Another Jennifer Aniston rom-com - REALLY!?!?!

teenagemartyrteenagemartyr Posts: 6,782
Forum Member
"Along Came Polly", "He's Just Not That into You", "The Break-Up", "Marley & Me", "The Object of My Affection", "Love Happens", "The Bounty Hunter", "Picture Perfect" and now "The Switch" (2010) and "Just Go With It" (2011).

What is it with Jennifer Aniston and romantic comedies? Seriously!?!?! The aforementioned list isn't even complete and she's in them all the time. I used to like her and some of her earlier stuff is amongst the recent best of the genre, but recently it's all going downhill as she portrays different variations of Rachel from "Friends"; 'bitter Rachel', 'eccentric Rachel', 'career-driven Rachel'...

She was very good in "Derailed" (despite the predictable ending) and "The Good Girl" (one of my favourite films) and these show that she can do something different, so why doesn't she? ANYTHING she's in will put bums on seats, so why isn't her agent pushing her in different avenues?

I seriously believe that if she carries on this way, she'll have no career left in 10 years. She's not getting any younger and rom-coms are generally aimed at young people.

Comments

  • pocatellopocatello Posts: 8,813
    Forum Member
    She's either greedy or stupid.
    She's rich to a level where she can pick and choose scripts, but she doesn't.
  • RebelScumRebelScum Posts: 16,008
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Don't take it so personally OP. She can do whatever she likes.
  • cymrugirlcymrugirl Posts: 3,332
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    pocatello wrote: »
    She's either greedy or stupid.
    She's rich to a level where she can pick and choose scripts, but she doesn't.

    There's more to being able to pick and choose scripts. Look at Sandra Bullock. One of the highest paid actresses yet even SHE couldn't get Million Dollar Baby made with her name attached to it. When she gave up on it, they made it with Clint and Hilary Swank.
    Not even an Oscar is a guarantee you can pick and choose scripts.

    As rebelscum says OP, don't take it so personally :p She probably just likes working on those type of movies. She never seems to look miserable and I guess if I had the choice of a nice paycheck to run around kissing other men in sunny climates versus crappy money in the middle of nowhere....I'd probably be tempted with the former!

    OP - Have you seen Friends with Money? JA is pretty good in that one.
  • PJ68PJ68 Posts: 3,116
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    i think JA is pretty good in rom coms - she is very likeable, women like her too. they like seeing her in this sort of film

    she is very girl next door (well compared to some actresses!) and has good comic timing
  • InkblotInkblot Posts: 26,889
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The Switch isn't a bad film. It's based on a short story by Jeffrey Eugenides, who wrote The Virgin Suicides, and it stretches the term romcom somewhat by being about a woman's relationship with two men, one of whom donates the sperm with which she inseminates herself. That's not a spoiler... that's the story. It's worth seeing, though Aniston isn't really right for the central role.
  • waldopepperwaldopepper Posts: 129
    Forum Member
    PJ68 wrote: »
    i think JA is pretty good in rom coms - she is very likeable, women like her too. they like seeing her in this sort of film

    she is very girl next door (well compared to some actresses!) and has good comic timing

    Yeh I think having spent soooo long being in Friends, it's difficult to shake off the character that she was - I think all the cast have had this problem to a different extent. This character is pretty much perfect for rom-coms so that's an obvious direction if she can't move in any other direction easily.

    Not sure why the OP particularly has this problem with Jen - she's just playing to her strengths and limitations like lots of actors do - Arnie for action flicks, Ben Stiller for comedies etc.
  • Pistol WhipPistol Whip Posts: 9,677
    Forum Member
    Yeh I think having spent soooo long being in Friends, it's difficult to shake off the character that she was - I think all the cast have had this problem to a different extent. This character is pretty much perfect for rom-coms so that's an obvious direction if she can't move in any other direction easily.

    Not sure why the OP particularly has this problem with Jen - she's just playing to her strengths and limitations like lots of actors do - Arnie for action flicks, Ben Stiller for comedies etc.

    Agree, except for Courtney Cox-Arquette. Her Gail Weathers character in the Scream franchise is brilliant and a world away from her Friends character!

    I don't think it's fair to critisise JA for the films she stars in. She's likable, pretty and a good actress, all good qualities and watchable IMO.
  • PJ68PJ68 Posts: 3,116
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Agree, except for Courtney Cox-Arquette. Her Gail Weathers character in the Scream franchise is brilliant and a world away from her Friends character!

