Referral Banners
Showing posts with label Jennifer Aniston. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jennifer Aniston. Show all posts

IMDb Top 20 Actress List. A Few Late Notes.

Have any of you read this IMDb list which purports to evaluate the "overall importance and impact" of film actresses across the span of the past two decades. That'd be 1990-2009 (though obviously they're including 2010.) I had somehow missed this list which arrived in September I think but I can't let it go by without some comment. I'm not sure what they mean by "impact" exactly... global fame? If so, Angelina is too low. And "importance" is another highly subjective word. The list is as follows.


[I've added the "peak periods" after their names to attempt to show when they were most "important/impactful" or, rather,  "when people cared about them the most" in film.]
  1. Julia Roberts  .............[1990-2001]
  2. Meryl Streep ..............[1990, 1995, 2002-now]
  3. Cate Blanchett ...........[1998-2008]
  4. Kate Winslet  .............[1994-2008]
  5. Jodie Foster   .............[1990-1997]
  6. Nicole Kidman  .........[1995, 2001-2005]
  7. Sandra Bullock  .........[1994-2000, 2009-now]
  8. Halle Berry  ...............[1991-1992, 1998-2002]
  9. Emma Thompson   ....[1991-1995]
  10. Angelina Jolie   .........[1999-now]
  11. Julianne Moore   .......[1998-2004, 2008-now]
  12. Susan Sarandon   ......[1990-1995]
  13. Helen Mirren   ..........[2001, 2006-now]
  14. Gwyneth Paltrow  .....[1995-2002]
  15. Hilary Swank   ..........[1999,2004]
  16. Cameron Diaz   .........[1994-2005]
  17. Renée Zellweger  ......[1996-2004]
  18. Meg Ryan   ...............[1990-2000]
  19. Jennifer Aniston   .....[2006-now]
  20. Judi Dench   .............[1997-2001, 2005-2006]
I've never attempted to remove my own opinion for an objective list... objective lists are best done by committee. But I did notice that most of the objections to my own personal "Best of the Aughts list" (which only counted 2000-2004 as it was made in 2005) were based on the overall fame and consensus acclaim of the snubees combined with the willful refusal to see that it was a subjectively judged "best/favorite" opinion piece.

But even if you are trying to be objective with "impact/importance" there will be disagreements.

 <--- Nathaniel's #1 "Actress of the Aughts"... if you include the 1990s though, her rank would drop quite precipitously.

For example, I can't figure how Jennifer Aniston ranks at all since they're talking about a decade in Cinema. If you include TV, she is absolutely deserving of a top 20 spot given global fame and tv iconography. But even her romantic comedy features aren't the classics or blockbusters that the other romantic comedy women on the list (Julia + Sandra + Cameron + Meg) have achieved -- usually more than once, too. So I think they're confusing "fame" which she certainly has a lot of with "importance to cinema".

I also think Swank shouldn't rank. She's an active figure for only half of the time frame PLUS her only claim to fame is two roles when all is said and done. Sure those were Oscar winners but that's it. Is there any other modern actor who has managed so much credit for body from such a tiny tissue sample? Because the rest of her resume.. nobody cares. I don't think that's just a personal opinion influencing my observation. Consider that I'm not the biggest cheerleader for Renée Zellweger either but I absolutely agree that she deserves a top 20 spot on a list of this type covering this timeframe. I'd believe that about Aniston too, given her longevity, if anyone could point to any film that was a big deal, either critically or box office wise that she was intrinsic too. Maybe The Break-Up (2006) but isn't that the only possible argument? It's not like people paid for Bruce Almighty to see her.

Also: Gwyneth Paltrow. Similar situation in a way to Jennifer Aniston... i.e. unquestionably one of the biggest celebrities, but one of the biggest actresses? Unless "overall importance and impact" means "size of celebrity" in which case, the list would need serious reworking.

Most surprising (but deserved) inclusion: Meg Ryan. She's the only person who made the list who hasn't been capturing public attention recently and not generally treated positively. I'm proud of the editors for their objectivity there. See, you can usually tell when a list is made by what the rankings are; they always follow current perception meaning that however people are feeling about someone right then matters far more than whatever they felt about them over the course of whatever time frame they're judging. Take Helen Mirren for a prime example. She is very very very busy right now and has sustained the hysteria over The Queen (2006) surprisingly well -- good for her and her team -- so she makes the list but in actuality she has one of those filmographies/ careers where people flit in and out of interest in her quite easily. When she's out of sight, isn't she out of mind?


Missing from the list: I think the most obvious snub is Reese Witherspoon who was working for all of those 20 years and earned a couple of classics, a few self-sold blockbusters and an Oscar as reward.

Your turn. Do you think the editors made the right choices? Or are you mad that they snubbed Uma? Penélope or any other international divas? Oscar-regular Frances? 90s biggies like Michelle, Joan, Winona, Holly, Angela or Demi? Anjelica? Charlize? Laura or Laura? perpetual classic Diane? kooky Helena? bitch-goddess Annette? avant-garde Tilda? Keira or Scarlett? Or maybe Natalie Portman who has been famous for *gasp* 16 years now and still isn't 30.

