Jennifer Aniston has bangs, highlights in her new movie: cute or busted?

These are new photos of Jennifer Aniston (and Jason Sudeikis and Emma Roberts) on the Wilmington, North Carolina set of their new film, We’re the Millers. I guess we now know why Justin Theroux was wandering around New York City over the weekend – his love is in North Carolina, working. And she doesn’t want him around. Maybe he’ll visit?

I actually discussed Aniston’s casting a few months ago, shortly after Wanderlust ate it at the box office – apparently, the script has been making the rounds since 2002, and it’s had various re-writes and various stars “attached” to the project at various times. I believe that the current script involved Sudeikis playing a drug dealer/drug trafficker who is trying to move a marijuana shipment across the border, and he “hired” Jennifer Aniston’s character, a hooker, to play his loving wife. Then they hire some kids, all to pretend that they’re a family above suspicion, so they can get the drugs across the border. So Jennifer will be playing a hooker pretending to be an all-American “wife”. Which is… kind of interesting. I might have to give her some credit for moving outside of her normal, cutesy wheelhouse. Of course, I expect that Sudeikis and Aniston’s characters will end up together in the end.

Anyway, these photos show…? I guess Aniston and Sudeikis’s characters are on the move. Aniston’s character has bangs in this movie. Can you tell if those bangs are a new haircut for Jennifer, or are they those clip-on bangs? Is it a wig in total? I really can’t tell anymore. As for her costume… it’s not flattering. Which makes me like Aniston more – she’s playing a character without a cute wardrobe. Of course, she’s still showing off her toned arms.

Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet.

 

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

104 Responses to “Jennifer Aniston has bangs, highlights in her new movie: cute or busted?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. RocketMerry says:

    Kinda cute. Maybe bangs are a bit too youngsy for her age, but still cute.

  2. samanthalous says:

    God she looks 50 a good 50 but still 50

  3. Bondon says:

    She looks like a bona fide soccer mom

  4. Krock says:

    I like her so much better with the bangs. Makes her look younger.

    They probably are clip ins though, I don’t think she would ever cut her “famous locks”. She hangs on to her hair for dear life.

  5. lex says:

    Is she trying to look like Laura Dern? Definitely not a good look on her.

  6. Cathy says:

    I like the bangs, looks good on her. I also like that shirt with those pants. That outfit looks good on her.

  7. Diana says:

    She’s still touching her hair!!!
    I promise to become her die hard fan if she goes bald for some movie. Or does an Anne Hathway.

  8. DanaG says:

    If she is playing a hooker she will be breaking out some more revealing clothes. Don’t know about the hair but it isn’t anything she hasn’t had done before. Now if she had dyed it and really actually looked different then yeah. Jen has played plain jane types before she still can’t act that great.

    • Kimlee says:

      +1

      I was going to say the cutesy outfit is going to come out so I wouldn’t give her to much credit.

    • autumndaze says:

      You nailed this. Her fit body is one of the only things that continues to get her movie roles; she is in some state of undress or skimpily clad in all of them.
      She can’t act and I am loathe to see “Rachel” in another movie so I will pass on this one, too.

    • pamela says:

      This is more or less the same hairstyle she had for Marley and Me, and the plot of the movie is similar to Just Go With It…just a different comedian/actor hiring her to be his wife. Just more of the same with Aniston.

    • pamela says:

      In someof those pics it looks like she is wearing matching color socks to her capris. Not a good look.

      • TheOriginalTiffany says:

        It’s still the same old thing. That movie with Adam Sandler (who came to the show last week but did not come backstage and Salma Hayek came Sunday night with her kids and came backstage and posed with the cast, she is gorgeous, tiny and didn’t wear makeup!) where she pretended to be his wife and he pretends the kids are his and they are a family?
        Same old thing. I think she looks much older than her years, I’m her age and swear I pass for ten years younger with no makeup on. She looks like she’s getting fillers? Her roles just seem to be Rachel or a version of. She’s a cutesy wife, girlfriend beachy, sexy girl. This will be a variation on a theme. I am not feeling the bangs, maybe a side bang would have been better?
        Please don’t tell me this is what people think moms dress like. It makes me want to go cry.
        Poor suburban mom Stereotype. I will never don the uniform.
        This movie will be as meh as the other stuff she has been doing. I watched a few on our flights and hardly made it through.

