Is it Jennifer Aniston’s fault her new film bombed?


The NY Post [via US Weekly] has a pretty damning article about how Jennifer Aniston’s career is faring post-Friends. They quote an anonymous “movie critic” who claims that Aniston is a one note wonder who is no longer young enough to play the romantic lead in films. She’s still doing it, although it’s unknown how much longer she’ll be able to pull it off after the dismal box office performance of her last few films, particularly her latest – Bounty Hunter. The Post’s source also has some snarky things to say about her taste in men, and I don’t disagree with them:

Even some of Jennifer Aniston’s most devoted fans think she should take some time off and reassess her career after her latest flop. “The Bounty Hunter,” a heavily promoted romantic comedy with Gerard Butler, has pulled in just $38.4 million domestically in its first 10 days of release.

Last year’s “Love Happens,” another romantic comedy with Aaron Eckhart, grossed $22.9 million in the US — which was still way ahead of last year’s “Management” with Steve Zahn, which grossed a pathetic $935,000.

“Aniston just can’t play the good friend anymore. She’s aged out, no matter the yoga and the highlights. She just can’t do America’s sweetheart next door. She needs a big wake-up call,” one film critic who didn’t want to be named told Page Six.

“And as for her taste in men, it’s totally off. John Mayer? Gerard Butler? She’s missing a common-sense gene.”
One movie producer who also asked to be nameless said, “It’s hard for any TV stars to make the transition to movies. Certainly no one else from ‘Friends’ made it.”

As to why Aniston can’t break out of the rut and make an action film or thriller, like Angelina Jolie, the producer said, “You don’t go from ‘Friends’ to ‘Transformers.’ Jennifer is just like one of 15 princesses from Great Neck we met at summer camp.”

Though Aniston apparently won’t take a vacation, there is some hope, according to After “The Switch,” a turkey-baster comedy with Jason Bateman, and “Just Go With It,” in which Nicole Kidman will help Adam Sandler “land the woman of his dreams,” Aniston is set to star in “The Goree Girls,” a musical set in the 1940s about a group of incarcerated country-western performers.

[From The NY Post]

You know, I could go either way on Aniston. I don’t see her appeal nor do I seek out her films, but I don’t get why people dislike her so thoroughly, either. I also don’t think it’s all her fault that her movies aren’t doing that well at the box office. These type of tepid romantic comedies aren’t faring as well lately, especially when pitted against family-friendly blockbuster 3D fare like Alice in Wonderland and How To Train Your Dragon. On the other hand, the film has only grossed $38.4 million in ten days and is unlikely to approach the $88 million domestic take of another romantic comedy also co-starring Gerard Butler – The Ugly Truth. When Katherine Heigl is a bigger box office draw, you know Aniston is in trouble.

As The Post pointed out, Aniston has a couple more romantic comedies coming out before she has a chance to change directions with Goree Girls. Will it be too little too late from Aniston, or will she show us a different side? Judging from her recent interview with Harper’s Bazaar, I’m thinking we’ve seen and heard just about everything we can from her. You never know, though, she could surprise us.



Aniston at various ‘Bounty Hunter’ premieres. Credit: WENN.

Related stories

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

135 Responses to “Is it Jennifer Aniston’s fault her new film bombed?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Melanie says:

    “Aniston just can’t play the good friend anymore. She’s aged out, no matter the yoga and the highlights. She just can’t do America’s sweetheart next door. She needs a big wake-up call,” one film critic who didn’t want to be named told Page Six.
    Is Teri calling herself a film critic now? He,he!

  2. EMV says:

    I feel like I’m the only person who likes her…she’s a little kooky,but who isn’t?

  3. JuiceinLA says:

    You know, I don’t totally disagree (It happened to Meg Ryan too), BUT (And its a J-lo sized one) I MOSTLY think that the rom-com movie genre is so played out that no one goes to see them anymore. Even the “Hes not that into you” took a tremendous effort to gross big.

  4. Snarf says:

    No, but it is her fault she agreed to star in the damn thing.

  5. Sigh. says:

    I’m tired of rom-coms in general.

    The woman is a shrew who just needs to get laid or a modern-day starry-eyed love-addicted maiden who needs to be saved. The man = borderline caveman in a suit. Or sports jersey. Or overalls.

    Unfortunately, she chooses to stay in this genre, so her guilt is by association.

  6. Granger says:

    I’ll be very curious to see what happens with The Goree Girls. It sounds promising, but I hope Aniston isn’t the main lead. In one of the more supporting roles, I think she could do a decent job, but I have trouble seeing her pull off the role of a convict musician!