    I don't think it's fair to critisise JA for the films she stars in. She's likable, pretty and a good actress, all good qualities and watchable IMO.

    i agree, i actually have grown to really like her as an actress
  • nessyfencernessyfencer Posts: 9,195
    Forum Member
    "Along Came Polly", "He's Just Not That into You", "The Break-Up", "Marley & Me", "The Object of My Affection", "Love Happens", "The Bounty Hunter", "Picture Perfect" and now "The Switch" (2010) and "Just Go With It" (2011).

    What is it with Jennifer Aniston and romantic comedies? Seriously!?!?! The aforementioned list isn't even complete and she's in them all the time. I used to like her and some of her earlier stuff is amongst the recent best of the genre, but recently it's all going downhill as she portrays different variations of Rachel from "Friends"; 'bitter Rachel', 'eccentric Rachel', 'career-driven Rachel'...

    She was very good in "Derailed" (despite the predictable ending) and "The Good Girl" (one of my favourite films) and these show that she can do something different, so why doesn't she? ANYTHING she's in will put bums on seats, so why isn't her agent pushing her in different avenues?

    I seriously believe that if she carries on this way, she'll have no career left in 10 years. She's not getting any younger and rom-coms are generally aimed at young people.
    Wow, you must be a big fan of the genre, knowing all of those ;)
  • broadshoulderbroadshoulder Posts: 18,758
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    [QUOTE=teenagemartyr;43672477as she portrays different variations of Rachel from "Friends"; 'bitter Rachel', 'eccentric Rachel', 'career-driven Rachel'...

    .[/QUOTE]

    I've often thought if she was cast as Ann Boleyn she play it as Rachel in Friends.

    She's got the career she wanted. Brad Pitt left her because she wanted a movie career rather then a family.

    i hope it was worth it.
  • PJ68PJ68 Posts: 3,116
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I've often thought if she was cast as Ann Boleyn she play it as Rachel in Friends.

    She's got the career she wanted. Brad Pitt left her because she wanted a movie career rather then a family.

    i hope it was worth it.

    ...according to heat, grazie, new, now etc

    i wouldn't believe anything those rags say
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 690
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    It truly is amazing that she's managed to sustain her film career so long, considering her really poor choices.

    If there were to be one final nail in her career coffin, then surely it's The Switch.

    It is without doubt one of the worst films of the year.

    It's created its own new sub genre: the rom-com-bomb.

    There's simply no spark between Aniston and Jason Bateman, and the film is completely devoid of both romance and comedy.

    Aniston needs to return to her roots and find herself a nice TV show. That's really where she belongs.

    The Switch reviewed here.
  • InkblotInkblot Posts: 26,889
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    That review appears to have been written on autopilot. It ignores about 75% of the film: unfortunately, the 75% of the film that's quite good. Bateman is great, Goldblum's on better form than usual, Thomas Robinson is astonishing as the result of the "switch". Aniston, not so good.

    But it's funny enough and sufficiently unlike a romcom to be worth seeing if you're not a fan of Ms Aniston.
  • UltraVioletUltraViolet Posts: 7,673
    Forum Member
    Maybe she just enjoys doing these kinds of films, or has she said in any interviews that she would love to do more serious roles?

    It looks like she has at least three more of these kinds of films on the way so far that she has filmed.
  • TheSlayer10TheSlayer10 Posts: 1,866
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    She is such a one trick pony
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 298
    Forum Member
    When you watch a JA film you think in your head 'where is Ross and Emma'

    she will never shake that role as rachel off. So she just plays it all the time.

    I havent really saw her play a dfferent role.

    She needs to do just one film...something completely different, with a strong topic that she can show she has some acting abilities...or else go back to tv as another poster said.
  • Button62Button62 Posts: 8,463
    Forum Member
    I've often thought if she was cast as Ann Boleyn she play it as Rachel in Friends.

    She's got the career she wanted. Brad Pitt left her because she wanted a movie career rather then a family.

    i hope it was worth it.

    I think the fact he had fallen under Angelina's spell whilst working together on Mr & Mrs Smith may have had more to do with it.

    I like JA and her films are usually entertaining.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,012
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Firstly, Marley & Me, a rom-com? Hardly.

    She's playing to her strengths as an actress. No one goes on about football players always playing football and not branching out into other sports.

