Jennifer Aniston’s Career Desperation Cover Finally Arrives To Precede Inevitable Failed Cable Drama And Turn As Reality Show Contestant
Posted by Dirty Harry on Thursday, December 11th, 2008
Can’t argue she isn’t healthy but desperate-for-attention is never attractive. You can practically feel the front paws of a small, yapping, treat-addicted dog flailing away at your leg. Sad.
Filed in General |
HeartbreakRidgeon 11 Dec 2008 at 1:21 pm 1You may be right, but suddenly I’m having problems thinking.
miles archeron 11 Dec 2008 at 1:28 pm 2Ahh, heck. I’d give her a shot at a successful cable drama — you knockin’ cable drama, btw?
More to the point. Robert Prosky died yesterday. Here’s hoping you’ve got a tribute coming up. He was a wonderful actor.
Traffic Cop Timmyon 11 Dec 2008 at 1:37 pm 3I enjoyed the first few years of Friends and Jennifer was a decent comedienne. IMO, she should have taken a few years off and then tried another sitcom. She is not suited to film.
Ms. Timmy has a girl-crush on her and that’s fine with me. I play along just so I can look at covers like this without feeling guilty.
BTW Harry. Jennifer is pulling up some nasty Google ads about losing weight. The “BEFORE” pics are blinding me.
David Marcoeon 11 Dec 2008 at 1:40 pm 4The amount of public self-restraint she’s shown with the subject of Angelina/Pitt well-nigh heroic and I’m always impressed by her lady-like demeanor when I see her interviewed. This may or may not be desperation, but it doesn’t change my opinion of her.
Jonathanon 11 Dec 2008 at 1:42 pm 5“desperate-for-attention is never attractive.”
I respectfully disagree. (see pic above)
CCW1970on 11 Dec 2008 at 1:47 pm 6Weird. That pic doesn’t even really look like her.
HeartbreakRidgeon 11 Dec 2008 at 1:58 pm 7I never cared one way or the other for her as an actress, but she did have the good sense to appear in Office Space, so ever since, I’ve liked her.
Eric Pon 11 Dec 2008 at 2:08 pm 8No kidding, CCW. Looks more like a Lindsay Lohan/Aniston combo. Weird.
John McClainon 11 Dec 2008 at 2:11 pm 9CCW1970 just posted what I was thinking, she doesn’t even look like her (yes I was looking at her face). The strange thing is whenever an actress drops the clothes to raise her career, the opposite happens.
Die Hard Fan
John McClainon 11 Dec 2008 at 2:13 pm 10Oh yeah, Robert Prosky was one actor I always enjoyed watching in a movie. He was one of the good ones.
Die Hard Fan
Christian Totoon 11 Dec 2008 at 2:19 pm 11I miss the days when an actress’ body … of work did the talking.
Aniston is an acceptable actress, but how she made the leap to the top tier of today’s actresses is a mystery.
fiestamomon 11 Dec 2008 at 2:34 pm 12Let’s face it. Aniston won the casting lottery by being cast as herself, oops I mean Rachel in Friends. Girl needs to be realistic about her acting abilities and go back to tv and act on a show where she can be Rachel/Jennifer.
She also needs to stop whining about Brad and Ange. Yeah, she has every right to be bitter, but life just isn’t fair sometimes.
David Marcoeon 11 Dec 2008 at 2:44 pm 13She also needs to stop whining about Brad and Ange. Yeah, she has every right to be bitter, but life just isn’t fair sometimes.
That’s the first direct comment I’ve ever heard her make on the subject. I’ve caught snippets of interviews where they bated her with it and she didn’t rise to the occasion. So, I’m not sure where you read/heard her “whining,” but I sure haven’t seen it.
Traffic Cop Timmyon 11 Dec 2008 at 2:51 pm 14fiestamom,
I think you have mistaken the entertainment media headlines with Jennifer actually saying anything.
R. Dittmaron 11 Dec 2008 at 3:15 pm 15Aniston being desperate for attention is one thing, but the bigger question is why the h**l does anyone pay attention to her at all? Seriously, why is this woman on the cover of every other magazine on the news rack week after week after week when she hasn’t done anything of note for 10+ years? Even that Brad Pitt nonsense ended 5 or more years ago didn’t it? I’ve often wondered if Aniston hasn’t sold her soul to the very Horned One himself in return for this ceaseless publicity.
Plissken79on 11 Dec 2008 at 3:16 pm 16What a picture!