  7. Lala11_7 says:

    Jennifer ALWAYS does better when she does independent movies…THAT’S what she should focus on from now on…

    She’s got the money and recognition to just focus on her craft and working with strong directors and writers in smaller films…they’re out there…just waiting for her!!!

  8. Sumodo1 says:

    Maybe her good pal Courtney Cox Arquette will give her advice on how to freshen up her image. First of all, Jen needs to get out of the public eye. Do some voice-over work. Maybe do something in a big way with a non-profit organization and do a PBS documentary about it, then roll with new career advice.

    Worked for Cameron Diaz, though Knight and Day has flop written all over it.

    Rom-coms are dead. Stoner movies are all the rage. That’s the ticket, Jen!

  9. snowball says:

    Doesn’t she have a bunch of things coming up that are strictly production projects for her?

    I don’t really get the point of the criticism entirely. Yeah, she’s sort of at that weird stage where she’s kind of too old to be that flirty little cute thing in rom coms and she’s certainly not old enough for Meryl Streep parts, but then again, how often do we see Kate Hudson anymore? Drew Barrymore? When has Demi Moore starred in anything?

    What exactly do they expect her to do? She’s working. Why are they comparing her to St. Angie? Are all of her movies blockbusters? Uh, no. Why is her personal life any of this person’s business?

    Whether or not Jennifer makes good movies (I don’t go see any of them, but I don’t go see many movies anyway), so what? Someone’s paying her to. When they stop, I’m sure she’ll find something else to do, she doesn’t need some dick to tell her she needs to retire because he thinks she’s played out. Jesus, Heidi MONTAG gets work.

    Funny how all these producers want to be anonymous. Afraid of pissing someone off?

  10. Praise St. Angie! says:

    “No, but it is her fault she agreed to star in the damn thing.”

    DING DING DING! we have a winner.

    also agree with JuiceinLA…the romcom is a played out genre…I can’t remember the last one I actually a)watched in a theater or b)made a point to sit and watch on DVD. I think any of them that I’ve seen recently were ones I caught already-started on cable and watched part of.

  11. irl says:

    This is the type of movie I’ll wait to rent on DVD. I do want to see it but I’m not going to pay the theater price. Having hours cut and salary reduced, in this economy there aren’t many movies I’m rushing to see in the theater.

  12. Sugar & Spice says:

    Isn’t she done yet? I’m so sick & tired of seeing articles about her everywhere! Now that The Bounty Hunter is out, can we please stop with all the attention on her???

  13. Rosina says:

    What rubbish, the film made more than that Hot tub thing this week, (with similar production budgets) despite being bashed by all the critics. I don’t see any telling John Cusack to give up and go away.

    It made a dame site more than the Changling for that matter, which had a much bigger production budget, didn’t hear anyone tell Angelina to pack her bag and not come back.

    As far as Im concerned to each his own I just wish everyone would leave these poor women alone. Why not attack Brad Pitt if you feel the need to attack anyone after all he is the one who made a switch.

    The stories being written about both women have been getting increasingly ridiculous and they say a lot more about the envy of the people who write them than the women themselves.

  14. Elle says:

    I’m confused–from what I read, I thought she had millions of fans , but where are they lately? (“Love Happens”?) I’ve only seen 2 of her movies, not in theaters.

  15. truthSF says:

    Yes, it’s partially her fault as it is G. Butler’s also. The bottomline is, they are giving a supporting actress leading lady roles, which she is not… by a mile.

    She was good in movies where she was a supporting actress as oppose to leading lady, i.e “Office Space”, “Bruce Almighty”, and “Friends With Money”. She was not that good in The Good Girl, no matter how many times ppl say it. She was just a different character than Rachel. Different, but no great acting.

  16. It IS kind of her fault because she tends to do the same faces and gestures that she did in “Friends”. She DID try in “Derailed”, but the damage was done…

    …at least she’s..purty!

  17. buckley says:

    Im still a fan of Jen’s and will continue to support her.
    Maybe she’s ok with making money. Not everyone gets to star in the projects they love.

  18. abc says:

    her career is just fine!jealousy people!

  19. Mary says:

    I don’t see why they had to be so harsh. I myself am a fan of hers who sees the folly in her ways but this over the top.

  20. Cinderella says:

    I have to roll my eyes at the mention of Jen being considered old. She is not old, dammit.

    I agree rom-coms are boring and predictable. I’m ready to see her play a role where she is pissed off, psychotic or scheming. No mush, no quirkiness.

  21. emma says:

    actually rosina, hot tub time machine made more than the bounty hunter last weekend, despite it being shown in fewer theaters.

    i’m sure her movie with adam sandler will do well…

  22. Diva says:

    I see all Aniston movies… when they come out on DVD!

