Jennifer Aniston ‘flirting’ with the idea of joining Kabbalah but Justin doesn’t like it

116002PCN_Aniston01

Here are some new photos of Jennifer Aniston on the Pasadena set of her new film, Cake. It’s a smaller drama (or a black comedy) which Jennifer is producing herself. It’s about a woman grieving a dead husband, I think? And she’s supposed to look like this, which… props to Jennifer. Usually she only does movies where she can look cute and wear wedges and scarves. She looks properly grief-stricken in these photos. The film also stars Sam Worthington, William H. Macy, Anna Kendrick and Chris Messina.

In other Aniston news, Star Magazine claims that she’s flirting with the idea of joining Kabbalah because she thinks it will make her look younger and be more centered:

Demi Moore has a new soul sister in Jennifer Aniston. The pair recently got together to discuss their rom-com Mean Moms and Jen noticed a marked change in her old pal. “Jen was struck by how calm and centered Demi seemed… Demi explained that it’s a combination of Kundalini yoga, meditation and studying Kabbalah.”

Intrigued, Jen signed on for Kabbalah lessons. “Kabbalah is a fit for her because it’s about ‘finding your light’ and helping others.”

But her fiancé Justin Theroux is worried that others are helping themselves to Jen’s cash!

“Justin is skeptical, it sounds to him like a waste of time and a way to get money out of people,” reveals the insider. “He doesn’t like it.”

[From Star Magazine, print edition]

It sounds like BS, for sure, although I wouldn’t put it past Jennifer to “flirt” with the idea of a scam “religion.” The real Kabbalah is the mystical sect of Judaism – the Hollywood version of Kabbalah is just slightly less culty than Scientology, and I would buy the idea that Justin is a bit more street-smart when it comes to cults. Also, this made me laugh: “But her fiancé Justin Theroux is worried that others are helping themselves to Jen’s cash!” Don’t they know that only Justin is allowed to do that?! Justin is just protecting his sugar mama from being taken by anyone other than him.

115987PCN_JenSam02a

116002PCN_Aniston04

116002PCN_Aniston09

Photos courtesy of Pacific Coast News.

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

139 Responses to “Jennifer Aniston ‘flirting’ with the idea of joining Kabbalah but Justin doesn’t like it”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Narak says:

    Hey! They stole my wardrobe! Plus- “Kabbalah will make her look younger and be more centred” add the word self and it fits.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      No that is definitely my sweater. And not just when I’m grief stricken.

    • Mary says:

      This is how I look all the time 🙂

      • As I’m typing, I’m wearing a pair of light brown/taupe sweat pants, and a tshirt under a Denver (black) sweatshirt–I’m also wearing a headwrap (for like three days), because my hair is in a bun and it got really staticky on the top, but I don’t want to comb it. I got dressed up (as in a pair of jeans and a blouse) and my mom asked me why I was all dressed up–I told her it was because my sweatpants were in the wash.

  2. K.B. says:

    Wait, people still convert to Kabbalah? I know she misses the mid-90s, but this just reeks of desperation, even for her.

    (Yes, I know this is from Star Magazine.)

    • I’ve never heard of Kabbalah, outside of LA/celebrities. Is it actually a thing?

      • FLORC says:

        It is a religion and it’s has it’s pros and cons. I will say it’s not slightly less culty than Scientology. That’s a huge exaggeration. Scientology is in a league of its own.

      • Dagmarunger says:

        “Kabbalah originally developed entirely within the realm of Jewish thought, and kabbalists often use classical Jewish sources to explain and demonstrate its esoteric teachings.”

    • magpie says:

      That’s what I was gonna say…how 90s of her!

  3. bobbisue says:

    Sorry but that is an EXTREMELY unflattering picture of her. Yikes.

    • Josephine says:

      Agree. It is for a role, but I think it shows that like most celebs, it’s all about the hair and make-up.

      • Eva says:

        Damn she’s plain looking, she’s definitely all smoke and mirrors.
        It proves that anyone with the right amount of money/styling can look good.

      • Camille (The Original) says:

        Eva- you nailed it. Completely agree with you.

    • gg says:

      Anybody looks better with makeup and nice clothes on, it’s not magic.

      • Jupo says:

        There are tons of celebs though who actually look beautiful without makeup. Lots of women in fact are beautiful without makeup.
        Jen however has a publicist that likes to tell people how Jen is just so naturally beautiful, when these pics prove she is rough, average, and dare I say ugly.

