Jennifer Aniston has prosthetic face scars for ‘Cake’: is she trying for an Oscar?

wenn21251091

Last Friday, we had some of the first photos of Jennifer Aniston on the California set of Cake, her new drama (dramedy?) which has Aniston looking… well, kind of rough. You have to remember, through Aniston’s career, her movies can usually be described as “the one where she wore all the scarves” or “the one where she was in the bikini” or “the one with that cute white dress.” My point? Aniston usually makes a point to only do films where she looks cute and has a great wardrobe. Cake is not that kind of film.

Anyway, these are some assorted new and newish photos from the set. I’d heard that Aniston’s character had some kind of backstory that involved chronic pain, but as you can see in some of these photos, Aniston is wearing prosthetic/makeup scars on her face. That surprised me. I think she’s got some scars on her hands too, or maybe the lighting is just weird. So… start your engines. Everyone is already talking about how Aniston is “uglying up” for an Oscar bid, like Charlize Theron in Monster or something. I don’t know though… you can give her bad clothes (and seriously, her outfits are NOT CUTE in this movie) and scars, but will she still flap her hands, pout and tilt her head like Rachel Green? If so, maybe not so much with the Oscar talk.

That being said, I applaud Jennifer for mixing it up at long last. Cake is the first film Aniston is executive producing through her recently inked deal with Shenghua Entertainment/Cinelou Films, which basically means that Chinese producers want a foothold in Hollywood. Shenghua has financed Cake for $7-10 million, which means it will probably be eligible for Independent Spirit Awards. Maybe that’s what Aniston should aim for.

wenn21254583

FFN_Aniston_Jennifer_CPR_PREM_040814_51377652

FFN_Aniston_Jennifer_CPR_PREM_040814_51377656

Photos courtesy of WENN, Fame/Flynet.

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

209 Responses to “Jennifer Aniston has prosthetic face scars for ‘Cake’: is she trying for an Oscar?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Hiddles forever says:

    Ohhhh Aniston is in Oscar mode… NOT

    • Kitkat says:

      PREACH. Hahahaha.

      To everyone else…Please not THIS AGAIN…Please DON’T SWALLOW her PR flack Stephen Huvane’s KOOLAID, lol – the ish has tried this particular stunt many many times. At the end of the day, this is a comedy per her usual, with a no name awful director (see, movie ‘Beastly’) per her usual. This Ish thinks not bleaching her hair malibu blonde and slef tanning herself the color of a tangerine, is a Matthew McConaughey like transformation, hahahahaha.

      Check out or Google the exact same PR fed press she got for, ‘Management,’ or ‘Friends w/ Money,’ or ‘Derailed,’ it’s the same PR ploy she’s attempting with this movie…i.e., See makeup free Rachel Green go sooooo very daring when she ditches hair dye and clown blush. Lol

      We basically get two PR programs, ‘see Jennifer as you’ve never seem her before stripping and getting raunchy, bad girl style OR see Jennifer as you’ve never seen her before in a harrowing or real person role.

      Bottomline, she will suck in this like she sucks in most things, but for the next almost year, we will AS USUAL when it comes to Aniston and her PR, be deluged with bullshite press items: her PR will set up lots of press items and interviews touting her metamorphosis (because of course her naturally plain homely face, has to be all makeup and prosthetics – they’ll have to let us know she’s not really THAT fugly, lol).

      Then we’ll get to hear from Aniston incessantly ‘oh..(flutter) everyone said it was so brave of me…and I had never felt so gritty, raw and less glamorous before…blah blah blah.’ Yeah, remember Sandra Bullock in 28 days from like 10 yrs ago? It was a comedy about her being a grimy looking alchie in rehab. I’m sure this will in the same mode, but 1000x worse, because Aniston sucks.

      The way her agent picks crap for her has always bothered me, it’s like they either go 1) the raunchy sidekick to a big male comedian so she can coast on his success route, 2) the lets mirror Aniston’s tabloid loser in love persona route (single looking for love and babies, or single breaking up) or 3) lets do the antithesis of Rachel green and go on about how different this role is for her. It’s like you can see these pr tactics coming a mile away . She is so tiresome. The fact that she still has people 10 years and 1000 awful movies later, wishing she could somehow deliver on a promise that she NEVER showed to begin with, just shows how much this woman is coddled and enabled STILL, because Brad had the audacity to leave someone that looks like them….average and plain. That’s what it’s ALL about.

      • Pearl says:

        Yikes. Why do you care so much? I could never imagine wasting so much time/energy – hundreds of words tirade – on a celebrity I so obviously didn’t like. Kind of scary

      • lasagna jones says:

        i see you’re a fan

      • Tiffany :) says:

        Traffic made me cranky this morning…but your post has shown me how unhelpful it is to carry around negativity.

        Balls.
        Just thought you could use something to silly to laugh at, and balls are always funny. ;)

      • Allie says:

        Whoa. That was a long hate filled post.

      • Omega says:

        Oh my, did she just call Aniston fans “plain and average”? Is this a verified rule, because, I am dying to know whether my workmates are Team Jolie or Team Aniston.

        So to be clear, if attractive they are Team Jolie and if they are average then Team Aniston? Would you send us a picture of yourself so we can have a measure of how hot the hotness on Team Jolie need to be? Thanks a heap.

      • bondbabe says:

        Jesus, Mary and Joseph – what a tirade!!

        Guess I’m “plain and average” then; however, you sound “over-involved and bitter.”

      • AHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA

        Balls :)

      • blue marie says:

        I’m in agreement with Tiffany and OKitt, ha ha ha.. balls.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        :D

      • doofus says:

        Balls will always be funny.

        OT: Kitten, are those your kitties in that link? they are PAINFULLY cute.

      • MichelleR says:

        Well damn, KitKat, tell us how you really feel. Sadly…..I agree with you. Nothing to see here folks. Just more Anniston PR crap.

      • From now on every Triangle-related post- just one comment: BALLS.

        @doofus-yep those are my babies ;)

      • Tiffany :) says:

        Kitten, that is a great idea to have just “BALLS” in every triangle-related post! I might actually start reading them more frequently that way….

        Rows and rows of BALLS as far as the eye can see!

      • lenje says:

        Or drink! every time someone mentions the holy (cow!) triangle ;-)

  2. DanaG says:

    No amount of scars is going to make her that good an actress. I just don’t see it happening she seems to have trouble being Jennifer A these days.

    • rundee says:

      To her defense I have to admit, she made one movie after which I didn´t think “Ooh oh I think I just lost brain cells trying to watch that shit” and was almost good acting: Good girl.

      • NeoCleo says:

        rundee:
        I was thinking the very same thing. It’s possible she has more acting chops in her than we’ve been allowed to see and i base this on my having seen her in The Good Girl. I also like the work she did in the role of mother in Iron Giant.

      • Tippy says:

        I thought her performance in Marley and Me was quite moving.

      • @Tippy
        My one friend loved her in Marley and Me–and she doesn’t like her either. I haven’t seen it though.

    • Belle Epoch says:

      She’s the FIRST actress I thought of for this role (NOT!):

      ““Cake” is based on a Black List script by Patrick Tobin. Aniston will star as an acerbic woman who becomes fascinated by the suicide of another woman in her chronic pain support group. As she uncovers the details of the suicide, she also grapples with her own personal tragedy.”