    With the price of a theatre ticket these days, if I’m going to go see a movie in the theatre it’s either going to be something visually epic that deserves the largess of the movie screen, or something that has something equally as moving emotionally that just plays better in a theatre. Or, in one particular case, is the next installment in a franchise I love despite it’s frivolousness (hehe).

    Anyway, point being, with the larger-than-life kind of movies being made these days, my money is going to go to the one that packs a bigger bang than the one that’s going to make me go “awwwww, that’s sweeeeet”, and those are the kind of movies Aniston makes.

  23. Sigh. says:

    Sumodo1:Rom-coms are dead. Stoner movies are all the rage.

    Like Judd Aptow’s “bromance” movies. Cos Jonah Hill and Seth Rogan play the EXACT SAME CHARACTERS as well, and people eat it up. Let’s see if Rogan turns The Green Hornet into a hapless-smart-ass-stoner, too.

    The intellectual and cultural laziness of Hollywood is perpetuating this. Rom-coms and remakes are throw-away projects, to make way for big budget, big noise, big marketing movies.

  24. Lizzard says:

    I live in Chicago and one of the funniest critical opinion of the Boutny Hunter went something like this,” Jen, please stop playing with your hair. That’s not acting it’s playing with your hair. Please stop being Rachel in EVERYTHING!” I’m paraphrasing since I don’t remember the direct quote but it was FUNNY!

    Rom Coms are dead. Each year they pump out SOOOO many of them and with ticket prices as high as they are people wait to see it when it comes out on DVD. Family movies seem to be where it’s at lately. All the yogaing in the world can’t prepare Jen for an action movie ala Angie. It’s not in here genes and I think it would be quite painful to actually watch her try to pull something like that off.

  25. Anti-icon says:

    It’s not Annisten’s fault that there aren’t any good writers in Hollywood. Independent films tell the best stories, because the writers will work there for nothing. Rom coms in particular are so very bad, the writing, stupid, formulaic and unimaginative. JA should head to the indies, she’s got enough money, doesn’t she?

  26. Maritza says:

    Her movies are worth waiting until they go to DVD to watch. I like to go to the movies to see action pictures not romance or drama.

  27. SunnyD says:

    Q: Is it Jennifer Aniston’s fault her new film bombed?

    A: YES!!!!!!!!!!

    Now if she’d just quit with the stupid PR stunts that only make people read the tabloids about her instead of going to see the movies, and if she’d pick more interesting roles/movies, then maybe she wouldn’t have these bombs define her career.

  28. k says:

    I don’t like Aniston, but liked Management,and the Good Girl, or whatever it is called.

  29. PJ says:

    Reality check: ‘Bounty Hunter’ has grossed $48 million worldwide to date, and it just opened in Europe.

    Since when is a $50 million movie a “bomb?”

    Sounds like the Post has an axe to grind. Aniston has been one of the highest paid movie actresses ever since “Friends”. If that’s not success, what is?

  30. Ann says:

    I think she’s really attractive, but it’s almost painful to watch her act in a movie.
    She’s probably scared to take time off because people might forget about her so she wants to strike while the iron is hot.
    Maybe she should take some time off, take some acting lessons because people are really getting sick of her.

  31. e says:

    It is not completely her fault that the movies are bad but it is partly her fault and it is 100% her fault for choosing them in the first place.

  32. irl says:

    NO KIDDING! That is the truth!

    @ Rosina
    The stories being written about both women have been getting increasingly ridiculous and they say a lot more about the envy of the people who write them than the women themselves.

  33. Feebee says:

    It’s not totally her fault. Shitty writing, bad direction and the genre being overplayed has a lot to do with it.

    She isn’t that great an actress, who is woefully overexposed and that doesn’t help.

  34. Erin says:

    eh, she keeps picking these terrible contrived rom-coms and playing the same contrived quirky character every time. I’m sure it’s nice for her bank account, but she should STFU if she wants anyone to take her seriously as an actress. She’s like the “lite” version of everything. also, that pink dress is an absolute monstrosity.

  35. lrm says:

    I’ll say it again: She was GOOD in Friends with Money-but it was with an ensemble cast, and not a cheesy rom-com, either…she should do more film type movies, that may not be blockbusters, but where she can vary her range a little bit. In an ensemble, she can do that more safely and successfully, b/c the whole film won’t be riding on her.

  36. ses says:

    Seemed like a backhanded way to tie this back to her failed marriage – the unnamed critic said “She’s missing a common-sense gene.” Sounds oddly similar to Aniston’s assessment that Brad’s “missing a sensitivity chip.”