      • Nikita says:

        @Jupo,

        +1.000.0000

        This, is what i always say about her!

    • Jordan says:

      It is very unflattering but kudo’s to her on taking a role where she isn’t glamorous or stylish. She hasn’t looked this frumpy for a movie since Good Girl.

      • Size Does Matter says:

        Is this how she defaults? Or do they actively do something to make her look worse?

      • Jordan says:

        @Size Does Matter:

        Good question. She looks heavier, so maybe she has some padding on, but that may just be her without makeup.

      • bobbisue says:

        The stills from that movie Squirrels to the Nuts (not released yet maybe) where she’s sporting a brown wig? She looks pretty darn frumpy in some of those, too.

      • Lady D says:

        She looks like someone who lives with chronic pain.

      • Eva says:

        I read that her contracts state that her wardrobe must be sleeveless shirts to show off her toned arms ( which she thinks is her best feature) and then sure enough, every movie she’s in she wears sleeveless shirts exclusively. Until seeing these photos, that is.

    • homegrrrl says:

      She must have been rude to the paps, because this is a bloatacious morning photo that would unflatter any woman.

  4. Ian says:

    Juliette Lewis – Gwyneth Paltrow – Jennifer Aniston – ANGELINA JOLIE

    The Evolution of Species according to Brad Pitt.

  5. GoodNamesAllTaken says:

    Is she Jewish? I thought Kabbalah was a form of Judaism? Is Demi Jewish? Am I confusing something?

  6. blue marie says:

    Damnit, Anna Kendrick should be in better movies.

    • That’s what I was thinking–Jennifer Aniston and Sam Worthington (there are others, but I can’t remember them)???? Especially Sam Worthington. But I’m thinking that her role might be a little more than a cameo…apparently she plays as a ghost that taunts Jennifer’s character. So I can see that being a week’s worth of filming—maybe she’s going to use that money to fuel her Taco Bell munchies.

  7. Teri says:

    I would love to see her go back to a darker hair color. I loved the hair colors she had in Horrible Bosses and the early days of Friends.

  8. Leila says:

    Without all her makeup and hair, she is very homely and rough looking. Far from a natural beauty.

    • lily says:

      But you just know it will be put out there how much makeup it took to make her look this bad.

      • The thing that makes her look bad is that she looks really puffy. That’s not makeup (as far as I know). If she’s wearing any makeup, then it was applied to make her completely pale–no natural blush or anything. Usually her cheeks are a little red (like mine).

        But I am wondering what’s going on–because her body is the same (and her body always looks pretty good), but her face is really puffy, like she just woke up. Don’t tell me they have prosthetics for THAT.

      • Penny says:

        There are things you can do. If an actor’s meant to look like they’ve been crying for days on end for example, they need the puffy eyes. If they’re meant to look sick, they might need to look puffy all over too. She’s playing a recent widow, so she’s probably meant to look like she’s been crying and not taking care of herself.

        Easiest way to get puffy is just to eat a diet that will make you retain water, if you need a more pronounced puffiness then there are products that will slightly irritate the skin and there are pills which will make you retain water. And you can do a lot with make-up, very subtle contouring to add shadows where there aren’t any can make areas look puffy whey they aren’t. Aniston doesn’t have such pronounced nasolabial folds normally, so I’d guess for a start they’ve amped those up with make-up, which in turn makes her cheeks look more puffed out. Simple things like that if done correctly make a real difference.

      • @Penny
        Thanks, Penny! I didn’t think that her body looks any different, just her face. Do you work in theater/makeup?

  9. Kim1 says:

    Isn’t she stunning?
    Star Magazine story is BS

  10. Becca says:

    Wow, she is very plain. Such a butterface.
    You would not look at her twice walking down the street.

    How could her PR team seriously BUY her that Sexiest Woman title? She is far from it.

  11. Mia says:

    Woof, Woof. She will not be happy with these pics.

  12. benaa says:

    Do her & Justin even spend time together? She seemed to be in NYC for less than a week before rushing back to LA.
    They are just always on opposite coasts it seems, and in no rush to be in the same city for more than a week.

    • sophie says:

      sounds like brandgelina.

      • benaa says:

        Why are you even bringing them up??
        And, Uh no.
        Angelina’s Unbroken got pushed ahead resulting in them filming at the same time. They got together as much as they could.

        Whereas even when Jen is not filming in LA she can’t even bother going to NYC.