"You are such a buzz kill"


That's a Juliette Lewis moment from the Jennifer Aniston comedy The Switch. I'm glad that this scene in which she (apparently) gently chastises Jason Bateman for being insufficiently perky is on Apple. It's the closest I want to come to that movie, unless there's a scene in which Patrick Wilson actually performs his "donor" duty. What? I'm only human.

And speaking of... Patrick Wilson needs to be a bigger star. I suspect people have found him too bland for leading roles but that's a shame really because he's terrific in both Little Children (2006) and Angels in America (2003) and it's not like anyone was all that good in Watchmen (2009) or Phantom of the Opera (2004), so why hold those against him? Plus he was kinda great on Broadway in both The Full Monty and Oklahoma! ...not that they're making that many movie musicals and when they're making them they aren't casting for musical ability. [Editor's note: Dead horse. You are beaten!] It's just that he's totally great at playing these "generically idealized man" types and those characters are often in danger of being a touch bland... even or maybe especially if you're playing them well.

<-- Maybe Barry Munday (pictured with Judy Greer) will help since his looks are so downplayed and his body is so unchararcteristically that of a mere mortals?

Anyway...

I hate to be a buzzkill myself but I just can't get behind Jennifer Aniston as a movie star (though I would gladly watch her headline a sitcom). I always seem to want to recast movies with the lively supporting character actors switching places with the duller leading ladies and men. I would totally buy a ticket to see an artificial insemination comedy that was about Juliette Lewis's romantic foibles with Patrick Wilson wherein Jennifer Aniston throws some sort of party and dispenses supporting actress advice. Just like I might have actually bought a ticket to P.S. I Love You if Gina Gershon or Lisa Kudrow were communing with their dead husbands played not by Gerard Butler while Hilary Swank smiled from the sidelines doing best friend duty, always in danger of landing on the cutting room floor.

But if Hollywood made movies to please me they'd go bankrupt. Truth.

Here's the Weekend Box Office should you be curious about these things. (I know nobody comes here specifically for this -- why would you? -- but would you like seeing the chart referenced casually each week? Maybe you do look it up each week even if you don't really care. That's how I do.)
  1. The Expendables $16.9 (total $65) 2nd weekend
  2. Vampires Suck $12.2 (total $18.5) opening weekend
  3. Eat Pray Love $12.1 (total $47.2) 2nd weekend
  4. Lottery Ticket $10.6 opening weekend
  5. The Other Guys $10.1 (total $88.2)
  6. Piranha 3D $10.1 opening weekend
  7. The Switch $8.4 opening weekend
  8. Nanny McPhee Returns $8.4 opening weekend
  9. Inception $7.8 (total $262, #5 of the film year thus far behind some teen vampire thing) 6th weekend
  10. Scott Pilgrim vs. The World $5.2 (total $20.8) 2nd weekend
Did you contribute to any of these box office takes? Money well spent? Also if you've seen The Switch do speak up. I'm curious against my will. Some people I follow on Twitter had me convinced that Jen would soon win an Oscar (not for this but for something). That's totally plausible given what AMPAS voters value most in Best Actress (likeability, sex appeal, career heat. Acting is like 7th on the list.). But I'd have to retire. I just couldn't deal. The horror. The horror.
*

Link-Fest at Tiffany's

Stale Popcorn Glenn surveys the 19 eligible films for the Australian Oscars.
I Need My Fix Jane Lynch gets a wax figure. Glee has now officially taken over the world. Watch it take over the Emmys next.
Hot Blog in depth Sissy Spacek interview. Goes all the way back to the early years.
I didn't work until I was 20. I just looked like I was 13.
HKMDB Daily Stills from the Chinese remake of What Women Want with superstars Gong Li & Andy Lau
Towleroad Jennifer Aniston as Barbra Streisand? People...


Scanners
looks at how the reviews of Salt deal with Angelina Jolie's super-sized star persona
Box Office Mojo some release date shifts for Disney and two cancellations. Is the Beauty & The Beast 3D death another sign that 3D is over? If so, YAY! B&tB is perfect as is thankyouverymuch.
His Eyes Were Watching Movies Volver collects another fan. I honestly think that movie will continue to do so until it's regarded as one of Almodóvar's very best. Because it so is.
That Obscure Object old paparazzi photos sometimes freak me out. This is the Thelma & Louise stars: Susan, Geena and Brad. Ah, sweet bird of 1991 youth.
Empire when I read the capsule header or this article about Dolphin Tale starring Ashley Judd, Harry Connick Jr and Morgan Freeman -- that cast! -- I actually thought I had clicked on the wrong link and gone back to an article from the 1990s. True story, I did.
Low Resolution Have you read Joe's entertaining & thought provoking personal Emmy ballots? You should.