    How does her taste in men relate to whether she’s past her romcom prime? Romcoms themselves had their prime in the late 80s/early 90s so it’s hardly the fault of actors carrying the vehicles.

  37. JuiceinLA says:

    @PraiseStAngie and @Sumodo- you kids make me laugh and giggle…

    and I would go see Aniston in Harold and Kumar part 4…look what it did for NPH!

    Someone said she is good in indy films- I agree. She was great in The good girl. I also thought she was great in the Break up.

    I agree she makes her choices, but also Hollywood directs the sort of roles she is allowed to audition for. If someone with bags of money thinks we want to see Rachel pratfall with Gerard Butler, he’s gonna get Rachel….

  38. Guest says:

    This Page Six/US Weekly article is ridiculous. The film was tracked to gross between $20 and $22 million for its opening weekend by all the major industry outlets (given genre, star power, time of year, competition, publicity, etc.)…and it delivered. FYI: you cannot compare this release to The Ugly Truth given that the latter opened in the summer during a more lucrative box office period…which is why none of the industry watchers had expected it to make that amount for its opening. It had a production budget of $40 million and has already made that back in under two weeks, plus has taken in $15 million in foreign markets despite not even being open in many of them as of yet. What does this mean – well for one, that the film will most certainly make its expenses back; but secondly, that it is on course as of right now, to make the studio a profit. If you look at Jennifer’s box office record versus the cost of her films you will see that she overwhelmingly makes a profit for the studios – even considering she was second in earnings according to Forbes last year (for actresses), she was 6th on its list of most bankable actresses. This is why she gets hired, and this is why she has several projects lined up and continues to be in demand. People (including myself) might like to see her branch out into more daring or different roles (even though I am not one of those who maintains she is always Rachel…I’ve seen her play different characters in several films in the past), but the fact of the matter is that what she is currently doing is not failing.

    Why are we looking at Page Six/US Weekly for a factual report on such topics? I mean if either was running a story about most other celebrities we would be discounting them as false “tabloid” media. It seems everyone always has an opinion and likes to nitpick when it comes to Jennifer Aniston, however. I personally agree that I am looking forward to some of her projects with her production company and seeing her return to more indie/dramatic roles which I’ve found her to have shined in, in the past. However, I’m certainly not going to project that her current projects are disappointments based on that alone. The press handed to her after this movie opened was ridiculous. Why didn’t we hear the media target Matt Damon or Jude Law for their actual box office bombs of late? I just don’t get why so much of the media always seems to want to knock her down.

  39. CeeCee12 says:

    Its her fault for agreeing to play the same character over and over.

    She needs to freshen up her career ASAP or she will end up like Meg Ryan. But she wants to be considered beautiful and desirable so she lets her vanity get the best of her. She looks the same in every movie. In order to be a respected actress you have to stretch a little and she refuses to do so therefore her career is in no man’s land.
    Maybe these next few films will show us something new about her.

    I think she is better suited for television anyway and I don’t mean it as a slight. She could do something very interesting on a cable show. A lot of good actors are doing it.

  40. ela says:

    Rom Coms are dead??

    The proposal grossed $314 million worldwide making it one of the biggest 2.009 box office successes.


    @Guest: The press handed to her after this movie opened was ridiculous. Why didn’t we hear the media target Matt Damon or Jude Law for their actual box office bombs of late? I just don’t get why so much of the media always seems to want to knock her down.

    Its true, Matt Damon’s Green Zone is a box office fiasco.

  41. Wow says:

    Ha! I’d love to have her “problems”. If studio’s wanted to keep paying me JA type money to make what they call “bombs” … And I still get paid and they still keep on hiring me? Yeah, sign me up for her life. Lol

    and no EMV- you’re definitely not alone in liking her or her movies. It would be nice to see her switch it up a bit in her roles and her hair styles, but I enjoy her work.

  42. Melanie says:

    Seriously, There are no Loons around today. Do you think they have been busy filling in as “sources” for the NYP?

  43. N.D. says:

    I think it’s not quite fair to call TBH a bomb as its gross is fairly good. It has a long way to go to become profitable (movies need more than double their budget for that) but still 40+ domestically isn’t that bad. But I’m afraid these 40+ came not from Aniston fans but from Buttler’s seeing how his previous effort got 88 mil and hers 23 and less than 1 mil.

    Anyways, she’s not that bad and romcoms ain’t dead – people still go to movie dates after all. It’s just not that easy to make a good movie and even more so to make a good genre movie when all the tricks and kicks are well known and over-used.

    It’s good for her that she works a lot, there is a chance that one of those movies will turn out to be the next Sleepless in Seattle.