        Right now neither are filming and they are all together in LA while Angelina edits Unbroken. They do try their hardest to always be together whether you want to beleive it or not.

        It is very insulting to their family to call them a brand.

      • Maya says:

        Umm Brad and Angelina were filming in two different continents and still they met up in Hong Kong and Brad flew to Aus a few times. They make the efford to be together because they want to even if they have to fly for 24 hours only to be together for a few days.

        While Jennifer and Justin are in the same country and Jennifer wasn’t even working until recently. Jennifer has always shown that she likes to spend months apart from her partners and that it is always her way or the highway. She didn’t even travel to support her fiancé when his close friend PSH died. That should tell the state of their relationship.

      • Sal says:

        Obsessed, much? What do Brangelina have to do with anything? A bit of a one-loop mind you have there. As usual, look who brings up who first. sophie Brangelina are almost always together and you darn well know that, so stop deflecting Aniston’s actions onto someone else just because you cannot stand the truth being called out.

    • Yeah–I don’t think that Justin’s still filming that tv show, right? I know it comes out in early summer..and he’s been filming for almost a year, since last summer. I guess he’s hanging out in NY now–he probably high tailed it out of LA as soon as she got onto set.

  13. Sal says:

    Her in her natural state. One word: HOMELY.

    As to Kabbalah, I can’t see her doing this, she doesn’t seem at all religious (nothing wrong with that), bs story.

  14. Debb says:

    Bad PR for Aveeno skin care products.

  15. Tippy says:

    This movie sounds intriguing.

    It seems like Jenn has been constantly busy over the past few years.

  16. mia girl says:

    Of all the lame attempts by tabloids to manufacture juicy gossip, this has got to be one of the lamest.

  17. Geez–she looks ROUGH. She looks like she just rolled out of bed and was on the set in two minutes. Why is her face so puffy? It’s usually not like that.

    I’m loving her hair, as it finally doesn’t look like a wispy ball of straw.

    The movie sounds…different, for her.
    Here’s the summary:
    ******The acerbic, hilarious CLAIRE SIMMONS becomes fascinated by the suicide of a woman in her chronic pain support group. As she uncovers the details of Nina’s suicide and develops a poignant relationship with Nina’s husband, she also grapples with her own, very raw personal tragedy.************

    We’ll see if she pulls it off. This is the kind of film she should’ve done when she got out of her ‘Friends’ contract–not nine years later.

  18. Maya says:

    I am not a fan of Jennifer’s but good luck to her for trying a different genre.

    As for her not looking good without makeup etc most people in Hollywood look ordinary without makeup. The only few people I have seen who looks equally beautiful with or without makeup is Halle Berry, Angelina Jolie, Madeleine Stowe, Penelope Cruz, Marion Cotillard, Julianne Moore.

    PS: Justin really is a gold digger isn’t he? He is worse than Eddie Cibrian in my opinion.

    • Jupo says:

      I think it is that her pr team constantly tells us how she is always glowing & beautiful, when in reality she is very plain & average.

      • Camille (The Original) says:

        True. I guess that is why she is ‘relatable’ for some women…

    • lucy2 says:

      I agree about the makeup, it’s amazing how it can change a person’s look, and how so many celebrities look very ordinary without it.
      I’d add Amanda Seyfried, Jessica Simpson, and Lupita to the list who look good without makeup.

  19. sophie says:

    The character Jen plays was in a car accident which killed her child and caused her to be in constant pain, thus joining a chronic pain group where Kendrick’s character commits suicide.

    • Jupo says:

      She will be playing Rachel again. Can’t even imagine taking her seriously in this role.

      Plus the director directed Beastly………

  20. lucy2 says:

    It’s Star, which means it’s probably BS. The tip off is them calling Demi calm and centered. Yeah right! Good cast for the movie, I like Anna Kendrick and WHM.

    Sheesh! People complain about her being vain and all about her appearance, and when she does a role not focused on that, she’s called ugly. Nice.

    • doofus says:

      yeah, I noticed that too…people complain that she always plays the same character and that she’d never get “uglied up” do a role like Theron in “Monster”, she’d never risk not being “pretty” on screen…

      so, she DOES choose a different type of character and she DOES get “uglied up” and she gets bashed.

      (NOTE: not ALL are bashing, of course, but…predictably…)

      • Jupo says:

        She is not getting “uglied” up for this role, she is just not wearing makeup. She just naturally looks like this when she wakes up.

        No one made her look this homely, she is homely all on her own w/o the hair & makeup she cakes on.

