti (1988)!!!!

Madhubala was not in the group of females who were the first to take on roles in movies. And she was also not considered a great actress in her time. It was said that she is just pretty to look at, although her charisma was her plus-point. She never won the Best Actress award. She was always overshadowed by Meena Kumari, Nargis, Vyjayanthimala and Nutan, who were considered the greatest actresses of their time.

-

It is also true that in every generation, the past is ALWAYS glorified as something of a "golden era".

Back in the early/mid-90s actresses like Karisma, Raveena, Pooja Bhatt, Urmila were criticised for being bimbos and the likes of Kajol, Manisha, Tabu were said to not math upto the likes of Sridevi-Madhuri-Juhi. Yet today, the fans from that era would jump up and say that the curretn stars such as Deepika, Parineeti and Kangna are nothing more than bimbos (in my opinion they are far better than the afforementioned heroines in their early days). Now all of a sudden Karisma is considered one of the all-time greats.

If you go back to the 70s, you had Zeenat Aman, Parveen Babi and Rekha's early movies which were heavily criticised (and if you watch them today you will see why!) - the acting was on the poor side to say the least. But today they are considered legends.

I mean seriously, look at Zeenat Aman's acting (I do adore her, but c'mon), even Katrina Kaif has acted better than her in film such as Namastey London and New York. But it's harder to get credit during your era. Unless you die youn (i.e. Madhubala, Divya Bharti).

Originally posted by: Star_No_1

Utter nonsense.

Devika Rani + Madhubala were not from the same era. You have no idea what you're talking about. The age difference between them is 25 years. Devika was born in 1908. Madhubala was born in 1933. That's 25 years exactly. That is the same age difference between Sridevi (1963) and Parineeti (1988)!!!!

Madhubala was not in the group of females who were the first to take on roles in movies. And she was also not considered a great actress in her time. It was said that she is just pretty to look at, although her charisma was her plus-point. She never won the Best Actress award. She was always overshadowed by Meena Kumari, Nargis, Vyjayanthimala and Nutan, who were considered the greatest actresses of their time.

-

It is also true that in every generation, the past is ALWAYS glorified as something of a "golden era".

Back in the early/mid-90s actresses like Karisma, Raveena, Pooja Bhatt, Urmila were criticised for being bimbos and the likes of Kajol, Manisha, Tabu were said to not math upto the likes of Sridevi-Madhuri-Juhi. Yet today, the fans from that era would jump up and say that the curretn stars such as Deepika, Parineeti and Kangna are nothing more than bimbos (in my opinion they are far better than the afforementioned heroines in their early days). Now all of a sudden Karisma is considered one of the all-time greats.

If you go back to the 70s, you had Zeenat Aman, Parveen Babi and Rekha's early movies which were heavily criticised (and if you watch them today you will see why!) - the acting was on the poor side to say the least. But today they are considered legends.

I mean seriously, look at Zeenat Aman's acting (I do adore her, but c'mon), even Katrina Kaif has acted better than her in film such as Namastey London and New York. But it's harder to get credit during your era. Unless you die youn (i.e. Madhubala, Divya Bharti).

Vidya balan & priyanka are fab in their acts..

People can repeat madhuri moves in dance, but no one can DANCE AS MADHURI DIXIT DANCES... she is the only one, incomparable, with that magic felt in every move... :) dancing is not only about music and routine, it is about feelings, and Madhuri can show all shades of those? feelings splendidly in dance and music!...No another actress has that type ability now a days..not that was before in any plastic nose actress...perfect monoply for madhuri.

Originally posted by: Star_No_1

Utter nonsense.

Devika Rani + Madhubala were not from the same era. You have no idea what you're talking about. The age difference between them is 25 years. Devika was born in 1908. Madhubala was born in 1933. That's 25 years exactly. That is the same age difference between Sridevi (1963) and Parineeti (1988)!!!!

Madhubala was not in the group of females who were the first to take on roles in movies. And she was also not considered a great actress in her time. It was said that she is just pretty to look at, although her charisma was her plus-point. She never won the Best Actress award. She was always overshadowed by Meena Kumari, Nargis, Vyjayanthimala and Nutan, who were considered the greatest actresses of their time.

-

It is also true that in every generation, the past is ALWAYS glorified as something of a "golden era".

Back in the early/mid-90s actresses like Karisma, Raveena, Pooja Bhatt, Urmila were criticised for being bimbos and the likes of Kajol, Manisha, Tabu were said to not math upto the likes of Sridevi-Madhuri-Juhi. Yet today, the fans from that era would jump up and say that the curretn stars such as Deepika, Parineeti and Kangna are nothing more than bimbos (in my opinion they are far better than the afforementioned heroines in their early days). Now all of a sudden Karisma is considered one of the all-time greats.

If you go back to the 70s, you had Zeenat Aman, Parveen Babi and Rekha's early movies which were heavily criticised (and if you watch them today you will see why!) - the acting was on the poor side to say the least. But today they are considered legends.

I mean seriously, look at Zeenat Aman's acting (I do adore her, but c'mon), even Katrina Kaif has acted better than her in film such as Namastey London and New York. But it's harder to get credit during your era. Unless you die youn (i.e. Madhubala, Divya Bharti).

Completely Agree with You.Madhubala is considered as an Icon now only because of her early death.In those days she was not as Popular as Vyjayantimala or Nargis.