      What is the script like? The writers will have to be amazing to make the suicide of a married woman into comedy gold. I’m skeptical that JA can do “ascerbic,” “raw pain,” “personal tragedy,” AND “brilliantly funny.” I foresee lame jokes about smoking pot and taking pain pills.

      • The Original G says:

        @Bell Epoch. I also don’t understand why, if this is such a prestigous Black List project that it’s being by direct to video Chinese company and only a 7 mill budget? That’s lunch money at a studio.

        I always think Black Comedy= No Box Office.

      • doofus says:

        not sure it’s supposed to be “comedy gold”, or even a so-called dark comedy like Horrible Bosses was.

        IMDB describes it as comedy/drama, so maybe it’s more of a drama with some bits of humor thrown in? Even really depressing movies like Beaches have their funny moments…

        in any case, every description I’ve read (including yours) doesn’t sound much like it’s going to be your standard Aniston “comedic” fare.

      • Tippy says:

        I envision Cake as a dramedy similar to Fargo.

        I doubt that Jenn would be involved and subject herself to such ridicule if she didn’t think that the project was worthwhile.

    • Franklymydear1 says:

      @tippy I doubt it’s going to be like Fargo. Especially if she wants an oscar because her PR team markets her as someone likable and relatable. It will most likely be a drama for the first quarter then she will be inspired by a woman’s suicide etc etc.

      Please do not accuse me of being only a fan of Angelina Jolie(I don’t think you do that but you can never be certain in theses threads). I like both of them.

  3. blue marie says:

    Yeah Charlize “ugly-ed up” but she did a fantastic job in Monster, it wasn’t just the weight/make up. I am curious to see this movie though.

    • mimif says:

      blue marie, you and I need to talk. I’m still singing Rosanna, Rosanna from your post yesterday.
      All I wanna do when I wake up in the morning is see you eyes… *grinds teeth*

      • blue marie says:

        Ha ha, it’s the song that won’t go away. I was singing it while brushing my teeth before bed last night. I can’t get it out, it’s the ultimate earworm dangit!

    • Kitkat says:

      4 Major differences between Charlize and Anuston:

      1) Charlize has talent.

      2) Charlize’s film was a bio-pic drama about female serial killer Aileen Wuronos, Aniston’s movie is supposed to be a comedy.

      3) Charlize gained 30 pounds, and wore a lot of prosthetics to complete her transformation from beautiful classic beauty to real life average/homely looking woman. Aniston is doing none of that for her comedy.

      4) Charlize is beautiful, hence her ‘uglying,’ up to play Wuornos, while Aniston’s facial features are NOT beautiful, thus lending itself to looking plain, ordinary and as some say (and I concur) homely.

      • doofus says:

        just FYI, Theron didn’t wear “a lot of prosthetics” for that role.

        she did gain 30 pounds, but the only prosthetic was her eyelids and teeth. the rest of it was shaving (partially) and bleaching her eyebrows, “thinning” and “frying” her hair to achieve the over-bleached look. other than that, it was all make up.

      • Annie says:

        I dunno Kitkat – while I agree Aniston is average looking and annoying I think she did suprisingly well in The Good Girl where she plays what seems to be a similar role (although admittedly that had a very tight screenplay and very talented supporting cast, and those factors may have been “carrying” her). Based on what she did with The Good Girl I’d be interested in seeking Cake.

      • Omega says:

        Annie: I havent seen her in a film since Bruce Almighty so I dont know if shes any good and I do find the PR thing annoying. I just need to understand what her looks have to do with it. So what if she is “average looking”? Whats that got to do with acting? Way too much lookism on Aniston posts if you ask me.

      • Janet says:

        She brings “lookism” on herself. Her looks are all she ever talks about.

      • Emma - the JP Lover says:

        @Janet, who wrote: “She brings “lookism” on herself. Her looks are all she ever talks about.”

        Yep … the ‘all natural’ beauty her PR Team bombards us with.

      • Annie says:

        @Omega – I don’t think her looks have anything to do with her acting per se. It was KitKat’s post that seemed to be insinuating that because JA is “homely” and not a beauty like Charlize Theron that therefore her acting in an “unglamorous” role must be crap too and I was disagreeing with that point. Better ask KitKat.

        Jennifer does seem to try to market herself as a glamour puss a lot of the time though, so she does leave herself open for looks related comments.

    • mimif says:

      Lol @bns, those are my thoughts exactly.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      That’s about all I dare to say on an Anniston or Jolie thread, too.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        It gets scary, right? The Aniston/Jolie threads are like wandering down a dark alley alone at night. You never know what seemingly harmless action(comment) will put you at risk for getting shanked.

      • Hiddles forever says:

        Hahahahaha XD

      • Cecilia says:

        yep…and that’s how ‘they’ want it. Fear to speak your mind. Scared to say anything positive or encouraging about Aniston, while at the same time they will tongue lash you if you say anything negative about Jolie. I was not into gossip during the height of the dreaded triangle. Apparently we are to forget all about Jolie’s peppered past but with Jen we must hold ?? against her forever. Jen is not allowed to move on. She is doomed to lay down & die because she did indeed try & make the most of her situation… albeit Hollywood style.

      • mia girl says:

        @GNAT- Agree!
        @Tiffany – The alley analogy is a good one.

        I often want to be part of discussions on both these women, but almost always hold off because there seems to be no room for nuance… lest you are perceived as attacking, or want to be attacked. I don’t feel passionately about either so I just back away and head for another thread.

        But there is such vitriol on Jolie/Aniston threads sometimes (today is no exception) that it makes me kinda sad.

      • Peppa says:

        LOL!! It took me a while to realize any rational discussion was impossible on these threads.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Yeah, it is crazy and sad. It’s insane how much some people have invested in total strangers. I just don’t comment any more because of what Tiffany said.

      • Absolutely, ladies. You can dip your toe in the crazy, but don’t you dare dive in or you’ll be sorry.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Oh, I forgot the code word: balls!

    • Emma - the JP Lover says:

      You guys are priceless … every last one of you.

  4. The Original G says:

    Did we cover this last week? Yes….of course. We admire you for being an actress and playing a role. We really really do. OK? It’s going to be a long pre-release offensive methinks.

  5. The Wizz says:

    Lmao Kaiser spat out my coffee at the post heading.

    • qwerty says:

      I can’t wait for her Oscar campaign, talking about her latest split ends tips and how she keeps her ass perky after 40

  6. Eve says:

    Trying for an Oscar…LOL!

    And “uglying up”? UP? Does she really think she needs that?

  7. Kiddo says:

    I will reserve opinion until after I see the film. Why not? She is breaking out of Rachel mode, at least she is trying.

    • Erinn says:

      True. Let’s just hope she’s not playing “Rachel with Scars”.

    • The Original G says:

      I totally agree.

    • Mio says:

      However she will likely play Rachel again in this role. Moving her arms like she does, scrunching up her face to look stressed.

    • Kitkat says:

      She’s done this before, even talked about how she was ‘breaking out of Rachel mode,’ she’s now heading into age 50 and has been given plenty of opportunity to demonstrate that she’s worth the interest level her personal life has generated, and yet, she has been unable to do that.

      So why the generosity in giving her chance after chance after chance?

      Women don’t do this for anyone else usually, yet she can totally underwhelm for multiple decades, and STILL you’ll have some women musing about how they wish she’d try this, or try that, or do this, or do that – all so that she can be afforded even more riches and press that in my opinion she really never deserved anyway. It’s quite remarkable.