  44. Mairead says:

    I actually liked her in The Break Up and thought she had good chemistry with Vince. I actually thought “He’s Not That Into You” decent enough and thought she was all right in it. Mind you I kept getting distracted by how skinny both Jennifer Connelly and Ben Affleck looked, so take my opinion on that with a grain of salt. But it’s difficult to get away from the fact that it was generally Rachel-but-less-neurotic

    The plot of this sounds like unmitigated dreck and there’s no way I’m actually going pay to see this nonsense. If it turns out to be charming, like ‘The Proposal’ then I’ll hold my hands up and admit I’m wrong, but I don’t think I am.

    Oh – and why drag Angelina into it? There was a lot more wrong with Changeling than AJ’s acting – it was too long, meandered and played fast and loose with history. And her acting wasn’t the worst in it by a long chalk. I will say though, that Michael Kelly stole the show there.

  45. Sakota says:

    One of the biggest issues I have with critics is that they don’t realize that in order for a movie to be good, you don’t have to have gang rape, rape, incest, women getting beaten, women getting shot, women or men getting robbed and assaulted.

    Jennifer is known for her light comedies and she was good in “Derailed” where she played the part of a female con artist. Now, she isn’t big on action and she isn’t big on horror either.

    She has a good healthy niche and in her movies you know you’re going to get something solid and stable, no gross surprises like mutilated corpses, torture porn, or animals suffering.

    I am sick of movies being deemed good only if they have gratuitious suffering and graphic rape/assault/abuse.

  46. Bite me says:

    The film probably cost 40-50 million dollars to make and don’t forget that it was heavily market I mean buying time during the superbowl is not cheap and it’s estimates that Aniston makes 8 million per movie. Sorry but the movie bomb. I thought she has enough clout in hollweird in order to pick better film roles I mean she does own a production company! Maybe she should try broadway or. Do more indie movies the good girl was decent enough. Maybe she needs a new acting coach and management I don’t know return to tv maybe

  47. Jen says:

    You could go either way, but you clearly don’t! The choice of pictures says it all.

    Sure she’s had a few flops. It would be nice to see her not do so many rom-coms (or movies altogether) but I doubt people send her scripts for anything else. She’s typecast as the girl next door.

    I don’t think people dislike her, they’re just sick of seeing her face right now. I think she just needs a break, or a change, just to mix it up a little. And maybe she will do that.

  48. mimi says:

    what about all those movies with Angelina, that bombed too? and hard!

    Gee, Aniston is not the only actress in Hollywood with a bad track.

  49. lucy2 says:

    I like Jen and have liked some of her work, but have never seen her as a true A-list, amazing actress. I think she’s a solid B, fine in what she does, and if she’s happy with that, then that’s up to her.
    But if she wants more than that, she should chose better films, and if they aren’t being offered to her, take supporting roles, wait for better stuff, or create work on her own. She has the money and connections for all of those options.

    This movie looks crappy to begin with, but I agree that the rom com genre is tired out, and with so so films like this coming to DVD so quickly, why pay $10 to go see them in theaters? I’m a bit surprised it’s close to $50 mil as it is, being so mediocre looking and a March release.

    I disagree that she’s too old to play the romantic lead – as ela pointed out, the Proposal did well and Sandra is older than Jen. There are a lot of actresses in her age group who are romantic leads all the time, so that argument is out, and not fair to actresses, IMO. No one calls the men actors out on that until they’re practically using a walker to chase after women.

  50. Dhavy says:

    I’ve always said she never stopped playing Rachel since Friends ended. She was good then but not for too long because at the end all she did was whine.

    Anyway, I think the need to always be on the spotlight has made her desperate enough to make all these bad movies.

    Maybe she doesn’t want to make the sacrifice and transform herself to play a serious role (she always looks the same). I’m not saying she needs to change her appearance like Charlize Theron did but I keep thinking about the role Beyonce turned down because she didn’t want to gain weight so it went to Jennifer Hudson. We know what the outcome of that was

  51. N.D. says:

    >>Its her fault for agreeing to play the same character over and over.

    No, it’s her fault that she can’t find the new ways to plays these characters that are actually different in every movie. Even when it’s the similar plot lines and the same type of woman it’s still a different character and it’s her choice as an actress to play them as the same old instead of trying to instill some unique personality in them. Different people react differently, they have different mannerisms, they move differently, laugh differently, wear their hair differently, have their own little ways to express themselves. She never bothers to create her characters, she just lends them all her own hair, mannerisms, mimics and so on. Or Rachel’s. I don’t know her personally so can’t say how much her is in Rachel.