  9. MK yarwood says:

    Wait, is Emma SuckBerts in this movie too? Holy double ‘nila wafer.

  10. Nanea says:

    Not wearing any wedges?

    I thought she only does a movie if she can wear wedges…

  11. RN says:

    American women, take note: capris make EVERY woman look dumpy, even movie stars.

  12. G says:

    I see. Must be a serious role. She changed her hair.
    The most expressive thing that she has.

  13. spinner says:

    I like the bangs. Looks good on her. She looks totally in character. Jen always does well in an ensemble cast. She seems like a team player.

    • lilac says:

      “Jen always does well in an ensemble cast. She seems like a team player.”
      (in a robot drone voice) Jenbot alert! Jenbot alert! ANY actress who maintains a career is by nature and definition a team player. Don’t make her out to be something she is not, its why Jen fans and the loonistons cop crap. The sickenly sweet fantasy portrayal of this woman is pathetic and turns people off.

  14. bea says:

    Hooker? A nice, clean, shiny, happy hooker no doubt. It p*sses me off that she’s portraying such a fake representation of what it’s like to be a prostitute.

    I’m glad she looks so sh*tty with blonde hair and bangs.

    I find everything about her to be distasteful, from her hired (ugly) boy toy right down to the absurd amount of $ she gets paid to act poorly.

  15. Thea says:

    Well for a woman who cant act she is worth millions. so I dont think she really gives a shit what we think. Anyway, I love Jason Sudekis, a hole that he is.

  16. DenG says:

    Pretending to be a wife, huh? Pretending to be an ex-wife in “Just Go With It”. What a range. Genius.

  17. twoblues says:

    One more Aniston movie I won’t be seeing.

  18. The Original Denise says:

    A post on Jennifer Aniston’s bangs? Seriously?? LOL!!!

    • GrandPoobah says:

      Or, you know, about the her filming a new movie.

      • lilac says:

        Oh my god, calm down GrandPoobah! Its not that serious. Gees.

      • spinner says:

        @ lilac

        You’re the one who needs to calm down. You can exit this thread anytime you like if it upsets you this much. There, there.

      • lilac says:

        And there is another one that needs to calm down, spinner. There there indeed. Bex and a good lie down spinner. Sorts everything out. Try it. You are one of the Jenloons who really needs it. Btw, you clearly missed what Grandpoobah had said but are taking the chance and chiming in to defend one of your cohorts. Grandpoobah obviously knew they’d gone too far as after my post went through, they did delete the part where they went off on an aggressive rant attacking The Original Denise. Maybe if anything less than 100% pro-Aniston commentators upsets you, maybe you should exit this thread, and this site. You took the wrong turn. Female First is ->

      • GrandPoobah says:

        lilac: Wow, I was just saying that the post was about Aniston filming a movie as the original denise seemed to think the post was purely about Aniston’s bangs.

        “Grandpoobah obviously knew they’d gone too far as after my post went through, they did delete the part where they went off on an aggressive rant attacking The Original Denise.”

        What are you talking about? There was no aggressive rant to delete. There is no need to lie about such nonsense. The moderator knows that there was no aggressive rant which is why they let the comment go through.

        I might have been a tad sarcastic in my response but you are literally just making up stuff if you believe there was an “aggressive rant” in my comment that I deleted.

        I think you’re the one who needs to take a step back and relax.

      • lilac says:

        GrandPoobah, don’t lie. I saw what you wrote and what you deleted. If you thought you hadn’t gone too far you wouldn’t have deleted it. And you know it. You saw you needed to step back hence why you deleted it. Period. Btw, a lot of horrible things about people and children have gone through on this site, and many posts are not moderated. So please don’t add more lies on top of your lies. I saw what you wrote when you posted it hence my post being a mere 2 mins after your post went through. I saw your original post straight away and the is only 2 mins between your post and mine, after which you edited it. So its not like I came in 15 mins later and made the claim, I saw what you wrote, and my reply was a mere 2 mins after your original, well within the ‘edit’ time. Its sad that you feel the need to lie about it, and if you have to blatantly lie like this then perhaps you shouldn’t be here.

      • GrandPoobah says:

        lilac: Hahaha, You’re really doubling down, aren’t you? What did I write then? Since you saw it and it bothered you so much, what was it that I supposedly deleted?

        What I don’t understand is why you’ve created this farce…are you just trolling?

        EDIT: I’d also just like to put it out there that I did not start this.