      I’ve never seen anyone so mediocre, who lowered the bar so much, be coddled like this year in and year out. If Brad Pitt had left an actual talented person (like a Cate Blanchett or something) , that person would have 4 Oscars by now. Lolol

      • bondbabe says:

        Jesus – take a breath!

        Then don’t see the movie, don’t read her interviews, don’t read any posts about her. For someone who clearly is not a fan, your multiple posts here about how “crappy/ugly/lazy/dishonest/etc.” seem just a tad overzealous in trying to convince everyone else to feel the same way about that you do. You’re way too overinvested. LET.IT.GO.

      • You do realize that she’s just a vapid actress right?
        She’s not a serial killer, a drug czar, a gang leader, a terrorist, or anything that actually warrants as strong of a reaction as you’re giving her.

        I just wish people were as invested in politics and social issues as they are in The Triangle of Doom.

      • Esmom says:

        TheOriginalKitten. AMEN.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        “I just wish people were as invested in politics and social issues as they are in The Triangle of Doom.”

        YES!!!! I agree 100%! And you need to trademark the “Triangle of Doom”! It needs its own theme song like Jaws so you know when it is creeping up on you in a thread….

      • lenje says:

        TOK: well, you can check the Scar-Jo thread, for instance (reg. commenting on social/political issues *winks*). Different posters there, of course.

  8. Luca26 says:

    I don’t think she’s a bad actress just a lazy one. Even as I praised her last week for taking a risk with her look I’m now noticing all the Rachel-esque tics she’s got going on. This is coming off as a TV movie of the week from the 80s (albeit some of those were good).
    I guess we will see I’m willing to be surprised.

    • Renee28 says:

      Yep. It doesn’t seem like she ever challenges herself. It’s just one bad comedy after another.

    • Soulsister says:

      I agree that she is a lazy actress but also a lazy producer as well. Case in point and also probably a good metaphor about just how different her and Brad are, is their respective production companies.

      You have Plan B which is both a Oscar and Palme D’or winning company, that has and is still putting out really good quality and challenging material and then you have Echo Films which produces fvck all.

      • Kitkat says:

        The thing that irritates me is that she never is held accountable, for her bad movies or her ‘lazy production,’ company…and it’s not that some things don’t get made, and problems arise, people get that that happens – it’s that she uses the press to tout productions that she never ends up making…she’ll get the ink about the Goree Girls, or the Interracial Prom, etc., and then…NOTHING. Her PR dictates that when these projects fall through, she not discuss them, ever. So the press, never asks about them. She gets away with so much trifling lame half azzery shite. Lol

    • shellybean says:

      I agree, I don’t think she’s a bad actress at all, but she tends to go for lighter fare. Nothing wrong with that, I suppose. I’ve enjoyed her in some of her movies (Friends with Money, especially) and that was a little darker (for her anyway). I also love The Break Up. Love it. I do think she’s a good comedic actress. She gets a lot of flack for having the same mannerisms as Rachel in her other work, but I think that is just her and how she probably emotes in general. It’s just we saw her for so long as Rachel, that anything comedic tends to scream Rachel.

  9. PunkyMomma says:

    She’s not going to win an Oscar ever. And Jennifer’s looks have been slowly fading for a while. I chalk it up to age, maybe an early menopause which, for an actress constantly trying to hold on to her ingenue image, is a game changer. So it seems logical Anniston is moving into character roles, but you need acting chops to succeed in that arena.

    • Jaded says:

      As someone who’s been through menopause, it doesn’t cause you to become an ugly, sallow, hairy-chinned crone you know. I still get complimented on my skin and hair and looks even though I’m a post-menopausal 61. She may be in peri-menopause but true menopause is still years away.

      • PunkyMomma says:

        Jaded – the average age of true menopause in my family is forty-five. Not peri, but full-on, hot flashes, the works. It differs for women. And congrats, truly, on looking good. Unfortunately, menopause is not that kind to everyone. JS.

      • Jem says:

        I’m 48 and have been going through the change for years. Hopefully this sh*t will end soon so I can enjoy my 50s

    • SilverPoodle says:

      I agree with Jaded – menopause does not cause one to become ugly. Either you are or you aren’t (ugly). Menopause has absolutely nothing to do with it. I’m 50, fully menopausal and my skin has never looked better and I am in the best shape of my life (because I work hard at it). I have to say, menopause (and the end of the threat of pregnancy) is one of the best things ever! Menopause is what you make of it…

      • paranormalgirl says:

        Menopausal 50 here. Like SilverPoodle, I’m looking and feeling better than I have in years in spite of some hot flashes and wonky cycles (THAT can end any time, thank you). I still don’t even have any gray hair yet!

      • Zwella Ingrid says:

        Glad yours is good, cause my menopause sucks

      • Kitkat says:

        Lol I don’t even get why people are talking age and menopause, it’s like I always say – people, mostly women who feel they have a lot in common with her, including her unfortunate face, are always making excuses for her fugness. When the reality is, where she was 25 or 35 or 45 she’s always been less than plain in the face department, menopause has nothing to do with it.

      • doofus says:

        so…kitkat, are you saying that anyone who disagrees with your stance that she’s “fug” is, by rule, “unfortunate” looking?…

        that’s a pretty big brush you’re painting with.

      • Moore says:

        My mother has gone through it. Still looks the same. And she still has a good figure.

    • gogoGorilla says:

      Menopause doesn’t automatically turn you into an old crone, but smoking and sun worshipping will do it. Just sayin’…

  10. OhDear says:

    Well…she’s not the first actress that comes to mind when I think of someone who is likely to deliver an Oscar-worthy performance. But good on her for taking on a less glamorous role and working behind the scenes.

  11. Kali says:

    Jennifer Aniston (potentially) campaigning for an Oscar the same year that Brad and Angelina would be out in full force for “Unbroken”? Yes please.

    • Mio says:

      Did you get that from Lamey? How original.
      Why even bring them up? They are both already Oscar winners, in a whole other league then aniston.

      This Cake film will likely not make much money or get much attention at all. None of Aniston’s small budget films do.

    • Chinoiserie says:

      Cake will come out in 2015 and Unbroken will come out in this year.
      But just because Aniston is clearly doing a more serious role for a change it does not necessarily mean she excepts an Oscar for this one. If the film is well received and and she gets good notices it could change her image to a more serious actress. She could try to get an Oscar later.

      • Kitkat says:

        This is a comedy, starring Sam worthington (most likely he’s taking even worse movies like this one because he’s in legal trouble ala Gerard butler when he took the awful and stupid bounty hunter, lol) and a twilight actress who’s making a cameo and probably getting paid to slum with aniston. Lol

      • Chinoiserie says:

        I can not respond to you Kitkat, but this is a comedy/drama. And I said this is not a necessarily a Oscar drama, just more dramatic that she usually does and she is looking for to change for the types of movies she is making. And as a Anna Kendrick fan I wish you would not call her ” a twilight actress”. She got her start from there in a supporting role but has done great movies since and has more coming up. It is silly to me that people keep repeating she was in Twilight like it is something that defines her career.

      • doofus says:

        @Chinoiserie – Kendrick is an Oscar-nominated actress, as well.