  52. bb says:

    My bet is that she’ll end up back on TV in 5 years. Most likely an HBO show.

  53. Other Laura says:


    Okay, just had to respond to your post.

    Beyoncé did NOT turn down the roll of Effie because she didn’t “want to gain weight.”

    She actually said herself, “I would’ve gained 30 pounds to play Effie.”

    Beyoncé wanted to be the star of Dreamgirls but she can’t act t save her life. Using that example is pointless.

  54. Chelly says:

    DITTO! @ Rosina

  55. kalli says:

    I honestly like Katherine Heigl much better than I like Aniston. The Ugly Truth was cute and it made A LOT of $. I think Aniston’s use of Butler to try and fool us into thinking they’ve got a thing going to promote a horrible movie shows how low she’ll go. NOT classy and it doesn’t make up for her lact of talent and personality. HEIGL for the win. I love that bitch!!!

  56. Ursaline says:

    Eh, i don’t care much either way. She’s had some good ones and some stinkers but she does a capable job for the most part and while predictable, makes an effort to have good comedic timing and all that.

    But I still liked her with that ferret in Along Comes Polly.

  57. Guest says:

    WOW WOW – is all I can say- WOW.

    Let me see:

    Matt Damon:

    Green Zone: budget: 100 mil
    10 day total: 24 mil
    Invictus: budget: 60 mil
    10 day total: 15 mil
    Informant: Budget: 22
    10 day total: 20 mil

    Do you realize that his last three movies have made less in two weekends then Jen’s has made in the first week. Green zone is losing millions and millions.

    Have you looked at Jude Law and his box office results. How about a lot of other men who have not had much if any box office success.

    I have not seen articles from the New York post on Matt and his awful results with the question of whether he has a career. I don’t even see that about Jude (his box office stats are terrible) with a question about his choice in women and why can’t he seem to do roles like Johnny Depp?

    All movie stars have some good and some bad. This movie is doing OK – not a huge hit – but will for sure make money. That is a bomb?

    This article is sexist, rude and untrue. what surprises me is that in the public’s hate of Aniston they forget to realize that by putting out tabloid articles like this it is an insult to all women and again women have to work harder then men to get the same recognition. If Matt Damon’s film were making this money it would be a success – or at least stated as a success. Obviously Jen is held to a higher bar then most actors. Really sad. And I am disappointed that you would print this crap. This is not gossip – it is just a hate fest on the part of page six.

    And notice the critic did not want to be named. I am sure he didn’t. If you have that much to say – be a man and put your name behind it. A lot like the bodyguard from the In Touch article on Brad and Angie.

    Also you know it is no critic: Critics analyze how a person acts not how they chose their men in real life or compare them to their x-husbands new partner or comment on their age. I sure have to say that people really do hate Aniston. Mission accomplished for those who have always hoped she would be hated.

  58. j. ferber says:

    Why the obsession with grinding out tepid, mediocre movies endlessly? Yes, her work ethic is to die for, she’s fabulously well-maintained and it’s too bad her husband left her for a bombshell. But I think she’s reached her level and the breakout hit she’s hoping for will never come. Most people do not have a tenth of the opportunities she has had. She should be grateful for her success and STOP MAKING FILMS. I know it’s harsh, but the world will be a better place for it. The world does not need another twenty-five (or 100) crappy rom-coms. It just doesn’t.

  59. Bite me says:

    The ugly thruth was not a flop

  60. R2D2 says:

    I actually like Jen but not enough to see her movies. Im not into the rom-coms at all and thats all she seems to do.
    I think she’ll end up back on tv in a few yrs but good for her for making the big bucks with every ‘bomb’.

  61. Dhavy says:


    Well excuse me for reading the wrong quote and I do agree that Beyonce can’t act.

    The example might be pointless to you but the message is not. Jennifer Anniston always looks the same so she always plays the same roles. I don’t think anyone will ever think of her as a serious actress

  62. mfishey says:

    I am no expert but it does not seem that the film is doing that poorly…
    Budget $40 million
    Gross revenue $48,101,752 (as of 3/20/10)

  63. meme says:

    sandra bullock made a hugely successful rom com and she’s 45 so how is jennifer too old when she’s 41? age has nothing to do with it. talent (which sandra has) does.

  64. Ursaline says:

    The hiney-groping on the red carpet does seem to be paying off, or at least drawing attention from curious bystanders.

  65. Melanie says:

    My husband’s cousin saw it with a friend on Saturday. It was her “Birthday treat.”