      • lilac says:

        So you are denying you edited your post at all? A moderator I’m sure, is able to tell us if your post was edited or not. I saw what you wrote.

        Honey, I’m not the one who has ‘created’ anything. You did. I simply called you out on your web of lies and deception. You probably thought no one saw what you wrote, because you made the edit very quickly. But as the timestamp shows, I saw your post the first time. There was more to it than “Or, you know, about the her filming a new movie.” To me, you’re the troll that has lied, when all you had to do was tell the truth. You thought better, rectified your error, and removed the last bit. Its why you feel the need to lie about it that has me stumped. And yes, you did start this. Yet another lie.

        Edit: Nope Grandpoobah, or is that GrandCoward. I guess I was trolled by you. I caught you out and you don’t even have the guts to answer that one question. Are you, or are you not denying that you made an edit, at all, to that post? You were caught out. Run away.

      • GrandPoobah says:

        Lilac: Ok. I’ve been trolled. Good job, lilac. I fell for it. Bravo.

        EDIT: *sigh*

      • lilac says:

        Nope GrandPoobah, or is that GrandCoward. I guess I was the one trolled by you. I caught you out and you don’t even have the guts to answer that one question. Are you, or are you not denying that you made an edit, at all, to that post? You were caught out. Run away.

      • GrandPoobah says:

        lilac: I didn’t and don’t deny editing the post. But I edit all of my posts for clarity, grammar and spelling. I just edited this one. However, I did not delete “an aggressive rant”.

        And since you know what I wrote, why won’t you share?

        Since you are so determined that I said something so heinous that I felt morally compelled to delete it, why not tell everyone what it was?

        Since you’ve seen it and it was so reprehensible that you saw, why not share with the class?

        EDIT: And since I have no idea what it was since I never wrote it, I’m really curious as to what it was I supposedly said and then deleted.

        (Clearly marking my edits, lest someone think I’m aggressively ranting).

        SECOND EDIT: Cheyenne, is that you?

      • GrandPoobah says:

        Lilac: I think an aggressive rant would take more than two lines, don’t you?

        The simple fact is that I didn’t delete a rant, aggressive or otherwise. You can’t repeat it because it didn’t exist.

        EDIT: And yes, I’m new to posting but not new to the site. There is such a thing as a “lurker”. Look it up.

  19. lilac says:

    I loathe the woman but I believe bangs really look good on her. She looks younger and they make her eyes stand out/highlight her eyes. I remember during her shooting Marley and Me how I saw photos of the shoots and couldn’t believe the difference bangs made to her: she looked absolutely gorgeous with them. I can’t understand why she doesn’t have it fulltime.

  20. Jordan says:

    Jason has absolutely no a$$. Did it all go to his belly?

  21. GrandPoobah says:

    It looks like a wig to me, but I could be wrong.

    The outfit is hilariously unflattering and All American soccer mom-like.

    I’m glad she’s shutting up the folks who were saying that since Wanderlust didn’t do well, she had no offers or wasn’t working again. Ha ha.

  22. lucy2 says:

    Don’t care for the bangs, but it’s all part of the movie costume, I think.

    Good move to do a comedy, rather than a rom com, for a change.

  23. Janet says:

    I actually like the bangs. It’s the capris that look godawful. They aren’t flattering on anyone and they make short legs like hers look stumpier.

  24. Tanya says:

    I am always amazed at how hair can make SUCH a huge difference. I have always thought she is attractive, not pretty, certainly not beautiful but her hair is what makes her looks. without the wispy, longer pieces and now the bangs, she looks about as average as anyone could look…I wouldn’t look at her twice on the street, and I suppose that is the look they’re going for with this particular character.

  25. Emma says:

    This plot sounds absurd even for a stupid comedy. I already know the ending, Jason and Jen’s characters fall in love with each other. *yawn*

  26. Mr. Greek says:

    And once again, Man Face is on the set of her latest bomb. How is it this woman keeps getting cast in or having her mediocre films green-lighted is beyond my comprehension.

    Man Face needs to either return to the boob tube in another mindless show or else have the brains to know her cinema time has long expired…if it even ever began.

  27. claire says:

    I think the real question is: why is she still being given movie roles?? Every movie she touches bombs.

  28. ClaireB says:

    She cut her hair, wears ugly clothes, call Sundance ! Call the academy !