      • @Chinoiserie
        I just LOVE that Anna Kendrick, out of all the Twilight people has the best career. I mean, I would have NEVER expected that from her, in that role. She was SO annoying….but I love that little irony. I like to imagine Kellan Lutz and Ashley Greene going ‘I SHOULD’VE BEEN THE ONE NOMINATED’, and side eyeing Anna for that…hahahaha…

    • The Original Mia says:

      Kali said potentially. Not necessarily that it was going to happen, but that it would make good gossip if she was campaigning the same time they were.

  12. Esmom says:

    I don’t think that everyone who downplays their looks for a role is automatically gunning for an Oscar. I’d think it would take a number of roles like this before Jen A would even think about that. For now, stepping out of her usual box seems like a positive step toward expanding her horizons.

    • Cecilia says:

      I agree, Esmom. I don’t think I have ever heard Jen express wishes for an Oscar. It looks like that’s being projected on to her. This movie sounds interesting & Jen is really moving out of her comfort zone. With a worth of 150 million, she’s definitely not doing it for the money. I think she is experimenting & having a great time.

    • Lucy2 says:

      I agree. I don’t think choosing a different type of role makes an actor automatically Oscar hunting. I would guess most of the time it’s just a script/story/character that they’re interested in.

  13. Soulsister says:

    I think it’s an acknowledgement that she realizes that her career is now a joke seeing that, these days, it solely seems to rely on her having to either take off her clothes or being prepared to fellatio fruits to get cast in anything.

  14. Nicolette says:

    Come on now, mentioning Jen Aniston and Oscar in the same sentence? April Fool’s Day was last week.

  15. epiphany says:

    As far as I can see, she just left off the ton of makeup she usually wears.
    I thought this movie was strictly VOD – how can it be eligible for an Oscar without cinematic release?

  16. ldub says:

    “the one where she wore all the scarves” allong came polly, or
    “the one where she was in the bikini” just go with it, or
    “the one with that cute white dress” friends with money (which was actually kinda good due to supporting cast), or
    “the one where she thought she was going to win an oscar” cake

    • Esmom says:

      Clever. I am not a fan of Jen, have not seen many of her movies although I admit I enjoyed Friends back in the day. But sometimes I feel compelled to defend her because people are so vitriolic toward her and to me she’s just not that offensive.

      How about supporting a woman over 40 working in Hollywood? People are saying on the Naomi Watts thread how comedic roles are so challenging, yet here people say Jen’s work, mostly comedic, takes no talent or effort. I guess I just don’t get what provokes so much hatred — and yes I know she’s friends with Chelsea Handler, yet I don’t think that’s necessarily relevant to the nasty comments about her looks and talent.

      • Sal says:

        Sigh. Its been explained over and over and over and over again why she is so offensive. If you make the choice not to see it, then, that’s your choice.

      • Delta Juliet says:

        @ Esmom I don’t get the big deal over her either so don’t feel bad. And I’ve been on CB for a LONG time.

        People just get it in their heads that some actors/actresses are terrible and others aren’t. Some of it makes total sense and some seems pretty arbitrary.

        And for the record, I am not interested in the unholy triangle either.

      • Esmom says:

        Delta Juliet, at least I’m not the only one. I’ve been here a long time, too, and it seems like the hate for her has only gotten worse as time has gone on and it just struck me as worse than ever lately. Most threads here are humorously snarky and intelligent vs. Jen threads, which seem be mostly bitter and downright nasty.

      • ~Z~ says:

        Esmom & Delta Juliet
        Well, I am with you. I am not a huge fan (although I was accused of being a stan for Jen by Sal in a thread months ago).
        I am also amazed by some of the people who hate her. As if she has orchestrated every single thing that has been written about her. (NO) And they come to her stories every single time.
        At this point I have given up (not that I actually tried very hard!). No matter what she does, it is wrong.

        However, I do admit that I have certain celebs that I just can’t stand too…..I don’t find her offensive, but if they do, what can you do?

      • epiphany says:

        @esmom & @sal

        Dear @esmom – I’ll try – again – to explain why Aniston evokes such negative comments. Clearly, @sal is too exhausted to do it again. But please, PLEASE, stop calling it hate! It’s criticism, plain and simple, and the fact that she lives her life in the public forum leaves her open to criiticism. As far as I’m concerned, I don’t hate her – I don’t care enough about her to hate her.
        Aniston has used, and continues to use, her divorce as publicity fodder. The never-ending narrative of ‘will Jen find true love after Brad?’ is a gold mine of PR for her and her publicity team headed by Stephen Huvane, who, BTW handles PR for Goop – big surprise, right? How many show business marriages have come and gone since Aniston and Pitt broke up, and they’re never mentioned, or even remembered? Then there’s the “she wants a baby/can’t have a baby/is pregnant with twins” merry-go-round. It would be clear to a comatose chipmunk this woman doesn’t want kids, and she could end all of those ridiculous tabloid covers if she just came out and told the truth. But she doesn’t want to. Those covers keep her name in the news, give the impression she’s just as popular as when she was married, so movie producers – who I assure you cast the vast majority of films based on actor popularity, not talent -see her on all these magazine covers and assume she’ll bring in the box office. Why, 12 years after her show ended, would she still be getting this much media attention? Lisa Kudrow is light years ahead of Aniston in terms of talent, and she doing yogurt commercial voiceovers! Aniston pays Huvane a fortune to keep her name out there. No, she’s not evil, I’m sure she’s a nice person to have lunch with – but she’s addicted to fame, and the constant need to have her ego fed. When you specifically request that you be called “beautiful” in a commercial, I think your head is too far up your own *ss. Aniston has only a passing interest in acting – her salient concern is being a star.
        That, in essence, is why she’s criticized.

      • ~Z~ says:

        Aaaaaannnnndddd we’re back!

      • I don’t think she can act, period. Her mannerisms annoy me. I saw her do that Friends reunion thing on Ellen–she does that really annoying thing where if she’s trying to act all confused, she stutters/stammers and squints her eyes really hard, etc.

        I just don’t think she brings anything extra to the characters that she plays, so that when I see her, I can’ t think of anyone else who could’ve done better. I don’t look for actors and actresses to give Oscar winning performances (or do Oscar baity films) all the time, but I like the ones who have charisma. I don’t get that from Jennifer–I just find her whole acting schtick annoying.

        But I do wish she would produce more–she’s worth something like a 150 million. At this point, she can do whatever she wants with her career–no money worries, no having to worry about being away from kids/family for too long. And she doesn’t even have to make serious films–she could do light hearted/funny/romantic films if she wants to–like Drew Barrymoore’s directorial debut–’Whip It’…but ultimately I think she’s a really lazy actress. Although she is taking a step in the right direction with this movie–it’s a step she should’ve taken nine years ago, when Friends ended.

      • Esmom says:

        Epiphany, Thank you for the explanation. Clearly you have a serious issue with her that seems usually intense but we all have our pet peeves, I guess. I still don’t think she’s any more offensive than other celebs whose lives are in the public eye, who do endorsements and have publicists. Sounds like much of Hollywood to me.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        Esmom, I completely agree. I am not a fan of Friends, but I do think Jen is a great comedic actress. I think she has talent in drama too, but I don’t think she is the best ever or anything. On a scale of 1-10, I give her a 6 or 7 for talent.

        I think people blame her for the continued “triangle” drama…but I think the comment boards about her VERY CLEARLY show that it is the public who has not given up on the triangle drama.