  66. lucy2 says:

    @ Guest #57 – you make a lot of good points. I was thinking it was sexist in regard to just the age issue, but you’re right regarding the box office too. I’ve also seen similar “articles” about the careers of JLo, Nicole Kidman, and a few other women as well. There are just as many male actors with a string of unsuccessful films, but you rarely hear about them.
    Love or hate her, I think Jen is sort of unfairly held up as the example for stuff like this because of her TV success and the TV actor flopping in films is a popular topic in Hollywood. No question her choice in roles and films has not been great, I’m not trying to excuse that, but there are a lot of people who have made similar choices and don’t have stuff like this written about them.

  67. Sugar & Spice says:

    It was the GB Butler fans that made the movie as much money as it has, nothing to do with JA, since she’s proven that she can only do well in ensembles with other well-known stars. And until this movie makes $130 million, it will not break even or make a profit, so $40 million is NOT “doing well”. And the reason that no one is bringing up Matt Damon or Jude Law and their obvious box office failures is because those movies weren’t shamelessly promoted and “faux romanced” to death like this one was. With all the promo that was done to make this movie look like a huge hit, it should have blown AIW out of the water.

  68. bambam says:

    I make a concious effort not to see Jen’s movies because she is so predictable. Once you’ve seen one you’ve seen them all. Also, wish she would quit playing the is she or isn’t she doing it with her latest co-star just to generate publicity for her movie – it’s so tiring and dumb.

  69. Other Laura says:


    You are completely and utterly right. This article is sexist, rude and untrue.

    The Bounty is not a “flop” Definitely not a blockbuster, but certainly not failure. Since when did $20 million opening weekend = flop? And yes, she is held to a higher standard than most. All of Kate Hudson’s movies since “HTLAGI 10 Days” have bombed. Same thing with Hilary Swank and countless other men and women.

    Yet people don’t seem to be as obsessed with their “failures.”

    @Sugar and Spice

    Damon’s and Law’s movies were not faux romanced do death because 1)The movies weren’t supposed to be and are not in the genre of romance and 2) Who the f-ck wants to se Sienna Miller hanging onto Jude. His PR firm, that’s for sure. Damon’s last 3 movies, bombed and Green Zone was a massacre. There is no way to walk around it.

    And since when do “critics” talk about who the actor is dating and factor that into everything? JA has said she isn’t dating GB, MULTIPLE times. He has said it too MULTIPLE times. What else do people want??

  70. westender says:

    I think a big problem with Jennifer Aniston, Tom Cruise, Angelina Jolie and other “tabloid favorites” is not the movies or their acting, but the fact the movie going public may be so tired of seeing them on the cover of every tabloid or tabloid television show.
    Jennifer Aniston was great in Friends but once “Brangelina” hit the fan it was like every where you looked you saw her. The same goes with Tom Cruise when he started dating Katie Holmes and also “Sofa gate” on Oprah. Too much popularity can back fire. Like some posters have said maybe she should go do some indie films or even Broadway. Do something different other than “rom-coms” for a change.

  71. Diva says:

    How would you know that all her movies are the same if you make sure you never watch any of her movies?

    That logic cracks me up, lol.

  72. lisa says:

    Why is it necessary to discuss Angelina with Aniston. They don’t make the same kinds of movies. Not a comparison.. and I notice any time some stupid article mentions Angelina in reference with Jennifer.. the attacks on Angelina and her movies start.. Why.. Angelina is not comparing herself to Jennifer.. nor is Jennifer comparing herself to Angelina. It makes no sense at all. Just so dumb. Angelina makes the movies she makes. She and Jennifer are not in competition. They don’t get offered the same roles. Really so sick of all this Triangle crap..

    Leave Angelina out of discussion of Jennifer and her movies.. and Leave Jennifer out of Angelina’s. these women are not doing the same roles EVER. MOVE ON..

    Yes Angie has made some not BBuster movies but hell so has Streep, Winslet, and every other actress. Angie’s movie Changeling made more money then the other movies it was nominated against. Meryl has made many movies that have not made a lot of money. does that mean she has no talent. It is a gamble to put a film out. Some really great movies have not made a lot of money. That does not mean they were not great. and some Shitty movies have raked in tons. so really stop comparing. not needed.

  73. MSat says:

    I could tell by the commercials that the Bounty Hunter movie was going to be a stinker, just like I could when I saw the ads for “Love Happens,” which I had the misfortune of seeing as an in-flight movie once.

    I don’t blame Aniston for these movies being stinkers, but I do blame her for picking these projects in the first place.