I'm a dancer!
One more round of applause for the "best shot" participants in case you missed their entries: the neon gynecology, the phallic solar plexus, the starry eyes, the sabotage, the makeup and the vomiting dolphin.

must read contemporary post of the day
Op-Ed Maureen Dowd and Sam Wasson, the author of that Breakfast at Tiffany's book discuss the sorry wrist-slitting state of the romantic comedy. They name names. Wonderful discussion. I just may read it again and buy Wasson's book.

must read retrospective post of the day
Nick's Flick Picks reviews James Cameron's The Abyss (1989). As per usual his insights are totally invigorating. He always makes me want to see movies again. You can miss so much. I love this bit on Ed Harris
Harris, whose charisma, gaze, and body were like a periodic table of virile emotion during this period in his career, is tremendously moving throughout this key sequence, and really throughout the movie.
"A periodic table of virile emotion"...god, what a gorgeous distillation of Ed Harris. When is his honorary Oscar coming (since the real thing seems ever out of reach)?

Say What? Just Go With It

Amuse us. Add a caption or dialogue to this pic of Jennifer Aniston & Nicole Kidman on the set of Just Go With It in the comments.


I'll repost later this week with the winning entry

Curio: Brangelina, Circa 1960

Alexa from Pop Elegantiarum here. I love Carrie Fisher, and I wish I could swoop into New York to catch her one-woman show Wishful Drinking. One of her bits involves her drawing a comparison between Eddie Fisher leaving her mom, Debbie Reynolds, for Elizabeth Taylor and the whole Brad Pitt - Angelina Jolie - Jennifer Aniston saga. All it took was a glance at this old Screenplay magazine of mine to confirm that she's on to something.




It's all there: the story purporting to break up the raven-haired temptress and Eddie, followed by a sympathy piece on Debbie the single gal. I wonder who will play these roles in another 40 years?

An aside: the cover story "Strange Things Marlon Brando Does to Women" really doesn't live up to its title. It's just a bunch of pics of Marlon and his co-stars. Snooze.
*

Red Carpet: Amanda's Tip Money, Jennifer's Baby Food

A random sampling of actresses (and actor) that were out and about this week, as is our habit since this isn't a celebrity fashion blog but we do like to stargaze. From left to right: Mélanie Laurent, Amanda Seyfried, Christoph Waltz, Renée Zellweger, Miss Piggy and Jennifer Aniston

photos reworked from Zimbio & Just Jared

Why do you suppose Amanda Seyfried has cash out?

I'm pretending that she's going to tip Mélanie and Christoph for their fine work in Inglourious Basterds. I certainly want to. I'm shoving $20s down their pants if I get the chance. The photo of Seyfried was actually snapped on the set of her new movie with Gael García Bernal (Letters to Juliet) so maybe she's saving the tip money... she must have seen Bad Education.


Meanwhile, Zeéeeee is waving to Mélanie but the French girl isn't waving back. I don't have a story beat in mind for that one but I think that's generally a smart move, pretending you didn't notice her. That said, I'm really bad at ignoring her, aren't I? For example, every one in the world skipped Miss Potter and I still tortured myself with it. New in Town sits on my DVD shelf even now (no, I did not purchase it) and how long will it be until I succumb? It's a sickness.

In other news, did you hear that Marc Jacobs furnished Miss Piggy with a new look? I love it. Miss Piggy is a national treasure and she's been out of the limelight for too long. I'd much rather hear about her cross-species love life than Jennifer Aniston's predictable romantic woes.

And speaking of...

Have you seen the trailer for Love Happens in which Jen breathes new life into dimpled, cleft widower Aaron Eckhart? They're both likeable performers but that movie looks like total baby food. It's simply flavored utterly predictable mush. The trailer is Hollywood making choo-choo noises, hoping you'll open wide for a spoon feeding.

I Want to Link to There

Your Internet Movie Rule: Robert De Niro is...
Sunset Gun Kim Morgan talks to Tarantino
<--- Empire what film will director Bryan Singer do next? I'm just going to admit it: I don't really get his career. It seems so directionless despite a collection of generally good films
MNPP Michael Fassbender Four Times (he's fast becoming someone I totally care about!)
A Blog Next Door with a surprise observation about Adaptation (2002)
Coffee Coffee and More Coffee on the import/export game, the shrinking market for foreign films and how Hollywood doesn't play fair
INF "Aniston: Zellweger Stole My Man" I've never made a secret that I'm not a fan of Jennifer Aniston and her trademark 'abandoned woman' victimhood. On the other hand, I think all tabloids, celeb mags and gossip blogs ought to pay her tithing each year, you know?
If Charlie Parker... frames within frames. Lovely


Did you see The Wolf Man trailer? Benicio Del Toro plays the fuzzy wuzzy. I'm so pleased to see Hugo Weaving again (see previous post) but was it really a good idea to cast Anthony Hopkins in this? Seems like the choice is too obvious, too directly reminiscent of Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992).



Topless Robot expresses what I suspect will be widespread feelings about this film before it opens. Poor lycanthropes. They never get any respect when it comes to monster movies. It's gotta be vampires, don't it?