Actually I think Aniston handled Brad Pitt trading her in for Angelina Jolie like she was a used car with a great deal of class and dignity. I hardly see one remark about someone acting in a “not cool” manner brings her down.
Her greatest role will always be Office Space, by the way
Funeral Guyon 11 Dec 2008 at 3:20 pm 17The face is definitely photoshopped, but if that’s her real body it’s about as smokin’ as you can get.
Harry R. Wilkenson 11 Dec 2008 at 3:58 pm 18She is much more pretty than Angelina, and her aging will be much more gracefully. She won’t need any botox. But I can’t understand how she could have fallen for Brad Pitt.
Bubbaon 11 Dec 2008 at 4:05 pm 19As an aside, I must say that GQ’s cover text is obnoxious. People who can support patriotism in general only when their political parties when elections are generally such fair-weather friends of political self-rule that their support should never be counted on, but in this case,we have people who support being American only because the government is now lead by someone whose record shows consistent opposition to what has made America uniquely moral and prosperous.
It’s only when we seem headed toward the disasters that Europe is now in, do these cretins feel moved to shout, “USA! USA!”
Enderon 11 Dec 2008 at 4:13 pm 20Jennifer Aniston is stunning.
RObert Prosky lived here in Cape May and was a vigorous supporter of the arts scene here. Cape May Stage, the town’s Equity theater company, exists largely because of his attendance in plays and fundraising.
He will be sorely missed.
Alexon 11 Dec 2008 at 4:33 pm 21Almost naked on the cover of a men’s monthly…how original. And to sell a dog, family friendly film? Yup, desperation of a TV has been.
The Ugly Americanon 11 Dec 2008 at 4:35 pm 22What’s even more sad is this is GQ (i.e. Going Queer) and not Maxim.
R. Dittmaron 11 Dec 2008 at 4:46 pm 23Actually as another aside, isn’t GQ supposed to be a men’s clothing magazine? Why are there always woman on the cover? And women without clothes to boot! Do other magazines regularly have pictures on the cover totally unrelated to the ostensible raison d’etre of the publication? Does Car & Driver have pictures of puppies and kittens on their cover month after month?
Jasonon 11 Dec 2008 at 6:11 pm 24Is that actually Anistan, or did GQ just photoshop her face onto some 20 year old’s body? It looks photoshopped to me. The angle of her face seems unnatural, her hair seems glued on on at a weird angle, and for a 40 year old…she’s a little to…uh..perky….in the chestal area.
ChristopherMCon 11 Dec 2008 at 6:31 pm 25I’m mainly outraged I wasn’t invited to the photoshoot.
What? I’m heterosexual. I can’t help it, I was born that way!
Cambiason 11 Dec 2008 at 6:39 pm 26Photoshop.
Stephanieon 11 Dec 2008 at 7:04 pm 27OK um as a forty year old who has yet to see saggage…I take umbridge at the comment that a forty year old can’t look that good. I know I ain’t sagging. I pass for 23…..so der. GRRRRRRRR…..In her Pap shots she makes the heiffers who are in their teens look like middle aged haus fraus. Give her a break. Kick their asses Jenn. Make us proud.
ChristopherMCon 11 Dec 2008 at 7:24 pm 28I hope I look that good when I’m 40.
Not female, of course . . .
Ohio Wolverine Momon 11 Dec 2008 at 7:29 pm 29I pity her for the public humiliation, but she is just another Hollywood bimbo who trashed Bush countless times to be one of the “cool gang.” So, she handled her very public break-up well; but it would not have served her otherwise, would it?
Not to sound heartless; from what I parsed from what I read, it seems like she might have been more devistated (sp) over loving Pitt’s family—sounds like she was closer to her mom than her own. It you aren’t lucky enough to be born with a great family, you have to make one, and sounds like she thought she had.
Steph, my hats off to you for staying in shape at 40—if life were fair, I would be sizzling, with all the running around I do after two little boys. But my guys (hubby and the little ones) love me, so even though my bank account and body are not as fit as Miss Aniston’s, my life is the richer one.
CWon 11 Dec 2008 at 7:52 pm 30Jennifer Aniston is under-rated as an actress.
She’s got great chops for light comedy, for dark drama,
and the range in between those opposites.
She was very effective in The Good Girl and Derailed.
Everyone knows she can do light comedy well, but, like others before her, by making it look so easy and natural, she doesn’t get the credit she deserves for doing it so well.
As a writer-director, I would be extremely pleased to have her starring in one of my romantic comedies (even if I could pick other equally famous actresses instead).
