Notable?!? I'd say their both pretty much in the same boat except Keira tries to do serious flicks...there's not one performance though worth mentioning from her.

Lohan's worse granted but the only reason why Keira's got appeal is she's mildy attractive...(the pouting gets damn annoying) and she's English (which for some reason already makes her a better actor).

Sorry don't rate either of 'em.

Domino, Pride & Prejudice, Love Actually, The Hole, King Arthur? You dont have to like those movies to see that she can do drastically different roles and do it well.

Lohan. Shes pretty much the same girl in every movie she is in.

Its really hard to say they are in the same category.

Last I checked Knightly at least had an Oscar nomination

:) Didn't mean to turn it into a debate...I lump them into the same category of actresses that aren't the next hot thing really.

All the Keira Knightly films you named, I think the only one that got any critical acclaim (where she was playing a lead) was Pride & Prejudice. I'll give her credit for that one but she really didn't have to PUSH the boundaries of acting in it.

And King Arthur? Yeah women in 'Arthur's time' wore bikini-like outfits while shooting arrows across a frozen lake...

Give me an actress like Maggie Gyllenhaal or even Natalie Portman (to a lesser extent). Interesting different roles.

This is not the same movie with Miranda Richardson and Michael Sheen called Caitlin, right?

Why are they doing more than one movie about Dylan Thomas and his wife? Why isn't just one good enough? They'll ruin it! I was so looking forward to seeing Sheen as Dylan Thomas, and now they're making a crappy Hollywood version of the Thomas' lives with Lindsay Lohan? WTF??

Geez, Rodney, sometimes I do wonder about the questions you pose.

"This will be a defining point for Lindsay Lohan. ..but to think of her in a serious dramatic role?"

"Can Lohan do serious drama?"

It isn't the first time Lohan has done something 'serious': "Georgia Rule", "Chapter 27", "A Woman Of No Importance". How she fares in these films remains to be seen, but the point is, Rodney, you are not asking the right question- because someone obviously thinks so.

Lohan does have talent, and I would not call "Mean Girls" let alone "Prarie Home Companion" fluff. [and the Robert Altman film released on video today, no less] Do you think Oscar Wilde's "Woman Scorned" is fluff? How about "Chapter 27", regarding the events that led up to the death of John Lennon? That fluff too?

The *better question* is this: is she going to stop behaving like a spoiled, party hopping, unprofessional little wench, or at the least shed that perception of her?

Hopefully Keira wont get caught up in the tabloid bullshit that Lindsay Lohan seems to love. She still has a bright career ahead of her.

Darren, I havent seen Prairie Home Companion, and I do call "Mean Girls" fluff (same teen drama stuff she has always done)

The other movies you mentioned are not even out yet, so it might seem like people are giving her a chance, she has yet to prove it to the public. Someone let Rob Schnieder do a sequel to Duece Bigalo.

All she has been in up to this date (by your suggestion, Prairie Home Companion excluded) are just disney type fluff movies. Teen Drama fluff. I look forward to seeing her in something of substance, but her reputation (on and off screen) work against her in being taken seriously.

Thank you for bringing my typo to my attention though. I had meant to type "could be a defining moment" instead of will. Same could be said of any of her upcoming less fluffy roles.

We will have to wait and see.

Knightly is an actress I can take seriously. I respect and like Knightly. But as for Lohan I don't really care for her. As Darren pointed out Lohan is a spoiled brat at this point in time. IF Lohan stops acting like she a bitch diva then I would have some sort of respect for her but I don't right now. Can Lohan act? Yes, will she pull this role off? Yes, I thnk she will , but unless she starts to act like a professional I don't give a rats-ass how good she can act.

bah. i say ditch lohan and get someone like Misha Barton to play the role. lohan is naaas-ty.

For the love of God...
We know the movie blog doesn't bother reviewing for grammar or even spelling mistakes that often, but for pity's sake, spell the Names Of The Actors Correctly!

(Go to imdb.com and look up Keira's name.)

You guys are under estimating Lindsey. Given a decent script and a good director, I bet she would do just fine in a serious role. She was pretty good in mean girls. I know that wasn't a drama, but it showed she can act.

I think everyone is missing the point about this story...

...It truely shows Hollywood has lost the plot. A few years back, there were no such thing as 'undertones'. They'd just get it on!

Bring back the glory days of cinema! ;-)

Don't get too happy. They said lesbian UNDERTONE, as in NO MAKEOUT HAPPENING. Zip those flies right back up, boys.

I'm not a huge fan of Lohan's but I will say that she was surprisingly good in "A Prairie Home Companion". No, it wasn't a title role but she stood her ground among some pretty huge names like freakin' Meryl Streep! It wasn't a fantastic part but she actually managed to avoid being really annoying and I still think she can make a name for herself as more than a Hollywood whore. She's shown she has potential. The question now is what she's prepared to do with it.

A lot of people here are confusing the quality of the actresses with the quality of their movies. Lohan has mostly appeared in fluff movies, but that doesn't automatically make her a fluff actress. And Knightley has done a variety of ambitious, serious roles but that doesn't automatically make her a great actress, or even a particularly good one.

I personally am of the opinion that Knightley is overrated. She has done a wide range of roles, but she has not, in my view, shown much range as an actress. She always seems pretty much the same, with the same expressions and same personality.

Lohan, on the other hand, has done surprisingly well in relatively light material. She possesses poise and control, not to mention decent comic ability.

All in all, I think it's too early to tell which actress is better. It's comparing apples and oranges at this point. It's the difference between an actress who transcends the lightweight material she's in, and an actress who doesn't seem quite up to the heavy material she's in.

I would expect any true movie buff to be wary of writing off an actor simply because of a past association with fluffy roles. That fallacy was once applied to Sally Field, Tom Hanks, Jamie Foxx, and many other performers who went on to exceed people's expectations.

I disagree with you completely Kylopod. Knightley is DRASTICALLY different from her role in Pirates as she is in Princess of Theives, as she is in Domino, or even Pride and Prejudice.

Lohan. I have seen her as nothing but typical teen, spoiled teen, clever teen. Mostly all of the above in one. When she proves to have the range you pretend Knightley doesnt have, I will change my tune. Right now its all shes got.

awww man i really like keria Knightley.. for her to be working with her sucks .. but i dont know maybe keria can make her look good so that she can pull it off ....