wildyams

I do think that you need to include their supporting character work as well to be fair. However, I will argue terrible as the guantlet has been thrown.

Ashley Judd is more terrible. Even though she has more "independent" roots she is more one dimensional. Not that Sandra Bullock has more depth in her roles, but at least she can do romantic comedies, and occasionally something else. How many more Ashley Judd victim becomes hero roles do we need to see her in with a Morgan Freeman-ish character? Kiss the Girls? Double Jeopardy? High Crimes?

I will also give Sandra Bullock credit because she produces her own stuff. It may not appeal to too many people, and are offbeat bordering on weird plot points, but at least she trying to do what she wants.

Although it's hard because if Speed 2 were allowed that might tip the scales (and I can argue heavily that she was the lead in that caper since Keanu had the sense to step away).

Speed 2 definitely counts, that was most definitely a Sandra Bullock vehicle (it certainly wasn't a Jason Patrick or Willem Dafoe vehicle). I didn't want to include their earlier roles before they became "A-List" stars, because I didn't want them to get undue credit for being in good movies like "Heat" or "Love Potion No. 9" simply because they took what was available at the time. I'm more interested in the awful movies they've made since they had their pick of what they wanted to do, because invariably they have both chosen one turd after another. However, if you can make a good case for including some of their other work, then I'm all ears.

You may be referring to their "bodies of work," but when it comes to beauty, Ashley is the clear winner, although Sandra looked very cute in Speed. ^_^

In that case Sandra Bullock is more terrible because she was involved in Speed 2:Cruise Control.

Keep it in your pants, Mr. Nuts. Beauty shouldn't factor in here, I'm not talking about the actresses themselves, I am talking about their movies

i'm protesting your taking their supporting roles out of the equation, because i think that these are valid characters to be considered while judging terribleness. terrible isn't a matter of size. size matters not, in regards to terrible. ashley judd was awesome in 'smoke'. sandra bullock was convincing in her supporting role in 'speed', for what it's worth.

okay, i'll vote. sandra gets more terrible for 'forces of nature'.

i'll play your little terrible game..

oh, by the way, thanks to the ramblings of mr. lambro, i am watching '3,000 Miles To Graceland'. woo hoo!

Ranting and ravings about Ashley Judd and Sandra Bullock are really not necessary when in reality all you had to say is that they are both horrible actors and there's really no need to even compare them. Although If I had to vote I'd most definitely say that Ashley Judd was worse. There's a movie that she's in with Tommy Lee Jones that just blows, have no clue what it's called but as far as I'm concerned it was a waste of a lot of money :) Ok there's my story and I'm sticking to it....
Will I hope you are feeling better soon...looking forward to hearing back from you....
Have a great weekend :)

Despite numerous protestations about me not being willing to include lesser roles by these two actresses, I'm gonna give you my answer: Sandra Bullock's movies are more terrible. There are a number of reasons for this. One is simply that Sandra Bullock has more awful movies than Ashley Judd has, simply because she's been a big star for longer. While Ashley Judd's only been in a few awful films, like "Kiss the Girls", "Double Jeopardy", "Someone Like You" and "High Crimes"; Sandra Bullock's list of turds goes on and on: "Two if By Sea", "Speed 2", "Hope Floats", "Practical Magic", "Forces of Nature", "Miss Congeniality", "Murder By Numbers", etc...

So not only does Sandra Bullock have the fact that she's been doing more of it and for longer going against her, but it's also proof for reason number two: she clearly has no intention of stopping. Ashley Judd may just get it out of her system and start branching out and doing some stuff worth watching, but Sandra Bullock clearly will only do that when she's no longer calling all the shots about which movies she wants to do. Eventually she'll get old and people aren't gonna wanna watch her do these kinds of movies anymore, and then she'll have to take what is given to her. Unfortunately for the rest of us, it seems that the day when either of these actresses does some genuinely good movies is not in the immediate future, as Ashley Judd has "Twisted" coming out and Sandra Bullock has the sequel to "Miss Congeniality" on deck. Yuck

Nah, Ashley Judd is.