        Theron actually had to be made ugly with help from the makeup department. Aniston is ugly without any help…see the difference. Theron with no makeup is beautiful.

      • doofus says:

        you’ll note that I put “uglied up” in quotes…however it’s done, by omission (of grooming), whatever….the point is that she’s not being her usual “make up/hair/Rachel” character and she STILL gets crap.

        “She just naturally looks like this when she wakes up. ”

        really? how do you know this?

      • Luca26 says:

        How exactly do you know she’s not wearing any makeup? I don’t think Aniston is a great beauty like Theron but she does look carefully groomed and polished almost without exception. I’m positive there is a makeup artist uglying her up.

      • Josephina says:

        Well,

        She does not have any mascara on.

        Her hair is poised as a non-descript bob, unlike the usual “academy curtain of hair” carefully hiding or distracting from her not so feminine facial features (jawline, lips, chin, neck, nose)

        No soft shade of lipstick or gloss to brighten her face.

        Her face is shaped like a potato.

        And yes, she always looks CAREFULLY groomed, given advanced notice.

        She looks frumpy and unattractive.

      • Dagmarunger says:

        I am not famous EVEN I would not go pick my paper off the lawn looking like that, well I might if it was 5.30am when no-one is around!

      • Moore says:

        She is being “uglyed up”. There are no roles where they do nothing. The movie people are making her look like that for the role.

    • Pandy says:

      I don’t look so hot without makeup either. But she still has a great body. I laughed at Demi Moore comment. She probably looks so calm and centred because she’s drugged up the @ss.

  21. Ginger says:

    Sounds pretty deep for her but I liked her performance in The Good Girl so she might be able to pull it off. It’s got to be better than the stupid rom coms she’s always doing. I give her props for looking like crap for a role. But dang! She really does look rough.

    • kai says:

      I also really liked her in “Friends with money”. She’s good at playing depressed. Even in Rom-coms, there’s always something lifeless and dark about her. (To me, at least)

      • Katherine says:

        Yes, she is good at staring off into space with a blank look on her face. That is essentially what she did in the Good Girl.

        Given her history this has to be one of the most blatant bids for awards recognition – oh, look, no make- up – her acting must be good. LOL!

        Uglying up does not make you a good actor. It takes more than that.

  22. Luca26 says:

    Well I’ll give her credit she is finally looking different and messy for a role. I won’t give her grief for uglying it up because I’ve always thought it’s what she should do if she wanted to be taken seriously in a role. But she’s playing with her hair in the bottom picture some tics just won’t go away!

  23. Aysla says:

    I think in her younger days she was very pretty even without the glitz of the hair and makeup (not homely like others have stated), and maybe she is one of those people who look better in person, but yeah… she looks a bit rough here. Then again, that goes hand in hand with the role she’s playing.

    I’m glad she’s going for a drama and taking on a non-cutesy character. I’ve always had a soft spot for her, but she’s been in a rut for a while now and I was seriously bored with her film choices. I hope this isn’t a comedy though, even if it is a black comedy. I want different!

  24. videli says:

    Good for her for trying something different! Seems like dating that Manhattan greaser had a positive influence on her choice of roles.

  25. snowflake says:

    amazing how many people posting don’t realize that pic of her is for her movie, that that is her in hair and makeup, styled to look plain! guess they didnt read the article, lol!

    • Sal says:

      Lol, its amazing that people seriously thinks that she is made-up to look that way, lmao! 😀 If you look carefully, she is clearly not wearing make-up. She is not done up at all, this IS her in her natural state. The only thing she has had done is the eye make up to make her eyes look puffy. Other than that, she clearly is not made up. Lol!

      • snowflake says:

        the first picture is definitely her in character, only the second picture is her not in character. if you notice, it looks like she has a different shirt on and her face is not as puffy. plus her hair looks her normal dirty blonde, not brown as in the other pictures. others where she is wearing the same outfit, it is her in character.

        i think your hate for her is obscuring your eyesight. you always have nasty comments about jen. she steal your husband, lol?

      • Penny says:

        If she was being filmed, she was wearing make-up. Even in the most realistic indies, the actors are wearing a little something to make their features pop on screen.

        You realize no color doesn’t equal no make-up right? She’s wearing foundation for starters, quite heavy since it’s a different colour to her actual skin-tone. Aniston naturally has quite a bit of redness in her complexion, that’s all gone here. If she’s meant to look ill or like she’s been crying (and we know one of those is the case since she’s playing a member of a chronic pain support group) then there will be make-up to emphasize under eye bags, powder to make her skin look sallow and grey, lip products that emphasize dryness etc.