Forbes 100: On Actresses and "Power"

As you may know, the annual Forbes 100 is out. This 'Celebrity 100' list is also referred to as "World's Most Powerful Celebrities". Which... well, I wonder. The list ranks the celebrities based on their media visibility and earning power. Media + income = power. All lists are subjective but it seems strange to assume that visibility equals power. It can but I doubt it automatically does. Is Lindsay Lohan a powerful person because the paparazzi follow her around? If so, what does she hold sway over... legging trends? Can she get movies greenlit? She didn't make the list but it's just an example.

Another funny/strange thing: It only goes to show you that becoming enormously popular at one time in history can keep you on these lists in perpetuity. Witness the staying power of Sandra Bullock and Harrison Ford on lists such as these.

Here are Forbes top movie actresses...

01 Angelina Jolie
There's no disputing her fame. Would that her influence was as indisputable. Celebrity philanthrophists are often subjects of loathing from many pockets of the media and various segments of the general populace. Why that is I'll leave it up to social theorizing in the comments [A History of... Angelina Jolie]

08 Jennifer Aniston
She was my favorite member of Friends back in the day but I realized as soon as she transferred to the cinema that I was a fan of "Rachel" rather than Jen. Sometimes when thinking of Jennifer Aniston, Lisa Kudrow and Courtney Cox in tandem it becomes clear that Brad Pitt is to blame for her ubiquity. But then I think of my beloved Juliette Lewis and... well, the world isn't fair.


58 Sarah Jessica Parker
Sometimes Square Pegs only need to ignore the round holes and find a new board on which to play. What a difference HBO and "Carrie Bradshaw" made. [More on Sex & the City]

64 Meryl Streep
Her top earning status as she enters her 60s fills me with utter glee despite the fact that Mamma Mia! was terrible. Once, long ago, (very early 90s to be more precise) the same media that now kisses her feet used to belittle her for speaking out about the inequality in pay between actors and actresses.

71 Reese Witherspoon
Earned $15 million last year. Usurping all of Jake Gyllenhaal's time? Now, that's power.

73 Cameron Diaz
Forbes is pushing the notion that we should have her on our Best Actress Oscar lists for My Sister's Keeper. What say ye?

74 Nicole Kidman
She takes a beating in the American media but she's still an international draw. Plus she's, you know, awesome if you care about the cinema rather than just 'the movies.'

85 Anne Hathaway
She only made $7 million for Get Smart? For some reason I thought she pulled down more than that already.

87 Drew Barrymore
Still a double threat as Producer/Actress. Every time we hear about Drew's next project, the roller derby film Whip It!, it's mentioned in connection to Ellen Page's rising stardom post Juno. But have you checked out the supporting cast and their character names? Drew as "Smashley Simpson", Kristin Wiig as "Malice in Wonderland", Juliette Lewis as "Dinah Might", Eve as "Rosa Sparks". I only hope the movie is half as fun as the milieu and moniker imply.

92 Sandra Bullock
Forbes implies that her return to romcoms justifies her placement. Is she headed for a major comeback this year with The Proposal and All About Steve?



Most random finding on this list: Jennifer Love Hewitt is at #99. Other than her power to stay on television year after year after year after year (Jennifer Love Hewitt in the reboot of Murder She Wrote... coming your way in 2038!) I had no idea that she wielded any, let alone that she was the 5th most powerful TV actress . I didn't know that she was more powerful than three Desperate Housewives and that Gossip Girl... more powerful yet than Eliza Duskhu who is infinitely hotter and shares Hewitt's power to stay on the airwaves.

You know what I'd like to read? A list that seeks to quantify the overall influence of celebrities as opposed to their income or household name status. Who has trickle down power? I always think of that "cerulean" scene in The Devil Wears Prada when I think of cultural influence.
This... 'stuff'? Oh... ok. I see, you think this has nothing to do with you. You go to your closet and you select out, oh I don't know, that lumpy blue sweater, for instance, because you're trying to tell the world that you take yourself too seriously to care about what you put on your back. But what you don't know is that that sweater is not just blue, it's not turquoise, it's not lapis, it's actually cerulean.

You're also blithely unaware of the fact that in 2002, Oscar De La Renta did a collection of cerulean gowns. And then I think it was Yves St Laurent, wasn't it, who showed cerulean military jackets? And then cerulean quickly showed up in the collections of 8 different designers. Then it filtered down through the department stores and then trickled on down into some tragic Casual Corner where you, no doubt, fished it out of some clearance bin. However, that blue represents millions of dollars and countless jobs and so it's sort of comical how you think that you've made a choice that exempts you from the fashion industry when, in fact, you're wearing the sweater that was selected for you by the people in this room. From a pile of stuff.
Wouldn't more specialized celebs like, oh, Parker Posey in the 1990s or Björk or Tilda Swinton make lists that quantify cultural influence? They're famous, referenced, idolized, admired, stolen from, imitated and occasionally worshipped in fashion, music, media, cinema. They're not interchangable with the next up and coming starlet. But, alas, they aren't ... Jennifer Love Hewitt.
*

Now Playing: Kristen Bell in Bikini, Chris Evans Fully Clothed

The Oscar films expanded last week (and in some cases -- *cough* Milk ??? -- they're already constricting again. Hope you caught them during those seven days you were allowed to see them!) so it's strictly new releases for February. Links go to trailers...

