Are Sridevi and Madhuri really Equals?? - Page 7

Originally posted by: Shaitan-Haiwan

and TBH, Madhuri is really overrated. Even her dancing, to me, was never great. And I am a professional dancer, I know my stuff. She's good, but not that great. Karishma completely over-shadowed her in Dil Toh Pagal Hai in the dance of envy, and Aishwarya for me, was better in Dola Re.

I completely agree, with Karisma overshadowing Madhuri in DTPH. Madhuri looked liked she was struggling with the fast dance moves. Dola re though , I believe Madhuri was a dream to watch!! I loved Madhuri in the 90s, but after watching a couple of Sridevi movies I became a Sridevi fan. She is the only actress who has done justice to all the roles she played so far be it comedy, drama or romance. to top it she was a fantastic dancer as well. Agree, she has done a lot of commercial potboilers but the fact is she had strong roles even in those movies.

Lol at the comments, Madz was not overshadowed by karishma, in fact when her career was at a decline stage, when all her detractors were writing negative stuff about her, she proved her mettle & established herself back to the reigning position. Madz even won the best actress film fare award in the year 1997 for her role as pooja in DTPH.

Sridevi is a Legend...Madhuri is a good actress !!!

For me ...as actors its hands down sridevi who is way mpore better than madhuri.

I think sridevi she's miles ahead, she got saroj khan into limelight by crediting and mention her name to directors, saroj had become famous when she choreographed Main tere dushman, song in mr india and karma, sri made a career for her like she did with gauri. Saroj is responsible inturn making madhuri famous, but imo sri was complete game changer, like amitabh was in 70s sridevi was in 80s, completely only time where a decade belonged to a female alone. Sridevi had the goddess look

That sridevi has a slightly (only slightly) better filmography doesn't mean she is ahead of Madhuri in terms of acting, it means she was smarter and picked better roles/films.

Madhuri had the ability to shine beyond her scripts. That, in itself, makes her a stronger actor. If you're an actress and have the acting genes, it's very easy to shine out in author-backed roles or really well written roles where you're in the centre stage - however, if you manage to stand out in films with weaker scripts or which are male-dominated, then it's a big deal - and this is where Madhuri scores.

At the end, it's irrelevant what type of films they did - if you're comparing their acting capabilities, then assess their performances. While Sridevi was good in most of her roles, Madhuri lived hers. I, for one, can certainly see Madhuri pulling off a Mr.India, Chaalbaaz or Nagina (although this role was made for Sridevi). However, I can't even see Sridevi in Chandramukhi's getup.Sridevis famous "comedy" consisted purely of making silly faces and talking in squeky voice. In serious roles her dialogue delivery was pathetic, while Madhuris voice is one of the best ever. Sridevi was highly repetitive in her roles. She did a variety of them - but comedy was always the same, angst was always the same... Madhuri was always different (compare her comic scenes in Khalnayak and Raja to see what I mean). Finally if Madhuri doesnt have a film like Sadma, Sridevi does NOT have a film like Lajja, Mrityudand or Devdas.

Madhuri wins at all the fronts except one - that she didnt do films in regional languages.

Originally posted by: swashbuckling

Lol at the comments, Madz was not overshadowed by karishma, in fact when her career was at a decline stage, when all her detractors were writing negative stuff about her, she proved her mettle & established herself back to the reigning position. Madz even won the best actress film fare award in the year 1997 for her role as pooja in DTPH.

Her's was the most appreciated character along with SRK in DTPH, & Even today the movie hasn't lost its charm.

LOL @ those who claim Sridevi is considered better just due to good scripts or roles. FYI, Sridevi reigned in a period which was considered worst in Hindi cinema. She shone and proved her mettle.

Even in films in which she had brief appearance and just one song, those films are remembered as her films (Jaanbaaz for eg.).

Sridevi was an original. She didn't try to copy a Madhubala or any other yesteryear actress in terms of acting or styling. Madhuri forever tried to model herself after Madhubala.

And just a few films? Please check filmographies of both actresses and the sheer number of films across all languages. Sridevi was a pan Indian phenomenon.

Sridevi is the only actress to have had sequels of films in which she played title role.

The only actress who overshadowed heroes in her films and could hold her ground, make her presence felt despite charismatic and powerful actors like Amrish Puri and Amitabh Bachchan (at their best).

Her voice is weak but she did know how to use it properly. And weak voice is no excuse to run down an actor. Hema Malini's voice is a butt of jokes too. But that doesn't take anything from her.

Some were discussing emergence of Kajol and Lolo in 90s. It is true. Kajol and Karishma had put Madhuri's career on the wane. They were giving ATBBs and yearly top grossers while Madhuri was smiling her way and shaking her assets in songs in inconsequential films such as Yaarana, Rajkumar etc. DTPH saved her in 1997. And it was a combo success (SRK, Karishma, music, MD-SRK romantic scenes). Yash Chopra's presentation and treatment made it a success. And SRK, Karishma had more successful films behind them when they did DTPH, unlike MD. Karishma Kapoor won the National Award for her role in DTPH. That speaks for itself.

Madhuri did couple of other films after that but by then even her songs had ceased to get success (who remembers Aarzoo?).

Devdas had SRK and Aishwarya (who was scaling her peak around that era). Madhuri did well as Chandramukhi but film's success wasn't due to her. She wasn't even there in pre and post release promotions! And fate of films like Lajja, HTHS show what commercial value she could add (by then) to a film with her presence.

It wasn't like she was ruling all through 90s or till Devdas.

Lastly, those who think MD did more challenging or better roles and Sridevi couldn't have done those roles are just kidding themselves. Be it Hindi cinema or others, Sridevi had already done more difficult roles with ease and that also at a much younger age.

Even now, choice of films shows which actress has what range.

Sridevi had a lot more in her arsenal than just smiles or shaking assets. She doesn't even feel the need to repeat it or invoke past glory to get noticed. She did different stuff (without a dint of Sridevi-isms in it) and got success with it.

Madhuri still busy signing item numbers, stuffing old and new stars in her umpteenth comeback films, and invoking Nisha wali Madhuri even in an ad for rice!