    If we're comparing to her old co-stars, Courtney Cox-Arquette is currently playing a character that is essentially Monica on Cougar Town. Matt LeBlanc seems to have given up trying to find anything to break out of the role of Joey and decided to play himself in upcoming TV show Episodes. David Schwimmer also hasn't tried to break out of the role of Ross, instead opting to direct, his biggest acting role since Friends is voicing Melman the Giraffe in Madagascar and the character is basically a more childish, extreme version of Ross. Matthew Perry is trying out another TV comedy series which will air in the US sometime next year.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 40,102
    Forum Member
    She's typecast, simply speaking. She probably can't put herself into any other role.

    She's probably aware of this and is milking it for all she can get. Personally, I grew bored of her in friends.

    There's a lot of actors who essentially play the same character over and over again. I wish Hollywood would move on!
    She's playing to her strengths as an actress. No one goes on about football players always playing football and not branching out into other sports.

    The two are not really comparable. Acting means becoming a character and the more characters they can portray the more skilled the actor is seen to be. Their "skill" is being able to adapt - i.e. act.

    Football, on the other hand, is a single skilled form of entertainment because the skill required is usually technically difficult.
  • pocatellopocatello Posts: 8,813
    Forum Member
    Button62 wrote: »
    I think the fact he had fallen under Angelina's spell whilst working together on Mr & Mrs Smith may have had more to do with it.

    I like JA and her films are usually entertaining.

    Its the same thing, he found someone else that would have his children. Aniston clearly doesn't want a family so he rationally jumped ship.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 690
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Inkblot wrote: »
    That review appears to have been written on autopilot. It ignores about 75% of the film: unfortunately, the 75% of the film that's quite good. Bateman is great, Goldblum's on better form than usual, Thomas Robinson is astonishing as the result of the "switch"

    Not sure maths is quite your strong point. :D

    Saying that Goldblum is on better form than usual is saying nothing. He is clearly struggling on screen here, which in places is quite embarrassing. You know that his last decent leading man role was in 1986 (The Fly) right?!

    And have you seen Bateman when he's on form? Any episode of Arrested Development. he's got great potential as a leading man, but he doesn't do himself any favours here.

    Agree with you in part about Robinson, but wouldn't go as far as saying astonishing though. Still, he gives the best performance out of any other cast member, which quite the indictment.

    But if that's your 75% of what's good about the film, then in a sense you're right, as it's easy to ignore. :rolleyes:
  • InkblotInkblot Posts: 26,889
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Not sure maths is quite your strong point. :D

    Saying that Goldblum is on better form than usual is saying nothing. He is clearly struggling on screen here, which in places is quite embarrassing. You know that his last decent leading man role was in 1986 (The Fly) right?!

    And have you seen Bateman when he's on form? Any episode of Arrested Development. he's got great potential as a leading man, but he doesn't do himself any favours here.

    Agree with you in part about Robinson, but wouldn't go as far as saying astonishing though. Still, he gives the best performance out of any other cast member, which quite the indictment.

    But if that's your 75% of what's good about the film, then in a sense you're right, as it's easy to ignore. :rolleyes:

    But what's the point of a review if it ignores a huge swathe of the film? Aniston isn't particularly impressive in The Switch but there's more to the film than Jennifer Aniston. If you don't like a film it's fine to say so, but don't pretend it's a review.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 690
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Inkblot wrote: »
    But what's the point of a review if it ignores a huge swathe of the film? Aniston isn't particularly impressive in The Switch but there's more to the film than Jennifer Aniston. If you don't like a film it's fine to say so, but don't pretend it's a review.

    Hmm so now you've changed from 75% to 'huge swathe'? Not sure that's helping your cause any.:D

    And are you saying that a review has to be positive, otherwise it's not a review?!

    The review clearly states what's wrong with the film, and it says that there's far more wrong with it than just Aniston. You may not (actually you clearly don't!) agree with it, but it doesn't make the review any less valid.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 13,367
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I was dragged to this tonight and confidently expected to hate it, or at least to be completely indifferent. But curiously, I found a lot to like about it.

    Like most films of its type, it's fairly predictable all the way through. But in tone and focus, it wasn't really what I was expecting. It wasn't really a Jennifer Aniston film at all.

    The child was very good, and he and Jason Bateman were excellent together. The scenes they shared were the best of the film.

    Okay, so it wasn't a challenging film that broke any moulds, but it was a pleasant diversion. I liked it.
Sign In or Register to comment.