      • The Original G says:

        So, I find her a mediocre actress, who makes dull films and is constantly promoted to us as some precious beautiful princess.

        I don’t get what anyone has seen from her that suggests she should be a producer? I know some people hope that she might do something ambitious and risky because she’s so comfortable but I just don’t buy it. If she was that person, she’d have done this ages ago.

      • floretta50 says:

        Aniston is annoying an offensive, although I think she is a pretty good actress and will pull this one off maybe Oscar worthy. But it’s the things she does in between we are going to be bombarded and media blast about her every move when that movie is due to come out don’t talk about her constant hair biz, belly biz and abs for a woman going on 50 she acts like a tween. Presently we are alraedy getting snippits of things to come even before the movie is even finished.

      • I’m in 100% agreement with Esmom, DeltaJuliet, Tiffany, Z and, you know, the other sane commenters.

      • Moore says:

        I like both Angie and Jen far more then I like their fans.

  17. Adrien says:

    Hasn’t she gone that whole makeunder in The Good Girl? She was good in it. Actually, I like her when she’s playing those dark roles. Love her in Derailed and Horrible Bosses.

  18. Abbicci says:

    I find Jen A vapid, boring and uninspired. Obviously, I am not a fan. That said I WANT THIS FILM TO MAKE MONEY!

    A female exec producer in Hollywood? Yes, please! More roles for women that don’t involve bikinis and stripping. I’m all for it.

    I don’t think Jen is the end all be all as an actress, but with a good script and director she can put out some solid work. I’d rather see Jen as a powerhouse producer than tabloid victim any day.

    Maybe now that Goop’s marriage has ended, Goop can be the tabloid victim and Jen can get some producing credits to her name.

    • Soulsister says:

      @Abbicci

      I’d rather see Jen as a powerhouse producer than tabloid victim any day.
      ————————————————————————————————
      But at the end of the day, she was the one who made herself a tabloid victim. Nobody forced her to become ‘poor Jen’, she cultivated that status all by herself.

      • Abbicci says:

        And maybe she’s trying to change that now. Don’t we let people evolve and change? Or are we all forced to be the person we are at 30 and never take another step forward?

        Maybe is WE let it go, she can let it go.

      • @Abbicci
        I agree–I think she learned her lesson somewhat from after 2008/09–all the Angelina bashing, Brad praising interviews, (and the Harper’s Bazaar one where she named all of their kids and joked about them,eww) and then trashing the magazines for stuff she said–Vogue went tabloid, etc. She hasn’t been on a Vogue or Vanity Fair cover since….why not? Because she threw them under the bus, for printing what SHE approved. The Vogue UK editor, Alexandra Shulman said a few years ago, that someone like Jennifer Aniston would not ever be on the cover of Vogue again, because she wants copy approval i.e. she gets the final say in what the cover is, the headline/title, and how the article is edited. So there was no reason for her to complain that ‘Vogue went tabloid’….when they printed what she wanted. She only said it because of the backlash. And her VF cover was the highest selling one of the year in 2005—why wouldn’t they do a follow up one, at least in 2008 when she had Marley and Me out–her biggest movie?

        Then the ish with Handler came up. We’ll see this coming year and next year if she and Handler are done (which I suspect they are, or will be, because Handler’s show isn’t being renewed and she’s resorting to spreading casting rumors about her taking over Letterman’s spot)–as in no going on her show until the end of the year, or going on private vacations (especially the vacations)—then I’ll believe that she’s really, truly trying to change her image as the’ poor, lonely Jen’–Handler certainly helps with that–which I don’t believe she is. I think she loves her life as it is.

        She has, for the past few years, pushed back on the baby thing, hasn’t had any baby speculation in PEOPLE–although when she got engaged, it was all ‘Jennifer loves babies. Justin will be a great father.’…okay.

        So we shall watch her PR in the next year or so. If she dumps Handler for good, then I will personally cut her slack, because then that’ll mean (to me), that she’s moving on from hating Angelina’s guts.

    • Jessica says:

      I agree with you that there should be more powerhouse female producers, but as far as this situation goes, executive producers just finance, Jen’s not going to be Kathy Kennedy or anything.

      • Abbicci says:

        No, she isn’t going to be anyone other than Jen. But do we limit ourselves by saying ” If I can’t be just like Kathy Kennedy, it’s not worth doing, it’s not even worth trying.”

        She doesn’t have to be Kathy Kennedy to produce a movie. Kathy Kennedy has that covered. She can produce films that Kathy Kennedy wouldn’t produce.

        There can be more than one female voice. There needs to be A LOT of female voices producing the stories they want to tell. And they will all be different stories and that is why I want her to do well with this. One more voice is better than one less voice.

      • Aysla says:

        +1000 to all your comments Abbicci. Well said.

      • MyCatLoves TV says:

        Thanks, Abbicci, for bringing another voice to the chorus around here!

      • Cecilia says:

        well said, Abbicci & I totally agree.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        “There can be more than one female voice. There needs to be A LOT of female voices producing the stories they want to tell.”

        Abbicci, I think I love you! What great comments you posted! So well said.

      • To add to that, Abbici, I’m sick of women having to be better—there are plenty of shitty directors–coughmichaelbaycough–and producers out there–that are men. Let’s have our crappy/mediocre female directors and producers.

      • Amanduh says:

        Agree with all your sane logic and points Abbicci. Well said.

    • Tiffany :) says:

      I agree, Abbicci. I like supporting Anna Kendrick too, and she is in this film.

  19. sweetlyn says:

    What happened to the movie she priemered at TIFF which they said she was going to be nominted for an oscar??? Yet the film doesn’t even have a distributor!!! Her career is a BIG joke. She can ugly up all she wants she always ends up being rachel with the facial expressions and hand gestures!

  20. Grant says:

    Have people forgotten The Good Girl? That was a major departure for Jennifer and she did a great job in a dramatic role that was very unlike Rachel Greene.

    • Luca26 says:

      I saw the Good Girl it was OK I think she was much better in Friends with Money. The character was still basically a Rachel variant she did a good job with the accent though.

    • Jupo says:

      We have forgotten the Good Girl because it has been over a decade since it came out. It was likely a fluke considering her fans have to go that far back.
      Also it did not even earn her a GG nom or a SAG nom.

    • Sullivan says:

      Grant, how could anyone around here forget The Good Girl? It’s THE rebuttal anytime someone points out that Aniston has one note – Rachel. As pointed out above, that movie came out over a decade ago. She’s made many movies since then. Maybe her performance in The Good Girl was the best we’re going to get. Or perhaps it wasn’t that amazing, but the bar is lowered for Rachel.

      • Camille (The Original) says:

        I always just thought it was another version of Rachel myself; ‘Depressed Rachel’. ;)

      • Eve says:

        “Grant, how could anyone around here forget The Good Girl? It’s THE rebuttal anytime someone points out that Aniston has one note – Rachel.”

        Truer words have never been spoken. Every single time anyone mentions she has no range, the inevitable question comes: “Excuse me, but have you seen the Good Girl?”.

        Yes, I saw it. Not convincing performance, in my opinion.

    • The Original G says:

      And let’s not forget Rock Star!

      • shellybean says:

        Hey, I actually love that movie! ;) I do. I can’t help it. I have a thing for cheesy movies about cheesy 80s rockers.