Some casual critics forget about a significant difference between movie careers long ago and movie careers today:
In earlier decades, film stars often had their roles chosen for them or heavily rewritten, to suit their talents, to show them off to their best advantage, and to score big box office.
Today’s stars are choosing their own roles, and guess what?
The ability to play a role well and the ability to choose a role well are two distinctly different abilities.
There’s also the factor of an actor simply not finding good roles/projects available for him/her to take.
Tell me when Jennifer Aniston’s film performance did not meet the level of the material (the role, the overall film).
Tell me some great role/film which she was offered but which she rejected.
She has not yet had the good fortune to play a very good role in a very good film.
No, I’m not in love with her. If she’s in a movie which doesn’t sound appealing to me, I skip it.
As for interviews, I don’t know why so many people seem to expect actors to have really interesting things to say.
When I see people expend lots of energy scorning someone who isn’t doing anything harmful or offensive, I must wonder what is the emotional reward for spending so much energy, attention, and time that way. Inexplicably intense complaints (about something inconsequential) are often a safe way to vent unhappy feelings about something else which one finds too painful or disturbing to confront…
G-MANon 11 Dec 2008 at 8:43 pm 31Rumor has it that it’s really Steph in the photo.
hehehe
JohnFNWayneon 11 Dec 2008 at 8:55 pm 32By next week, she’ll have a lesbian fling with some grungy, unwashed L.A. DJ.
Mavison 11 Dec 2008 at 10:43 pm 33They did use Photoshop. That’s her head on my body.
Floyd R. Turboon 11 Dec 2008 at 11:12 pm 34Kudos Mavis!
Splashon 12 Dec 2008 at 12:19 am 35My that girl has big…feet.
“I pity her for the public humiliation…”
I believe that’s spelled pubic.
(Thanks for coming, folks! I’ll be here all week!)
Rather Readon 12 Dec 2008 at 2:03 am 36I’ll wager her photo has been re-touched and airbrushed beyond all recognition. Kate Winslett was on the cover of Vanity Fait and you literally could not recognise her.
I’ve only seen one episode of Friends and didn’t like and I’ve never seen JA in anything else, so I will pass on her acting prowress. All I know about her is all the serial dating stories in all the tabloids.
Rather Readon 12 Dec 2008 at 2:04 am 37I’ll wager her photo has been re-touched and airbrushed beyond all recognition. Kate Winslett was on the cover of Vanity Fair and you literally could not recognise her.
I’ve only seen one episode of Friends and didn’t like and I’ve never seen JA in anything else, so I will pass on her acting prowress. All I know about her is all the serial dating stories in all the tabloids.
Seanon 12 Dec 2008 at 3:56 am 38She’s got a movie coming out and is doing publicity. If between films she was getting out of limo’s without panties I would call it desperation to stay in the spotlight but under the circumstances pics like these (that don’t actually show anything) are run of the mill marketing.
Blast Hardcheeseon 12 Dec 2008 at 4:58 am 39Rather, I think the other reason she’s almost unrecognizable is that she’s actually smiling - every picture I’ve seen of her she’s had that kind of not-quite-frowny-face thing going on. It’s nice to see her look actually happy (even if it’s just posed). As for the rest of it, I’m afraid my brain is shutting down due to loss of blood flow globity fleembol spleg…..
Carolynon 12 Dec 2008 at 5:00 am 40Can’t argue she isn’t healthy but desperate-for-attention is never attractive. You can practically feel the front paws of a small, yapping, treat-addicted dog flailing away at your leg. Sad.
Sad, yes, DH. But hilarious. I snorted all over my screen.
BTW - is that really Aniston? I swear, until you told me who it was, I didn’t recognize her one bit. In fact, squinting at it, I STILL don’t recognize her.
Another thing - how in the hell did this woman get fame as an ‘actress’? She’s not. She’s a performer, and a lightweight one at that, who just happened to luck into a famous sitcom. The sitcom made her, not the other way around.
Michael Hutchisonon 12 Dec 2008 at 5:17 am 41I’m more bothered by GQ’s “All-American Style Is Back”. Sorry, mine never left. If you can only love your country when Democrats are in the White House, you’re not really a patriot.
mjkon 12 Dec 2008 at 5:22 am 42I like Aniston. It’s probably from her being on one of my fave shows ever, but I can’t help it.
I wish she could get her groove back, but apparently none of the “Friends” have exactly done well since the show ended so it’s not that surprising.