      • Just Passing Through says:

        I think it’s pretty obvious there are prostheses in use here…..her face is not naturally this shape. Certainly the same posters who are usually criticizing her pointed chin can see that. This is more than just no make-up. Let’s try to be a little less obvious with the hate, can we? It is really getting old. Geesh.

      • Moore says:

        The fact that you can’t see her make-up just means the make-up people did a good job. They have professionals to do the make-up to make it look like what ever the movie needs.

    • Jupo says:

      The point it she is very plain & homely looking without the fancy hair and lots of makeup.
      This is how she really looks without all her professional help. She is not even wearing makeup in these pics, her hair is not styled to look plain…..this is how her hair looks without her blowouts.

      she is not made to look ugly for this role, she already is.

      • Maggie says:

        FFS have any of you seen Charlize Theron in Monster? I’d really like to see what some of you look like. Women are so mean!

      • Sal says:

        Yup. Its ok to accuse someone of doing something they didn’t do, saying a couple being together only for the sake of the children and making various other mean passive-aggressive comments, etc, but when its done to YOUR idol, its “oh, women are so mean!” Without seeing the hypocrisy. rme

      • Kim1 says:

        Is this the same Maggie who just commented”Ugh” on Brad’s thread yesterday after comparing him to Robin Thicke? Aniston looked homely in Daily Mail pics two weeks ago when she wasn’t filming.

      • Monica says:

        Charlize Theron gained 30 pounds and had a complete transformation until she was barely recognizable. you all really need to stop with that comparison. Aniston not wearing makeup and wearing a wig is not exactly transformative.

      • TC says:

        Charlize threw down in Monster. She was amazing in that film. A great example of a true transformation by an actress in a role. I’d even compare her transformation to that of DeNiro in Raging Bull or Christian Bale in The Machinist because Theron’s metamorphosis was more of a physical transformation than a cosmetic one.

  26. toto says:

    I think what makes the look harsh is that she have very big new fillers that the lack makeup & shades make it look like over blown balloon.

  27. Pumpkin Pie says:

    What is it about Kabbalah and actors (I loosely include Madonna here)? I admit I don’t know anything about it, but it’s not like it has a broad appeal (‘peasant’ appeal). Kaballah, Scientology, Hollywood. Money

  28. Anne says:

    Oh, dear. She looks like sh*t! Must be the most awful picture I’ve seen of her.

  29. HUH? says:

    Anistion doing a Theron in Monster? Please. Charlize can act and has the Oscar to prove it. Having seen other photos on different sites it’s Aniston’s usual assortment of facial contortions being passed off as “acting”. The fact that she’s not wearing a ton of makeup and fancy clothes for a change probably has more to with the fact that they were only able to secure a $7 million budget for this movie and their just isn’t enough money for her usual glamour routine. At this point in her career she knows she has to show the world something more – not that that’s possible because she’s not very talented – or at least present a willingness to attempt to go deeper. The problem is that she just doesn’t have the emotional depths to pull it off. As her recent spate of self-aggrandizing interviews has proven – it’s all about JenniePoo in JenniePoo’s world. She’s supposed to be grieving the loss of a child in the movie. All she has to draw on is the loss of her dog Norman…so that ought to be downright hilarious.

    • Just because she can’t draw on real life grief of losing a child (by dint of not having a child), doesn’t mean that she’s pathetic (for presumably having to draw on the loss of a dog that she had for years). I have a Mini English Bulldog who is slowly going blind in one eye, and will continually get worse until she dies. That doesn’t mean it won’t hurt any more or less when she does die.

      If you’re going to criticize Jennifer for something, I would prefer that it was a valid criticism. Don’t say something really nasty, just because you don’t like her.

    • Penny says:

      So what, only actors who’ve lost a child can play characters who’ve lost a child? What’s the point of actors then? If they need to live the life of the characters they play we may as well just make documentaries.

      I’ve seen interviews with great actors who’ve talked about remembering some trivial upset when they needed to cry onscreen. I can’t remember now who it was, just that it was a very respected actor, but I read an interview once where the actor said in a big traumatic scene he was thinking about accidentally breaking his favourite toy as a child. I think drawing on a pet’s death would be an upgrade from drawing on breaking your GI Joe.

