Another Jennifer Aniston rom-com - REALLY!?!?!
teenagemartyr
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.
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.
0
Comments
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 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.
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.
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
.[/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.
...according to heat, grazie, new, now etc
i wouldn't believe anything those rags say
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.
But it's funny enough and sufficiently unlike a romcom to be worth seeing if you're not a fan of Ms Aniston.
It looks like she has at least three more of these kinds of films on the way so far that she has filmed.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
Not sure maths is quite your strong point.
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.
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.
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.