  21. Kim1 says:

    This is not the first film she produced.She was EP of Switch.in 2009 .
    2015 an Oscar and a baby for Jen

    • Jupo says:

      And was the Switch any good? Nope.
      I hope you are kidding about the Oscar in 2015, please do not be that delusional.
      Also how is she going to have a baby in 2015? She has more films to make this year & will be 46!

  22. lisa2 says:

    Those are really just thing plastic pieces glued to her face. I doubt she had to go through some long make up process to add them.

    The Good Girl was over 10 years ago IIRC… why is that the only film mentioned. I think she would have done better acting wise if she had continued with the Indie films. Good she is trying to do something different. I guess when expectations are low you can surprise. Maybe she will.
    I don’t see her films, but I have read comments from her fans going crazy and they are talking OSCAR and one of her films going to Cannes. hmmmm OK we will have to wait and see.

    • lenje says:

      For someone who’s obviously a non-fan of Aniston, you have the best neutral comment here :)

      • lisa2 says:

        thanks.. I’m trying to be good/fair… Hoping her fans will be the same on another’s thread.

    • I don’t think they added anything to her face, except makeup for the scars and to make her pale. Her cheeks look puffy, so maybe they added something to that, but other than that….nothing else. She looks pretty much the same. I still like her darker/shorter hair.

  23. Lee says:

    In fairness, I have to say she did a pretty good job in The Good Girl. So if she’s moving back in that direction, good for her. Her filmography since then has been abysmal.

    • V says:

      I was bout to comment on that! I thought she was great in The Good Girl, and I loved her in Friends With Money. I mean I don’t think she’s Amy Adams but she’s a pretty decent actress who could probably adeptly perform outside her rom com niche.

    • Jupo says:

      The Good Girl was a DECADE ago. It was a fluke considering she can’t redo that.

  24. Ag says:

    It’s never going to happen, Jen.

  25. Loopy says:

    Yeah when you think of Jennifer Aniston and Oscar they just don’t go but you never know. A few years prior to Sandra Bullock winning i never thought she could get a role/perfomance that was deemed worthy of an Oscar.

    • Eve says:

      You have a point. And I could almost hear Twilight Zone’s creepy theme in the background while I was reading your comment.

      *shudders*

      By the way, if I end up having nightmares tonight, that’ll be on you.

    • Lucy2 says:

      And a few years back when Matthew McConaughey was stuck in rom com land, I’d never have guessed his career change, so sometimes people surprise you.
      I don’t see JA doing something like that, I think she’s just OK as an actress, but you never know.
      And the best thing about an actor you don’t like? You don’t have to watch their movies.

  26. June says:

    She is not being made ugly….. she is just not wearing her usual makeup and hair. So it is just her in her natural plain & homely state.

    This is how she looks without the photoshop, great makeup, & professional hair. Shows you the magic of makeup.

    Some fans are claiming she is wearing prosthesis to change her face shape….uh no…her face is always that weird shape.

    • Sal says:

      That’s exactly it! But some just don’t want to see that. If you look at old candid photos of her, they’re not much different. I honestly think people are just in denial.

    • Esmom says:

      So this is what she looks like, and the big deal is…she’s not above average? She’s far from heinous, as many people are making her out to be. How is that such an offense? Should she not be allowed to work in Hollywood or have a successful career because she doesn’t meet some arbitrary threshold of beauty?

      • June says:

        Well, when her publicist BUYS her the title of Sexiest Woman Alive…or whatever it was called…and she actually looks like this, then of course we can call her plain.

        When her publicist constantly is telling us how she is the most beautiful woman ever, when she is far from it based on these pics, it just shows you the part her PR team has played in making the media act as if she is good looking.

      • Delta Juliet says:

        I commented to you up above but I guess I’ll just reiterate. I don’t get the Jen hate either. I’m no mega-fan but she’s harmless enough.

        Over on the Peaches thread, people are saying how bad they feel for crapping on her now that she is dead. Maybe they ought to try and remember that while people are still living. I know we give everybody a hard time here but seriously, JA is pretty bland like everyone seems to be saying. Why the extreme anger towards her? You don’t like here? OK, move on to someone else then.

      • MyCatLoves TV says:

        The hate when Jen is mentioned is more ugly than anything she will EVER be. She’s not particularly my cup of tea but far be it from me to kick a woman in the teeth for wanting to change her image….even if (it seems) most people here wouldn’t throw her a life preserver if she were drowning.

      • shellybean says:

        Agree, I also do not get the Jen hate. I also don’t think she’s ugly. Good grief. She looks more average with her hair like this and with no makeup, but I think a lot of us could say we don’t look as attractive with mousy hair and no makeup. That is why hair color and makeup exist! So we can look better! And sexy does not automatically mean one is perfect.

        Everyone mostly loves Angelina on this site. Which is fine, I love Angelina, too. But I also like Jen. I’ve always liked them both and have no bone to pick. But the Jen hate on here is insane.

      • mayamae says:

        Comment deleted. Changed my mind about entering the battle field.

      • Just Passing Through says:

        mayamae…… that made me laugh out loud. :)

  27. Baya says:

    Wow. Some pretty harsh critics on here. How do people know she’s not made up to look like this? And that it’s just ‘plastic pieces glued to her face’ not hours in the make-up chair? lol. Sounds like you’re going pretty far to discredit her.

    I think some people’s head’s would explode if she was nominated for an Oscar, so please let it happen ;)

    • yuiop says:

      Well an Oscar nom is not going to happen because there are many, many actresses that would be nominated before her every year. The Academy is not dying to nominate her for anything. Not wearing makeup in a movie does not = Oscar. You actually need talent to win…..

      And she is not made up to look like this. Those are her facial features, that is her face shape.

      Sounds like some people do not want to admit that this is just how she looks without professional help in the make up & photo shop departments.

  28. norah says:

    IMO i think that if jennifer wanted to be taken seriously as an actress she wouldnt have made it all about her – that brad cheated on her etc etc – she has used that for years – which was a wrong thing to have done imo – she should have focused on her career and improved her acting skills – worked harder but she was lazy and didnt move out of rom coms and now it is too late – she doesnt fit anywhere either comedy where she has to strip or drama where she cannot carry a film on her own – she needs a strong cast behind her. there are so many actresses in hw in her age group who have been there because they are good at what they do – julianne moore cate blanchett amy adams glenn close meryl streep – they all do a variety of roles – emma thompson
    helen mirren etc – she has been lucky by having one chance after another but somehow it never works out for her and now how this will pan out i honestly don’t know?

  29. norah says:

    also there are so many actresses everyday – and if you dont have at least some acting ability then one is more or less shoved aside for others who are better etc- being versatile has meant that actresses like meryl streep especially have survived and even thrived in hw even after being around for more than 40 years – she has become more known for her personal life rather than her acting which is unfortunate and rather bad pr imo

  30. Eleonor says:

    she is not Oscar material, or movie material. I think Aniston is a solid tv actress, she should accept that.

  31. MyCatLoves TV says:

    Well, people here really do love to hate on Jen. But here is the naked truth. If I had her millions and looked that good in a bikini in Cabo every year…..I would be doing the happy dance Every Single Day. I bet y’all would, too! Sadly, I have even less talent than poor Jen. (And no personal trainer or healthy chef keeping me in line.) So it’s one pieces by the above ground pool in the Midwest for me….sigh.