      • Artemis says:

        Didn’t DDL listen to Eminem’s music to portray Bill the Butcher in Gangs of New York?

        Every actor has his/her own technique, I don’t know why it’s up to non-actors to decide what’s the best and most valid technique. All we have to do is choose to sit on our bums and watch them and then we can critique 🙂

    • Emily C. says:

      And she does not have chronic pain, so she is not allowed to play someone with chronic pain. Only people with chronic pain should be allowed to play people with chronic pain. I’m waiting for my phonecall, Hollywood! Of course, I won’t be able to actually be in the movie, because I can’t work, because the chronic pain I have is too bad for me to work, but still.

    • Lucy2 says:

      Lol- I hate to think what all actors who play serial killers must do then!

      I also think it’s wrong to assume a person has never had any significant pain in their life, because they don’t broadcast it for everyone to know. I know two different women who seem to have it all- very attractive, good jobs, seem happy and fun, etc. One has been recently diagnosed with a very serious, lifelong disease, and the other has a lot of family drama, depression, and stress. Until you really know someone and they share it with you, you don’t know what they’ve been through.

  30. The Original G says:

    I think I’ll wait and see the movie before I weigh in on whether this is good or not. It’s about time that she took some chances with her roles. If she doesn’t do it now, it’s never.

    You can’t have it both ways. You can’t complain that she won’t take risks with her appearance and then when she she does for a role, attack her.

    Looks aren’t everything people.

    • I read this was a black comedy–which I think she’ll be better at. I like sarcasm/deadpan deliver, etc, better than slapstick, laugh out loud, and all the other comedy. So I might actually like this. It probably won’t show where I live though. But it seems really weird to me (the story line), but maybe that’s part of it.

      She looks puffy to me (as in she’s not supposed to), but other than that I think she looks fine. But she looks like she just rolled out of bed (that’s how I look when I’m half asleep)…but (now I’m thinking this through more) if her character is supposed to be in constant pain–maybe she’s supposed to be on meds that cause her to bloat up, etc (in the film)??? That would make sense. I know that certain meds make you bloat up–my mom said recently that she wasn’t looking forward to going through chemo because she was going to be a bald, bloated mess.

      Also–I wish she’d produce more. All she’s done is exec produce her own romcoms. And I’m not even saying that she has to produce big, epic dramas, or something serious. She could make cute, little, funny, GOOD romantic comedies (ones that people will watch 20 years from now, not the mediocre crap that gets made now)–like Drew Barrymore.

    • Luca26 says:

      +1

      I’m not a fan but some of the comments seem unfair. Especially because she’s finally taking a risk with her looks in a film. I think people are scared that it will be good.

      • lisa2 says:

        I don’t think anyone is scared it will be good. I for one don’t see her films. so if it is good fine. If it is not fine. I think the point some people are making is that the allusion of Jennifer Aniston being a great beauty is an allusion. I don’t consider her Beautiful. Not UGLY either. But when her fans go on and on about how gorgeous she is I just don’t see it. I have never heard anyone outside her fans and “friends” put her up in the Gorgeous category. The pictures makeup or not just show that she is an average looking woman’

        That is hardly being unfair when the majority of the people in the world here and elsewhere are average. I consider myself to be a GOOD AVERAGE.. not a great beauty; but I like most women have my beautiful moments.

      • It goes both ways. Her pr team does push that she’s this great beauty–remember her Aveeno commercial…’Aveeno by the BEAUTIFUL Jennifer Aniston’….whenever she breaks up with her boyfriend, or is trying to snap back from a disappointment, it’s always–she’s hotter than ever!…that kind of thing.

        On one hand, she should be commended for *trying* break out of that (like it seems in this film), but on the other hand–people are going to call you out when there is a constant hoopla over your hair, your looks, your body–and it turns out that you aren’t really all that.

        I think that Jennifer is very attractive, and has a very attainable beauty–somewhat nice skin (no acne or scars), straight hair, she has really pretty eyes, and she always looks very groomed and neat (reminds me of Goop in that regard). Plus, to me, she really does look puffy. Like I’m not sure if she’s supposed to be, because of the film, but she looks like me when I just rolled out of bed, half asleep.

        Basically–if she wants to break out of the rut, and not rely on her looks so much, then she’ll continue to do films where she’s not the cute girl who gets her guy, and then that’ll shut everyone up. But it’ll take a few years.

        One thing that I’ve liked about Jennifer is that she’s never seemed desperate for a dude–like I may think that the guys that she picks are complete duds, but she seems to genuinely like/love them (until they head to splitsville and then she draws it out for pr), and doesn’t seem to date guys just to have someone on her arm.