  29. Fue McCormick says:

    Jeez … with all the JustJen gossip going around I didn’t even realize this chick was still making movies …

  30. Black Pearl says:

    Jen looks ok, the bangs kinda work on her.. I’m not a fan of Emma Roberts but I love that she’s working constantly which is more than you can say about some actresses her age..

  31. lisa2 says:

    Is this one going to be R-rated too. That seems to be the trend. Problem is when you set out to make a raunchy comedy for the sake of being raunchy it usual fails.

    I think this is the next direction for her. She is leaving the com comedies and doing the raunchy ones now. Well we will see how it works out.

  32. kellyinseattle says:

    At least she has changed her hair, for once, even if it is just for a movie. I’m tired of the same old look

  33. paranormalgirl says:

    Oh look – pics from the set of the film that someone who claimed to have “inside information” and said they were a crew member stated wasn’t shooting for awhile. Oops.

  34. Rupert Everett says:

    Who gives her a role anymore? her movies bombs, nobody wants to see her! its riduculous.

  35. frankly says:

    All this makes me think is “Hey! Suburban ladies! These clothes make Jennifer Anniston look dumpy – what do you think they’re doing to you? BURN ALL YOU SLEEVELESS BLOUSES AND CLAM DIGGERS, STAT! You’re spending hard-earned money on hideous clothes!”

  36. NoneeFriend says:

    Lilac–Your nurse is here to administer your meds. Now be a good girl and take them without a fuss.

  37. Elizabeth says:

    I don’t mind seeing her in pleasant, little comedies where she is not the main character. She’s fine in those. But she can’t “open” a movie to save her own life. She is an ensemble actor, made to play off of other characters. Why does she keep getting lead roles when all her movies tank?

  38. ann h says:

    Before the movie comes out she’ll be ripping off her clothes for magazine covers and promising nudity…again.

  39. Alecsma says:

    Busted, totally busted. A perfect illustration of Bangs Trauma if ever there was one.

  40. MrsBpitt says:

    Can’t Hollywood save money by just re-releasing an old JA movie, but changing the title…they are all the same anyway!

  41. Mslynnst says:

    Oh my GOD- you people are INSANE!! I got to this site somehow and scrolled down for kicks-& can’t believe the energy you losers put into hating some actress and snarking on each other. Wow -think if you used all the time and effort into hating the politicians who are robbing you blind, or into gathering donations for a worthy cause instead of burning your fuel taking up or down a woman (who is going to make money on this flick, and continue to do what she thinks is her job because it’s what rich producers have paid her to do for years so DUH wouldn’t you do the same in spite of bored idiots posting about her “costume” in a movie????) who is jut doing her job, well or not–you’d actually have LIVES!!!! Holy crap!!

  42. Mslynnst says:

    You people are INSANE!! I got to this site somehow; scrolled down for kicks-& can’t believe the energy you losers put into hating some actress &snarking on each other. Think-if you used all that time/effort into hating politicians who are robbing you blind, or into gathering $$ for a worthy cause instead of burning your fuel taking up/down a woman (who is going to make money on this flick, &continue to do what she thinks is her job b/c it’s what rich producers have paid her to do for years so DUH wouldn’t you do same in spite of bored idiots posting about her “costume” in a movie????) who is jut doing her job, well or not–you’d actually have LIVES!!!! Holy crap!!

  43. Mslynnst says:

    You people are INSANE!! I got to this site for kicks-& can’t believe the energy you losers put into hating some actress &snarking on each other. Think-if you used all that time/effort into hating politicians who are robbing you blind, or into gathering $$ for worthy cause instead of burning your fuel taking up/down a woman (who is going to make money on this flick, &continue to do what she thinks is her job b/c it’s what rich producers have paid her to do for years so DUH wouldn’t you do same in spite of bored idiots posting about your “costume” ??) who is jut doing her job–you’d actually have LIVES!!

  44. Mslynnst says:

    You people are INSANE!! Can’t believe the energy you losers put into hating some actress &snarking on each other. Think-if you used all that time/effort into hating politicians who are robbing you blind, or into gathering $$ for worthy cause instead of burning your fuel taking up/down a woman (who is going to make money on this flick, &continue to do what she thinks is her job b/c it’s what rich producers have paid her to do for years so DUH wouldn’t you do same in spite of bored idiots posting about your “costume” ??) who is jut doing her job–you’d actually have LIVES!!