L I M I T E D
Fanboys
Odd that this comedy, about a group of Star Wars fanboys (and fangirl Veronica Mars Kristen Bell, left) storming George Lucas's Skywalker Ranch would come out the day it's target audience is hitting the Comic Con. (Methinks the target audience will be too busy wearing their own Princess Leia costumes or gawking at real live ones to go see Kristen don hers!) Like many a film before it Harvey Weinstein bought this and locked it up tight never to see the light of day until, suddenly, on a whim he decided to dump it in a theater or three.

The Objective
One of the directors of The Blair Witch Project tries the 'filming our demise' thing again only with military men in Afghanistan this time.

Chocolate The director of Ong Bak: Thai Warrior returns with another one of his "no wires. no stunt doubles" action films. This one is about a special needs girl who loves chocolate. She has some magical gift for muy thai fighting. I think it's kind of like that superpower on Heroes where if you see an action performed you can duplicate it. I also love chocolate and have special needs. Where's my movie? Alas, I lack that nifty fighting gift and my special needs primarily revolve around Tony Jaa. Where is he?



Chocolate and Coraline. Curious young girls are trouble!

W I D E
Coraline If you suffer from koumpounophobia you should skip this one. If you don't, you should run to the theater because the buzz for this 3D stop motion adventure makes it sound delicious and the source material is superb. If you haven't been reading Neil Gaiman's books, when are you going to start? Try American Gods.

He's Just Not That Into You Looks like the kind of movie you'll l-o-v-e if Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus strikes you as a landmark academic tome. Initially I wanted to see it (Ginnifer Goodwin plus the parade of stars) but early reports from critic friends are grim and the episode of Sex & the City about that catchphrase is unbeatable anyway. Plus, you know how they often put the best jokes from movies in trailers?

_______...those are the best jokes?

Push In which Chris Evans keeps his clothes on (just a hunch -- it's that damn new manager's fault) to play a rogue psychic leading a battle against a secret government agency. Or something. Dakota Fanning (the voice of Coraline. Dakota is a workaholic) and Djimon Hounsou also have clairvoyant powers. My own telepathic abilities tell me you're confused. "Isn't Push the movie about the obese black teenager? Didn't it win the top prize at Sundance last month?" Yes, yes, that's the one. Only it's not this one. The Sundance Push is the one that's winning Mo'Nique raves and Oscar style buzz. But this is the other Push, now playing in thousands of theaters starring Chris Evans and it's not going to get any Oscar nominations.

It would be better if Mo'Nique was in it.



Much better.

Oooh, baby, baby Baby
Yo, yo, yo, yo, Evans, Chris / Yeah, you come here, gimme a kiss /
Better make it fast or else I'm gonna get pissed

P.S. I don't know why everyone is surprised that Mo'Nique can act. Duh.

The Pink Panther 2 A non-rhetorical question for the comments: What the hell is Steve Martin doing with his career?

Vanity Fair's Hollywood ~ Episode 10 (2004)

Missed previous episodes? See: 1995 , 1996, 1997, 1998 , 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005

With the annual Vanity Fair "Hollywood" issue about to debut for 2009 -- I'm guessing we see the new cover in less than two weeks (UPDATE: the new cover has been leaked and Vanity Fair has chucked their traditional photo shoot *sniffle* for the millionth magazine cover featuring President Obama), let's briefly return to our Vanity Fair retrospectives. "Send in the Gowns" was the title of 2004's photo shoot and they returned to the first year's game plan of glamour girls. The cover was more crowded though, bringing us an unlucky 13. But who was this cover unlucky for?


Maybe all of them, with the exception of Maggie Gyllenhaal (hurrah) and Hilary Swank (known affectionately around these parts as Beelzebub), who was just 11 months away from her second Oscar. Vanity Fair had gotten less daring in their cover selections as the year's passed (at least in terms of fresh "they'll be famous!" proclamations), but many of these careers had arguably peaked and were headed downhill.

Strange coincidence: 23% of these women are starring in He's Just Not That Into You


Julianne Moore was 43 at the time. She had been on the first "Hollywood" edition in spring '95 (before anyone had seen [Safe]) and got a deserved promotion. In the 9 years between the covers she'd gone from gorgeous up and coming redhead to a famously talented familiar actress as well as an Oscar nom' magnet. Unfortunately, round about this time as her fame and price kept escalating, she stopped wowing. 2004 brought her her only solo film-carrying "hit" in the traditional sense (The Forgotten) but it also brought stinkers like Laws of Attraction and films that no one even knows exist like Marie and Bruce (the only Moore film I haven't managed to get my eyes on). She's been misfiring both critically and box office wise since though she did have small roles in two acclaimed films Children of Men and I'm Not There.