      • lucy says:

        A lot of people are called beautiful, who aren’t, in my opinion. Gwyneth was named People’s Most Beautiful, but plenty of people don’t agree. Kate Hudson, Reese Witherspoon, Sarah Jessica Parker, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Jodie Foster; all rather average-looking to me.

        She’s just not liked very much on this (pro-Jolie) site, and the same people saying she’s too vain to not play the romantic lead, or to look dowdy (like Cameron Diaz in Being John Malcovich or Nicole Kidman in The Hours) are the first to say how rough she looks.

        She does, but it’s for a role. She looked average in that other movie she shot recently too. She’s always been a well-groomed, polished, girl-next-door pretty to me (with a very fit body) but she’s in her mid 40s now. Past time she got out of her comfort zone. Well done to her for trying something different.

    • Penny says:

      Agree. But it was the same when she did Horrible Bosses. People had been saying she should break out of the rom-coms and try a different type of comedy, like an Apatow film or something like that. Then she did and those exact same people were saying she was pathetic for taking on a raunchier role and trying to break into a different type of movie genre.

      If you don’t like her that’s fine, but just admit it’s an all encompassing dislike and not something that could change if she just did things a little differently. I dislike certain actors for no good reason (like they haven’t done anything terrible and they don’t have a reputation for being a gigantic arsehole or anything like that). I just don’t like them, and everything they do is tainted by their involvement, but I don’t try and pretend it’s a justified and fully rational dislike. I can see that many of the things that bother me about these actors are things I easily overlook I an actor I like. For instance I like RDJ, so I find it pretty easy to ignore the fact he’s been phoning it in since the first Iron Man, and I find it funny and honest when he trash talks some of of the bad films he’s made, whereas if it was actor I dislike I’d see that as ungrateful and unprofessional.

      All the talk about the interviews slash ads she does for the brands she promotes for example. All actresses who are the face of a brand do these interviews, and almost every A to B list actress is the face of something. Half of the press Cate Blanchett does is about promoting Armani or SKII. Aniston doesn’t do an excessive amount of this in relation to what other actresses are doing. But whereas it’s completely ignored when talking about a favourite actress, it’s one of the biggest complaints people make about Aniston. Again, fine, if you dislike the person then that stuff is 1000 times more annoying. But just be honest and say you dislike her, so therefore you dislike her shilling stuff, not that you’d like her if only she wasn’t shilling stuff.

      • lenje says:

        Very well said, Penny. If you read the comments made on any Aniston post here, she sounds like the worst version of everything. She gets called ugly, homely, manly, more than any actress featured. I don’t understand why it is a sin for a PR team to try to make people believe that she’s more beautiful than she actually is (that being said, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder) — because that’s what PRs do!

      • Barbie Doll says:

        @Penny,
        +1000 !

      • chloe says:

        Great points Penny, I also want to point out that on other sites there are more pictures of Jen in the same get up and she has a huge scar on the side of her face so obviously she’s wearing a lot of stage make-up and prostheses, I’m just happy to see another woman producing a movie, the movies industry needs to wake up and have more women in higher roles such as producing and directing.

  31. TC says:

    It’ll be interesting to see how much they “touch up” her face in post-production. She looks rough here in these photos, but something tells me she won’t look this raw in the final cut that’s distributed to theaters.

  32. Hissyfit says:

    She’s very homely looking. She needs to stop whatever she’s doing on her face! Is she trying to conceal her pointy chin by filling it up? Her face have been really puffy lately and no, it’s not make up.

    Why do I get the feeling this movie is going to be straight to DVD.

    • Maggie says:

      She’s wearing theatrical make-up. I’ve worked with it for years and believe me they don’t do film or stage without it she’s also wearing a wig. She’s supposed to be a frump.

      • Kim1 says:

        Why was she looking rough in the Daily Mail pics two weeks ago? She looked” Ugh” to quote you.
        Well at least her production company finally has other film.Third film produced in six years.

      • lisa2 says:

        I don’t think that is a wig. If you look at those informercial interviews she did you can see her hair is darker. That is her hair and yes she is wearing makeup; but all this theatrical makeup is reaching. She is not wearing prosthetic pieces or things to change her facial structure. She is wearing some makeup to get rid of shine. Why is it such a big deal that she is showing how she actually looks. Why all the excuses.. Theatrical makeup, wig.