Aitch748on 12 Dec 2008 at 6:02 am 43I’m just shaking my head at the implication of the cover that patriotism (”USA! USA!”) is suddenly back in style now that Obama, Hollywood’s shiny new Christmas president, Mr. Office of the President Elect, is on his way to the White House.
That’s a big difference between us and the libs right there: Having Obama sitting in the Oval Office isn’t going to make us start hating America. The libs, on the other hand, loathe the country if they’re not running it.
Michaelon 12 Dec 2008 at 7:09 am 44I have always found her likable, and if this is the result of desperation I’m all for it.
Brandonon 12 Dec 2008 at 7:10 am 45I have a close friend who has ran into her on a couple of occassions and has told me she is not very attractive in person. He further elaborated by saying she had arm hair that would have made a lumberjack green with envy and apparently she appears to be entirely covered in a fine peach fuzz like coat of hair. Perhaps this is why no one wants to marry her, maybe they’re afraid she would give birth to a Yeti.
It is good to see her career coming full circle though. Maybe in a couple of years we’ll see her in Leprechaun Part 9.
Growltigeron 12 Dec 2008 at 7:23 am 46I’m not a sit com watcher, but then again I haven’t been living on Mars, so I know about “Friends”. Didn’t all of the “friends” get shots at the big screen? Did any of them make it? Aniston became a celebrity (because of Brad Pitt) but I can’t remember seeing any of her films. These people live and die by their faces and bodies. Angelina just as a better face and bod than Jenn, I suspect, else Brad would still be hanging round the house. I feel sorry for Aniston but not sorry enough to sit through one of her films.
StringerBon 12 Dec 2008 at 7:52 am 47Call it “desperate” if you must, but better her than David Schwimmer, right? Or Lisa Kudrow, for that matter…
GeronimoRumplestiltskinon 12 Dec 2008 at 7:56 am 48Growltiger:
Yes, all the “Friends” did appear on the big screen. Lisa Kudrow is the only one, as I recall, that consistently got favorable reviews of her work, paricularly for Clockwatchers (1998), The Opposite of Sex (1998), and Analyze This (1999). The others? Not so much:
Jennifer Aniston: Has appeared in plenty of movies, but has never really ’shone’ in any of them. Her performances have been best described as adequate, since she usually plays the same character over and over: a big screen version of “Rachel” from “Friends”.
Courtney Cox: Got good reviews for her performance in Scream (1996), but nothing else. Has pretty much fallen off the radar as far as major TV or film roles go.
David Schwimmer: His 1996 film The Pallbearer was not enthusiastically received, and his “big screen” career stalled. Safe to say his best “big screen” film work has been his voice-work as the hypochondriac giraffe of the Madagascar films. However, he did get favorable notices for work in HBO’s Breast Men (1998) and Band of Brothers.
Matthew Perry: His shots at the “big screen” - Fools Rush In (1997), Almost Heroes (1998), and Three To Tango (1999) - all bombed. He has done a lot of TV work, though.
Matt LeBlanc: Starred the absolutely embarrassing Ed (1996) alongside a chimpanzee; the 1998 Lost In Space movie was a mess. He had small roles in the two Charlie’s Angels movies, but that’s it. Ed will follow him to his grave.
K.C.on 12 Dec 2008 at 9:46 am 49“Tell me when Jennifer Aniston’s film performance did not meet the level of the material (the role, the overall film).”
Along Came Polly, for one. We were supposed to believe her character was an exotic, tattooed, impulsive, wild child who is wicked smart and a love-em-and-leave-em heartbreaker who would be far more dangerous — and far less a natural fit — for Ben Stiller than the Debra Messing character. But instead the Debra Messing character was far edgier; the scene where Jen Aniston picks up a candy bar she’s dropped on the ground and considers it for a second and then eats it? Not even that was convincing. What that role demanded was, basically, an Angelina Jolie. Everything about Aniston’s performance was rote and wrong, she was as usual her manicured-to-death self in her same weirdly conservative/anal/anything but impulsive style she’s refused to budge from since a decade ago. She did nothing to breathe any hint of believability into the character we were supposed to believe she was playing; it was so wrong it was jolting.
Ginaon 12 Dec 2008 at 11:53 am 50I have nothing against Jennifer Aniston — she seems to have gotten a raw deal in a lot of ways — but let’s face it: The girl got her start in a smutty sitcom where her character (and all the other characters) would sleep with anything that would hold still long enough. Is it really such a surprise that an actress would go from that to this? I’m not trying to be holier-than-thou; I’m just saying, it’s not like she was ever interested in being a Wendy Shalit poster child in the first place.