This past year's double Moore dip, Savage Grace and Blindness (FB Body of Work nomination), reminded us that she's a unique and formidable dramatic actress... when she's not trying to be a romantic comedienne or action heroine. Next: She has three films in the can for 2009: the lead in a thriller (uh oh -- not playing to her strengths!) called Shelter, and supporting roles in the dramas The Private Lives of Pippa Lee and fashion god Tom Ford's filmmaking debut A Single Man.

Jennifer Connelly was 33 newly married to fine actor Paul Bettany and had just starred in a hit that everybody thought of as a flop (Hulk) and an Oscar misfire of sorts (House of Sand and Fog) but she was still considered a major get. Only she wouldn't be got. So to speak. She took only co-lead or supporting roles that didn't do much for her in Oscar Bait projects that didn't hook any statues (Little Children, Reservation Road, Blood Diamond) and now she's doing CGI flicks (The Day the Earth Stood Still and Inkheart). Is there a second wind to this career? And if there is, doesn't it need to come very soon? Next: He's Just Not That Into You and then Creation, a Charles Darwin biopic where she and her husband will play the Darwins.

Gwyneth Paltrow, 31, was still arguably suffering from the Oscar Curse -- that messy career period that can follow an Oscar win (which she won for Shakespeare in Love, discussed at length right here). The Royal Tenenbaums and Sylvia had reminded that she had plenty of acting skill but something about the career wasn't taking with Oscar or the public. Did she not care enough? She was a newlywed when this cover hit (to Coldplay's Chris Martin) and already pregnant with their first child, though she wasn't yet showing (she's pictured right, a few months later). Her acting career definitely went on the back burner. She's had 7 films released since this cover debuted and only one true leading role among them (Proof). She's now far more of a celebrity than an actress. The fame part stuck. Next: Two Lovers is inching it's way into view. King Lear and Iron Man 2 are coming for 2010.

Naomi Watts, 35, had recently moved out from under that 'Nicole Kidman's best friend' tag and into her own celebrity. The fresh Oscar nomination for 21 Grams (due in no small part to the Mulholland Dr lead in we're sure) went a long way towards that. She was still dating Heath Ledger, who came with her to the Oscars, but their relationship was about to end. (Thank god she convinced him to take Brokeback Mountain first!). In 2004 she had two heavy dramas and one comedy (the brilliant I Heart Huckabees) on the way. She chased those with the massive King Kong. Ever the multi-tasker since stardom hit she's still busy busy busy despite being a new mom. Next: Mother and Child for actress-loving director Rodrigo García and possibly Need with Nicole Kidman. That would be their first movie together since the charming Australian romance Flirting in 1991.

Salma Hayek, 37, still had residual heat from the success of Frida in late 2002. She had broken up with Ed Norton and was dating Josh Lucas but her movie career was about to collapse. Flops like Ask the Dust, Lonely Hearts and After the Sunset were all on the way. A savvy star she's stayed in the game by seguewaying to television production, bringing the big hit Ugly Betty to ABC and doing guest work (30 Rock). Next: "Madame Truska" in Universal's Cirque Du Freak opening in time for Halloween

Jennifer Aniston had just celebrated her 35th birthday, and her career was coming to the crossroads. She was finishing up her last season on TV's mega hit "Friends" and her marriage to Brad Pitt was also close to wrapping (though we didn't know it at the time). They divorced in late 2005 shortly before her first two post TV stardom movies (Derailed and Rumor Has It) opened. Her feature career has been middling peppered with the occasional high concept hit but she's forever ubiquitous in the media thanks to that decade in our living rooms as "Rachel" and her gossip-drenched marriage and split from Mr. Pitt. Next: the star studded romantic comedy He's Just Not That Into You

Kirsten Dunst, almost 22, was about to dump Jake Gyllenhaal (my theory as to one of the reasons people hate her so), Eternal Sunshine was playing (she does not get enough credit for her wistful funny turn in that film) and Spider-Man 2 was about to open. She was extremely famous / busy. It's been a bumpy ride since with rehab, a misunderstood star vehicle (Marie Antoinette), internet backlash and flops outside of those webslinging blockbusters. Next: All Good Things, the narrative feature debut of documentarian Andrew Jarecki (Capturing the Friedmans) opens this summer. Possibly Spider-Man 4 after that. Don't do it Kiki! Save yourself

Diane Lane, who had been famous since she was only 14 had just turned 39. She had seen her lengthy career hit a new peak with an Oscar nomination for Unfaithful in 2002 which she followed with another minor hit Under the Tuscan Sun. She was about to marry Josh Brolin whose career was still a couple years away from supersizing. More films were lining up for Lane but things aren't as rosy now since none have really matched that Unfaithful triumph and some (Kill Shot and Fierce People) had trouble even getting into theaters. Next: nothing announced.

Lucy Liu, 35, had just given the performance of her career in Kill Bill but then... that tends to happen to people when they star in Quentin Tarantino movies, doesn't it? Liu had always toggled between features and TV and she kept doing so. She's never left wanting for work but no great successes since. Next: nothing announced since her last two televisions series Lipstick Mafia and Dirty Sexy Money were both cancelled.