    • Esmom says:

      And maybe that’s where the hate comes from. People see someone who they think isn’t any “better” than them, looks-wise, talent-wise, whatever. And yet she’s achieved a level of fame and money and success that most of us will never see and they are bitter. Maybe it’s just simple jealousy. I don’t know.

      • Eh, I don’t hate her–I see no shame in her game. If people were going to throw millions of dollars at me to do crappy romcoms, I would do it–for a while. But I think her career stalled slightly, because she did do the romcoms, the crappy romcoms too often, and then had to scramble to do something else. Doesn’t she have an agent guy who’s supposed to do all this work for her? If I was her, I would’ve done one romcom, but then a different genre film every year, to see what it is I could do. Instead of doing the same thing year in and year out—even when she did Horrible Bosses and We’re the Millers–it was the same…how raunchy Jennifer could get. I don’t think I’m bitter about any celeb, certainly not about Jennifer Aniston.

      • Esmom says:

        That’s good, VC, because I think being bitter about another person’s success does not make for a happy life. :)

      • Esmom–I’m a jellih8ter, because I’d love it if I was rich and lived in a nice, sunny, WARM place (seriously, we had a snow storm for three days last week…got about ten inches each day…in APRIL!!!!)…and I’d love to be able to do what I want to do, with no limitations–but that’s every celeb. Plus, I want some Elizabeth Taylor style jewelry….

  32. ShakenNotStirred says:

    The criticism is ridiculous. She’s worked on indie films before. I’m glad she’s finally working on a drama again and producing as well.

  33. abby says:

    well, I will admit that I do not care for Aniston. That said, I think it’s a good thing that she is doing something different. It’s not really fair to criticize her for doing the same thing all the time and then knocking her as soon as she makes the effort to do something different.
    At the very least she’ll look different; when the film comes out we’ll see if she really is making a departure.

    One of the things that always puzzled me was that Aniston rarely seemed to put her money where her mouth is. I mean, we keep hearing how wealthy she is (her multimillion dollar real estate purchases/renovations are just one indication) and how she and Hahn are producing partners in Echo Films. Aniston herself constantly talks about her aspirations in film. Yet, I am surprised that Aniston has not used her own production company – and her own money – to fund films that she wants to make – Goree Girls for example. Obviously I mean very small films but whether Aniston is behind or infront of the camera, I figured she would use that opportunity to explore other aspects of film making. This is a woman who reportedly is chummy with many actors and other film makers, not to mention her various CAA contacts. What’s stopping her?
    And yeah, I know that she directed that segment for “Five” on Lifetime (and a short film some years back) and she produced a few films that she starred in. But Aniston continues to wax on about wanting to direct as though she cannot purchase the rights to some book through Echo Films and adapt the screenplay (or better yet write her own script) and then go forward with the process with her own millions.
    I know I am over simplifying the process and the risk involved. My point though is that Aniston has the professional and personal newtork, as well as the finances to at least partly fund her first film. If she were serious, she could get a partner to offset the rest. But she needs to be serious, and by that I mean prepared to do real research, be challenged (not only by learning new things but also by opponents and obstacles) and taken out of her comfort zone. And this is where I agree with the poster who said that Aniston is lazy. She is complacent and does not seem prepared to rise to the occasion. I suppose many would be the same if they were sitting on her mountain of assets.

    Anyway, good luck to Aniston in this film, at least she is trying something new. I may not like her but it’s always good to see actresses over 40 still working. I think she would get even better opportunities if she returned to television – cable not network though. Better scripts, better opportunities, she could get more chances to produce and direct without as much risk and pressure. Veteran film and TV actresses are really doing well there. And the cable season is not long so she could still fit a film into her schedule. Well, who knows, Halle eventually saw the light.

    Anyway, yeah, those scars may be fake but that is totally her face. Remember the untouched beach photos? And the freakout after they were leaked? She had makeup on then but still, they were unflattering and people went nuts. Get over it. Aniston is not a looker. She is simply unremarkable imo, and her makeup people perform a small miracle everyday – they deserve a raise tbh. It’s nothing to be defensive about because most of us look rather unremarkable in our natural states.
    This insistence by the media (see every tabloid/news article, Aveeno ad) that insists that Aniston is “stunning” reinforces the notion that simply stating something repeatedly (or emphatically) do not necessarily make it so.

    • I completely agree about the producing–I noticed over the past five years, during interviews she would give a comment here and there about Goree Girls, to the effect of that it’s happening soon, or it’s being pushed off—I think that as soon as she ran into conflict of any kind, that she just abandoned it–because I know that it was supposedly supposed to be filmed during the time where she was doing ‘Just Go With It’, and last year, I was looking at a few wiki pages and I saw that Jennette McCurdy was cast in the film–but no production date has been set, and wiki says it might be in ‘production hell’.

      Which I don’t get. She has a ton of friends–actors, producers, directors–in hollywood. She has a good pr agency, that I’m sure, if they needed to, could set her up with meetings of a bunch of producers and directors, who would be interested in this film–on the sole basis of her name. And if she’s coughing up *some* of the money for the movie, then she probably won’t even be able to keep them away from her. So what gives?

  34. Hissyfit says:

    I guess I’m the only one who wasn’t impressed with her “Good girl” acting. I mean, it was better than what she’s done but not award winning or something to write about.

    I feel like she’s been doing these same old boring and shiTTY romcoms for 10 years that when she do something different like this “Cake” film people are going to assume it’s going to be good and her performance is going to be award winning just because she’s not stripping her clothes off and act cutesy when in fact her acting is just for Lifetime series level. Didn’t they say the same thing about that “Crime of life” film last year? That her acting is ground breaking or some shittt? What happened to that one?

    • Eve says:

      “I guess I’m the only one who wasn’t impressed with her “Good girl” acting. I mean, it was better than what she’s done but not award winning or something to write about.”

      No, you’re not the only one. I thought she was mediocre at best in that role. I used to call her performance in that movie “WalMart Rachel”.

    • Katherine says:

      Count me in on those underwhelmed and disappointed by her in The Good Girl. After what i seem to recall was a lot of hype and publicity her performance turned out to be just okay. Good that she tried but getting better at acting does require that you keep trying and keep stretching. Not that you do it once.

  35. Size Does Matter says:

    Girl has made BANK on the rom coms and Friends. You can’t fault her for that. I think it’s cool when she does something different and I think she’s doing it because she’s interested and out of curiosity to see if she can, not because she expects to win an Oscar. It’s better for her to do this than to lay around the pool swilling margaritas, chain smoking, and “planning her wedding.” It’s what she does – or doesn’t do (philanthropy) – when she’s not working that gets under my skin.

    • ShakenNotStirred says:

      Aniston is involved in charity work. St. Jude for example. She’s also involved with other cancer organizations as well. Should she be a philanthropist as well to please you? She’s doing more than some of these vapid celebs like the Kartrashians.

      Not everyone has to be like Jolie or Audrey Hepburn. It’s ridiculous to believe so.

      • yuiop says:

        What does she do for St.Judes besides a short commercial once a year? She does nothing else to bring attention to the cause.
        She seems to spend most of her time at the spa or in Mexico, so no she is not doing more than the Kardashians at all.

      • I wish she would do more–to offset the hair and margaritas–but you’re right. We’re not all humanitarian-ly (not even a real word) inclined. I wish she would do more, but it’s her life–not mine.