        It looks like her hair to me. And as I said before why is it such a bad thing that she is an average looking woman.

  33. Camille (The Original) says:

    Wow. So rough! But I give her props for looking ‘natural’. She seems to me to be a very vain woman, so this seems brave of her. Hopefully she will be doing actual acting in the movie also (ie: not playing the same character she usually plays). Maybe it will finally be her ‘break out’ role.

  34. ann h says:

    Now we know why we haven’t seen any recent pictures of her. All the articles had old ones. Looks like she’s been stealing off her non fabulous fiance’s plate of his cooked amazingly pasta and hitting her margarita fountain pretty hard. I know it’s just a movie role, but even photos of her in the last couple of years she’s been looking pretty rough. I do think a good role for her would be a male transgendering into a female. Harsh, but I would respect her for it and it might save her mediocre acting career.

  35. Evi says:

    What I never cease to find amusing is the amount of celebrities studying BS philosophies, the ‘quick fixes’ and whatever else, because let’s face it Kabbalah in Hollywood is not the real version, it is the Lite version that is analogous to Scientology in the way it drews celebs in to part with their money.
    Why can’t celebrities study something legitimate, something that can actually benefit society?
    But no, all the ‘self help’ guides are all about individualism. Everything from the ‘living in the moment’ rubbish of that Oprah guru to kabbalah is about nourishing your ego and your idea of your self importance and people who are drawn toward these new age philosophies are closet narcissists.
    Madonna – Kabbalah;
    Travolta, Cruise, Alley – Scientology
    Oprah – every guru that has been in fashion, she is basically promiscuous in terms of the gurus she gets with.

    Every time I see a person with a red string around their wrist, I roll my eyes and want to barf.

    • Moore says:

      You can say that about any religion. Kabbalah is no stupider then Christianity it is just rarer.

  36. mfmaefh says:

    it sounds different from her usual roles

  37. jasmine says:

    How can Kabbalah, or any religion for that matter, claim to make you look younger?? Or is that just Jennifer’s impression? I don’t get that part lol

    Being more centered, I can understand that part, but it’s not plastic surgery, it’s a religion (of sorts)…sorry I still can’t figure out what Kabbalah is, all the explanations are so vague…

    • SamiHami says:

      The Kabbalah center called me a few months ago and offered to send me a free copy of their scripture for free. Their reason was that they wanted to get it to as many people as possible, since merely having it in your presence will improve the quaility of your life. I agreed and allowed them to send it to my office (definitely not giving them my home address!). I thought it would be an interesting read.

      Not so much. I hope having it in my presence is enough to improve my life because I cannot read it. It is entirely in Aramaic.

      Interesting that they have as their scripture something that most people can’t read, huh?

  38. Penguin says:

    Is she wearing a fat suit or some sort of padding?. She looks a lot heavier than usual.

  39. SamiHami says:

    I don’t get all the hatred for her. What’s the big deal? So they uggoed her up for a movie. They do that with lots of movies/actors. That doesn’t mean she looks that awful without makeup; she’s probably wearing plenty of makeup in those pics designed to make her look dowdy and frumpy.

    And she’s not a bad actress. Most of her movies are lighthearted romances, but what’s so wrong with that? Sometimes those are fun to watch. Not every actress has to be of Meryl Streep’s caliber to be enjoyed. Heck, I just watched We’re the MIllers the other day and it was really entertaining.

    • xoxokalirl says:

      I agree. I do not understand the Aniston hate. She is beautiful in her own right, like everyone in Hollywood. Not all actresses look good in frumpy shots, Mila Kunis has looked terrible but she is totally gorgeous and natural beauty-as natural as you would get in Hollywood anyway.

  40. kim says:

    slimandsexxxy…is that you.

  41. Emily C. says:

    I am actually interested in this movie. If they are honest about what it’s like to deal with chronic pain, that is, and don’t flower it up with a bunch of New Age “self-actualization” “love yourself” nonsense.

    Oh, and the Kabbalah story sounds like typical Star sexist tripe. Tell ’em what they want to hear, that will exactly play to their preconceptions about someone.

    And the comments about Aniston supposedly being “ugly” are offside. She just looks like a normal person who is not smiling for the cameras. I know our view of what a “normal” person is like is messed up thanks to Photoshopped images of tiny women wearing tons of makeup, but come on.

  42. Illyra says:

    Another thing about these photos is they’re pixellated as F*CK. Anyone would look “rough” in them.