Hilary Swank in '04. Photographed by Stephen Meisel for Calvin Klein (photo source)

Hilary Swank, nearing 30, was on this cover because she had a frankly amazing agent. I kid, I kid. Her career post 1999 Oscar had been unremarkable. The Core was her last release prior to this cover but 2004 was looking big for her on paper (a respectable TV movie Iron Jawed Angels and a Clint Eastwood picture Million Dollar Baby -discussed here) and looks weren't deceiving. She won another Oscar for the latter and promptly returned to doing what she does: random disposable projects of multiple genres. Next: Two Oscar hopefuls for 2009 and in both of them she plays the title character. There's Amelia, a biopic in which she plays the famous aviatrix and Betty Ann Waters an Erin Brockovich style working mother turned legal eagle drama.

Alison Lohman, 24, was just off of a few high profile gigs (Big Fish, White Oleander and Matchstick Men) but her follow ups were very low profile. Tell me, have you seen: The Big White, Where the Truth Lies, Things We Lost in the Fire or Flicka? Next: Two thrillers one called simply Game leans scifi, the other Drag Me to Hell is auteur Sam Raimi's return to the horror genre. That might be something to look forward to but can it raise Lohman's profile back to early 2004 levels?

Scarlett Johansson, all of 19 years old, had just become the movies hottest young star. Offscreen she was a dynamo in the Young Hollywood scene --vaguely around this time she moved from dating Jared Leto to a fairly lengthy romance with Josh Hartnett. Onscreen she was a fresh sensation. Girl with a Pearl Earring and Lost in Translation had both opened to enviable acclaim for the young starlet and an awards run, too (though Oscar passed). When this cover was shot she was a critics darling, a paparazzi treasure and very much in demand by both auteurs and corporations (her endorsement side career might be as profitable as her film career by now). She's been super busy these past 4 years with numerous films, marrying Ryan Reynolds and that fledgling recording career. But is it quantity over quality. A lot of people are beginning to think so. Next: He's Just Not That Into You

Maggie Gyllenhaal, 27 at the time, had become ubiquitous around 2002 appearing in critical hits like Adaptation and Secretary. She and Jake her brother ascended in very close succession. The next year or so was less eventful cinematically for Maggie but two years after this cover hit she was all over the screens again delivering you-can't-look-away performances in films ranging from World Trade Center (blech) to Stranger Than Fiction to Sherrybaby and off screen she was having her first child with Peter Sarsgaard. Oscar still hasn't taken a liking to Maggie but few would argue that she isn't one of the most impressive actresses of her generation. Next: Crazy Heart a drama with Colin Farrel and Away We Go a comedy for director Sam Mendes.

PLEASE NOTE: If you'd like to read more about any of these stars, click the names in the labels section below.
*
median age: 32. Julianne Moore was the mamma (isn't she always?) and ScarJo the baby.
noticeably absent: Who else was topical around 2003/2004? Let's see... Halle Berry was about to screw up her career with Catwoman, Angelina Jolie (who has never been on one of these "Hollywood" covers) had a bunch of movies about to come out, Emmy Rossum was just off of Mystic River and about to co-star in two epics, Kate Beckinsale had had a minor hit with Underworld and was chasing it with another supernatural flick before co-starring in Martin Scorsese's The Aviator.
collective Oscar noms before this cover:
10 nominations (40% of those for Julianne) and 3 winners (her front cover co-stars Connelly & Paltrow and then Swank in the backfold)
collective Oscar noms after this cover: only one but she won (Hilary Swank)
fame levels in 2009, according to famousr, from most to least: Jennifer Aniston, Gwyneth Paltrow, Hilary Swank, Kirsten Dunst, Scarlett Johansson, Lucy Liu, Salma Hayek, Julianne Moore, Naomi Watts, Jennifer Connelly, Diane Lane, Maggie Gyllenhaal and Alison Lohman
previous episodes of 'VFH': 1995 ,1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005.
*

Red Carpet Lineup

a random sampling of actresses working red carpets this week


The Lovely Laura Linney has been absent from (big) screens this year. I kinda miss her, though having her at the Oscars last February was more than I could have asked for in a way so it's all good. Maybe The Other Man will get a real release next year? This getup makes Katharine Heigl look more matronly than her 30 year old self should look I think. She's not one to hold her tongue so do you suppose she has a few words for the Alliance of Women Film Journalists who recently gave her 27 Dresses their "Hall of Shame Award" for 2008? Speaking of weddings... is Goldie Hawn finally getting hitched after 25 years of...? No, it's just a white dress. All the same Jennifer Aniston is purposely not looking at her whilst putting on her "I'm so happy! I'm really so happy!" face in this imaginary red carpet lineup. You can't see her other hand but I have it on good authority that it was used to send a private yet easily decipheral signal to Joe Reid after this weekend's Podcast.