        One cool thing I always thought she should do, is for her birthday party, that she has in Cabo most times (I think), is that she should throw a fundraiser. Just charge like a thousand bucks a person to get in, and then donate it all to some local charities in Mexico.

        I can’t get over when she said in 2010/11 that her going down to party in Mexico was helping the Mexican people…WHAT?

      • Size Does Matter says:

        She doesn’t need to be Audrey or Angelina to make a difference somewhere in a more meaningful way than shooting a 30 second commercial (which, frankly, I had forgotten about, but, you’re right, it is something). I guess I just think it would be great to see headlines about her for something more than her hair, uterus, or love life.

      • Katherine says:

        Those PSAs for St Judes always make me think, oh look, a Jennifer Aniston ad.

    • Tadzio says:

      @Size Does Matter – But why would what she chooses to do in her spare time get under YOUR skin? It’s her life. If Jennifer want to drink margaritas, lay by the pool, and chain smoke then that’s her business. Everyone doesn’t have to go out there and try to save the world (which is impossible btw). Her “philantropy” could be helping out a family member or friend who has fallen on hard times (something you wouldn’t read about or see). I’m sorry if that just isn’t enough for you.

      • Size Does Matter says:

        I believe we should all try and make the world a better place, and she has the resources to do so much good. If she is doing it secretly, then I owe her an apology. But I can only comment on what I see or read about. Blame the publicist, I suppose.

      • lenje says:

        @Size Does Matter: do you also make the same comment to other actresses or celebrities who – quoting you – have the resources? I don’t see people express such concern on the thread of, say, Emma Watson or Kristen Stewart or even Jennifer Lawrence (I mention them because they are actresses with blockbusters under their belts).

  36. someone says:

    She might be up for an Oscar for this role – if she gets pregnant and marries Justin right before the voting takes place. Throw everything you got at that Oscar Campaign Jennifer!

  37. Serena says:

    Oh jen, it’s good that she is mixing it up but you need real acting skills to win an oscar.

  38. Nikita says:

    So all you have to do to get an oscar is to get ugly in a movie? Realy?
    I dont think so. I cant comprehend why she still gets work. Nepotism! I’always remember rupert’s words about her when shes doing another tasteless movie.
    Maybe she thinks she can take the matthew mcconehey road? He was a romcomactor, but, he never played the cheap tabloid games to stay relevant. Oh and matthew is talented. Shes just not AND she had way too much plastic surgery, its starting to show

  39. Krissie says:

    She could win an Oscar. Let us not forget that kim kardashian made it onto vogue.

  40. Maggie says:

    She’s like any actor in Hollywood. Some of her films are great others a bomb. I don’t get the hate either.

  41. Lux says:

    The day Aniston gets an Oscar nomination is the day hell freezes over. Facial prosthetics aren’t going to be able to make her a good actress.

  42. manta says:

    I just checked the IMDB page for Cake. The funny thing is that she’ll share the credits with 3 oscar-nominated actresses: Anna Kendrick, Felicity Huffman and Marianne Jean-Baptiste. I have the feeling she’ll end up outshone by each one of these.
    The only thing I can remember from her is Friends with Money. She was good in it, but again, I think it’s due to a very strong cast around her (Catherine Keener, Frances McDormand…)

    I may end up watching Cake, but it will be for the pleasure of seeing William H.Macy and Felicty Huffman sharing the screen.

    • Janet says:

      So essentially, this is another ensemble piece like “He’s Just Not That Into You” where she’s hogging all the publicity. Okay, I get it now.

      • Chinoiserie says:

        It is not an ensemble piece, at least according to the storyline on IMDb “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”
        Aniston is playing Claire and Nina is played by Kendrick. Huffman role is the the facilitator for the chronic pain support group.

    • So she’s not the lead?

  43. Snappyfish says:

    She’s one note…at best

  44. Tadzio says:

    Look, Jennifer isn’t the greatest actress but I did like her in Friends and Picture Perfect. In the photos above it doesn’t really look like she has on prosthetics. It just looks like she doesn’t have on any makeup and was photographed at a bad angle. She isn’t “ugly”. Yes, she does look “plain”, but most women look “plain” without any makeup. There is only 1% of the population that looks absolutely glamourous and flawless without any makeup or their hair done. Most of us need a little moisturizer, hair product, and some lip gloss (hey there is nothing wrong with that). She does look good for her age. There are 20 year olds that don’t have that body.

    @KitKat – I think you need a hug.

  45. CHRISTIAN GIRL says:

    Just stop with the Oscar talk. No name writer, director, studio, so who would fund an Oscar Campaign on a miniscule budgeted movie? It runs in the mulitiple tens of millions to campaign. You are doing her no favors by setting her up to fail when in the wee hours of the morning her name is not called. She is filming a really small indie film and that’s the end. She will hope it finds a place on a few screens and not be a total embarassment. No cast member in this film can carry a film or has an audience willing to pay to see them. Including Sam from Avatar (outside of that one film). Hoping and maybe is all there is, hoping and maybe. There is no Hollywood hype over this entire production now or whenever it completes. We are talking about it and that’s it. The Hollywood pundits are not. This has nothing to do with liking her or not, her looks, if marrying, if pregnant, it’s just a little movie with a little cast, getting in a little work. GONE.

  46. lisa2 says:

    I wonder if some of the posters here have actually read what real HATE comments look like, because I could post a few and they make these “shading comments about Jennifer” look like love poems

    Life like everything comes in cycles. Jennifer Aniston had 6 or more years of POSITIVE comments and public support following her divorce. That is a record IMO.. In the last few years; maybe 2 or 3 she has gotten some negative comments.. and that is nothing nothing compared to what has happened to Angelina over 9 years. I just find id strange that some of the posters that are so upset by what is said here today about her were not upset years ago when ugly comments were said about others and their children. Maybe things would have calmed down if all those people that find negative comments so offensive would have spoken up then and stood up and voiced those same passionate objections.. but I guess some felt that rapid hate was deserved.

    This is all going to die down I hope as more years pass. But some of us remember years and years and years of ugly and vicious comments. Hard to flip and say that what is being said about Jennifer rises to what we say for almost 9 years and still going on.

    I said up thread that I don’t see Jennifer’s films. I don’t support them. I don’t talk about her acting because I don’t witness it. So for me I don’t care what she does on screen: I won’t be buying a ticket. If she is trying to change her career path good for her. Others have done it so maybe it will work for her. But we will see if her fans support this. Most of the time outside the comedy things they don’t.

    • Nikita says:

      100% agreed

      She has to change her career path because shes getting to old for romcoms. Thats the simple answer. She refuses to return to tv so she tries to be the next Charlize T.
      But, she will only be the next Demi Moore.
      She cant take it that Angelina is a huge thing in Hollywood no matter how much money Jennifer earns, no matter how often her PR Team plants the “beautyfull Jennifer Aniston” storys.
      Angelina is prettier and she gets the best jobs. Everybody knows that. Its stupid, but this is Jennifers Horzion. Thats what Jennifer hates. She hates Brad too but would never say this because too many people in Hollywood like him and hes a guy. The big bosses in Hollywood are still man and they wouldnt like that if she talks him down.

  47. DIANE says:

    Yeah, yeah. She wants an Oscar. I want a Maserati. I’d say we both have equal chance of getting what we want, seeing as I have no money and she has no acting talent.