And count me in as another one who’s sick of the “It’s cool to be a patriot again!” meme. Michael Hutchison has it exactly right.
Didn’t Thomas Paine say something once about sunshine soldiers?
kinlawon 12 Dec 2008 at 1:29 pm 51Yeah, the sudden “America is okay again’ crap is disgusting. Just childish and hateful.
By the way Geronimo, Matt P was awesome in an awesome movie, “The Whole Nine Yards”. I don’t know (or care) if it got bad reviews, it is a great movie.
Friday link love — WHAT WOULD TOTO WATCH?on 12 Dec 2008 at 1:41 pm 52[…] Dirty Harry takes a lingering but critical look at Jennifer Aniston’s new publicity push. […]
Funeral Guyon 12 Dec 2008 at 2:33 pm 53Geronimo
I have to admit David Schwimmer was pretty good in a little indie titled “Duane Hopwood” where he played an alcoholic casino worker in Atlantic City.
Joe the unlicensed gravity defiance inspectoron 12 Dec 2008 at 2:51 pm 54GeronnieRumple:
Matthew Perry was in the whole 9 Yards with Bruce Willis and Amanda Peet- decent comedy if you didn’t put too much expectation on it, it actually spawned a sequel…. so it couldna been a complete failure.
Steph- you tell ‘em, gravity IS your b*tch.
R. Dittmaron 12 Dec 2008 at 3:12 pm 55Ah yes, Ed. The movie that starred a large hairy grunting gibberish-spouting mammal and also a chimpanzee!
Bah-dum-dum! Thank you ladies and germs, I’ll be here all week!
BillyOon 12 Dec 2008 at 5:15 pm 56I saw that picture earlier today and haven’t been able to think straight since. Talk about hubbba hubba.
I think she is a talented actress. I watch Friends every night and she is adorable and funny. Her movies are hit or miss, but usually at least watchable.
whiskeyon 12 Dec 2008 at 6:09 pm 57Aniston is famous because she was part of the Pitt-Jolie triangle, and therefore the tabs love her.
Kudrow, her co-star in Friends, gets almost no attention or publicity. Despite having as many roles.
It’s the tabloidization of movies. Whoever is the biggest tabloid star gets roles.
That she’s doing publicity like this is also a function of how desperate and clueless Hollywood is about getting people to see their films.
Hollywood used to be able to churn out at relatively low cost feel-good romantic comedies. Now, they have to manufacture audiences through marketing and publicity.
Dirty Harry's Momon 13 Dec 2008 at 7:07 am 58Debbie Reynolds built a career that is still going…and going…and going…after that nasty Elizabeth Taylor stole Eddie Fishes (who? who?) from her. Image the pain inflicted when one loses Brad Pitt! However, I say, get your clothes on, girl, and go find something to do that gets people to admire you and not pity you. Good grief. Imagine Pitt and Jolie looking at that cover and feeling…well, nothing. They have a family, careers, money, good looks, and their clothes.
Kiton 13 Dec 2008 at 7:24 am 59whiskey,
“Now, they have to manufacture audiences through marketing and publicity.”
And even that doesn’t work, or, as Furious D said, “The Hottie & the Nottie would have outgrossed both Titanic and the Dark Knight.”
maatkareon 13 Dec 2008 at 10:11 am 60There was always marketing, whiskey–the fan magazines of the ‘golden age’ were filled with studio generated fluff. The young stars of the time (Judy Garland, Mickey Rooney, Robert Wagner, Liz Taylor, etc., have for years described how the studios set up “dates” they went on that reporters just happened to stumble upon to take pictures of. Certainly more wholesome, but marketing stars through their “private” lives isn’t remotely new. Not arguing with your assessment of Hollywood product, mind you, but the stars of yesteryear were just as aggressively marketed to the public, just not as luridly as it’s done now.
CWon 13 Dec 2008 at 12:21 pm 61Hello K.C. - point taken; well said (and “ouch”, ha ha).
Thanks for the info.
Like I said, I haven’t seen all of her films…
The Fitness Divaon 16 Dec 2008 at 9:34 pm 62Desperation move indeed. Film career - lukewarm. When in need, get naked!
Worked for Halle. Won her an Oscar, even….
terrion 20 Dec 2008 at 5:05 pm 63she’s a media whore, b rate actress. that cover is slutty and she looks like she has some new fake parts and is airbrushed to boot.