I think Christine Taylor should be in more movies. Sometimes I imagine Ben Stiller keeps her locked up in their mansion in Beverly Hills only letting her out for his film premieres or for cameos in his movies. I don't understand her career... or lack of. She can definitely deliver the chuckles --even in brief bits like the one she had in Kabluey. Sutton Foster is a rarity. She's a genuinely photogenic stage star who doesn't really dabble in TV or film. If you ever get the chance to see her perform: do so! Here's my two absolutely favorite Foster numbers: "Forget About the Boy" and "I Don't Wanna Show Off"



She's "Astonishing" to borrow the title of her show stopper in that Little Women musical a few years back. Lately she's only been doing big budget screen-to-stage transfers (Young Frankenstein in the Terri Garr role / Shrek in the Cameron Diaz role) which is a shame because she's an actual Broadway draw. These projects don't need stars to sell tickets. It seems like such a waste of her considerable gifts. Meanwhile Julianne Moore was seen on the red carpet looking defiantly and enigmatically wrapped in thought. Was she dreaming up new ways to abuse her screen children? (They have it so rough). Supposedly we'll see Julie in at least three new movies next year. It might be a great year for Moore maniacs if the roles are any good.

Golden Globe Giggles

NEW PODCAST

This week's podcast isn't an interview, it's a free for all. Joe of Low Resolution, Nick of Nick's Flick Picks, Katey of Cinema Blend and myself gab about last week's mad rush of precursor awards and nominations. Topics blur and slam together, curious cases abound and new ways to honor Clint Eastwood are dreamt up. We get loopy. I get whiny. Joe recruits for Team Jolie and begs Meryl and Kate to reach across the aisle. Katey drinks Milk and refuses to love The Reader. Nick sneezes with pandas and makes a startling Best Pic prophecy. It's 45 minutes of rambling awards chatter. Intermission and popcorn not included.

Two listening options for ya: iTunes enhanced podcast or a standard mp3
*

Who Let the Dogs Out?

Hey guys! mB here from A Blog Next Door, subbing for Nathaniel for this weekend. Now, I am usually one to follow up punny post title with something equally as punny (and SJP-worthty) like "The world is going to the dogs!" or "It's a dogged world out there" but really, I'll spare you - mainly because you're probably wondering what dogs I'm talking about. But if you are, it means you haven't been cringing at movie trailers in the past month. Seriously are dog-movies the new biopics?

Disney's Bolt (or the movie I like to call: Disney Animation's attempt at making a name for themselves in the shadow of [and with creative direction from] PIXAR])

Watch the trailer here and listen to John Travolta who instead of being the owner of a dog who talks (remember that?) to being the eponymous hero of this very troubled animated production (Lilo & Stitch's Chris Sanders penned and directed it before, well... who knows what happened, he's only credited for writing now). Miley Cyrus is also on board, to give the film tween-cred. 
Cringe-Factor: 2/5 
The pigeons scene and the annoying sidekick hamster make up for the overall sense of 'so...?' that I felt while watching it: kinda feels like a Dreamworks film and not a Disney one, no?

Hotel for Dogs (or the movie I like to call: Why can't Lisa Kudrow find better roles/films?)

Watch the trailer here and try and make sense of why this movie was made. It looks like a Rick Moranis film from the 1990s. Turns out Emma 'Nancy Drew' Roberts is still trying to make a name for herself as an actress and a film about a Hotel for Dogs is the way to do it. Like I said, Lisa Kudrow offers the parental role.
Cringe-Factor: 4/5 
What made me cringe more: Lisa Kudrow's hair, seeing Don Cheadle in this or the shoe vending machine? No wait the "This is the grossest thing I have ever seen"/"That's awesome" banter.

Beverly Hills Chihuahua (or the movie I like to call: wtf?)

If you haven't seen this (which would mean you haven't seen Wall-E as 
it premiered before that PIXAR gem) watch the trailer here. Now, come back and tell me what the Aztecs, chihuahuas and Beverly Hills have to do with each other...
Cringe-Factor: 5/5
There are no words really...


Marley and Me (Or the movie I like to call: Huh... Jen's breasts bounce a lot in the trailer of that memoir-turned-film film)

I have probably been lying under a rock cause I had never heard anything about Marley and Me (the book) nor Marley and Me (the film). While watching the trailer last night at a Mamma Mia! showing there were too many awwwws when the pup Chariots-of-Fires his way into the screen. I just wanted to know what the hell the movie was about. Isn't that what trailers do? Either that, or get you weirdly interested. This one did nothing. (Maybe TFE readers can enlighten me and get me excited as I do enjoy Ms Aniston's work)
Cringe-Factor: 4/5
A puppy running in the beach... it's just too cutesy for me. And Jen screaming after him with Owen Wilson... yeah. No.

I don't have anything against dogs - I just wonder why is it they are (more often than not) at the forefront of 'bad' Family Films (and really... am I the only who wonders when did Hollywood forget how to make good Family Films?): think of Tim Allen's Shaggy Dog, Cuba Gooding Jr's Snow Dogs, the awful-looking Cats & Dogs, even stuff like Firehouse Dog. Rarely do we get an 101 Dalmations, an All Dogs go to Heaven, or a Beethoven anymore.  

But what do you guys think? Is Hollywood just canine-impaired or are we just experiencing a summer that's more interested (and better at) bats, mice, pandas and even robots?