  74. fizXgirl314 says:

    Aww I do feel badly for her. Girl can’t catch a break. But I agree, the rom-coms are a little played out and I think girls are being made to feel a little self conscious if they’re into them…

  75. Sumodo1 says:

    I’ve got a better-than-average TV screenplay for Jen, playing an over-the-hill TV anchor. George Lopez, before his FOX late night show had first-look rights. Jen?

  76. Beth says:

    When a film costs $40-$50 million to make, making $50 million doesn’t make it a hit. Also a good opening weekend is good but the overall boxoffice run is a lot more important. In the USA “Bounty” will probably make about $55+ million. That’s okay but not great. I don’t know what it will do internationally but it will make a decent profit. I think people are harder on this movie because it was extremely heavily promoted(tons of commercials including Superbowl, Oscars and international tour) and gross is just average. Jennifer isn’t the problem it’s her movies. Not just Jennifer but I wonder why actors select certain movies. The summary of many movies have bomb written all over it.

  77. N says:

    I do not know enough about this movie to know if it bombed or not – it seems from the figures people are quoting that it pulled in more than it took to make it so perhaps not….

    What I do know, and I speak only for myself, is that Jen A lost me as a viewer to her shows/movies/etc when I read an article where she stated that she lost all her weight (from 140 to 110) because her husband liked skinny women (paraphrase). It seriously made me sick to my stomach because the implications of that to women were just against everything I believe in – change, just so I can get married? Um, I don’t think so.

  78. Lilou says:

    As think a lot of persons here don’t see the difference between “sucess” and “talent”…

    Yes a lot of actors have movie which flop… But people don’t talk about it because their talent, as actor, is well known…

    For instance: Matt Damon… Maybe Invictus was not a success, but it was an excellent movie with amazing actors… A lot of people who don’t give a damm about movie knew about this movis, because the critics talked about it in really good terms… So, for such a good movie, people don’t give a shit if it’s sucessful or not… The goal is not to make money and be number 1, the goal is to make a intersting movie, about a deep subject…

    I think people are hard with Jennifer Aniston not because they are sexist, but only because she has no talent as an actress… Maybe she is nice, maybe she is cute, maybe she has a hot body, but she has zero talent… She is mediocre at best…

    So, between the fact that her movie bombs and the fact that she has no talent, you cannot blame people for being hard on her, when she make millions for that kind of movie, while talented actress still can’t find a job…

    What I am trying to say is that, despite the fact that has been workign for 20 years, she still hasn’t proved anything when it comes to acting… She still hasn’t proved professinnaly that she deserves to win 5 millions per movie…

    So it’s like “what has she done to deserve such amount of money???” “why people are talking so much about her”…

    You know what I mean… It’s like she a “fraud”… You think she’s good, but when you look closely, she hasn’t done anything good for years…

    So stop comparing invictus success with the bounty hunter success, pretty please….

  79. betsy says:

    How much did they spend to promote this movie, it seemed to be everywhere–all the time?

  80. N.D. says:

    Promotional budgets usually equal around half of the production budget. Sometimes more.

  81. JenWind says:

    I saww the Bounty Hunter with a girlfriend for moms night out and it was cute movie. I laughed, most of the theater laughed, and it was a full theater too.

    Her movies are basically the same, but if you find it enjoyable then there is nothing wrong with that. They make all kinds of different movies to appeal to all kinds of people. Not everyone has to like them, don;t go see them, but don;t critisize what you haven’t seen.

  82. J W says:

    jen needs to start doing some films that exhibit some of her assets…..

  83. Harper says:

    Would I like to see Jen in more challenging, thought-provoking roles?? Yeah, definitely.

    But I do have to say that Aniston has a great knack for comedy. She’s one of the best female comedians in movies and TV. So in one sense I think it’s smart to play off your strengths – but on the other hand the scripts have to be good and the last few have just been mediocre.

    And I do not consider Bounty Hunter a “bomb”. I thought the movie was light and funny, I’ve definitely seen way worse……

  84. Donna Wingfield says:

    Interesting thoughts by many of you. I wasn’t a fan of Friends, so I didn’t have an automatic buy-in to JA, and I’ve always thought she was overexposed, probably by her PR team so that she could continue to have name recognition. I’ve only seen one episode of “Friends”, and “He’s Just Not That Into You” as examples of her acting, and I thought she was okay. Not on the list of those whose movies I’d go to a theater and see, but not many actors/actresses are. I’d like to see her change that tired hairstyle. It was old years ago, and wearing a hairband a la a 6-year-old at the Academy Awards doesn’t scream “I’m a serious professional actress!”

  85. Mairead says:

    Anyone who hasn’t seen ‘The Informant’ (or even the the John Ford classic, ‘The Informer’) is missing out.

    It was teh hilarious.

  86. JC126 says:

    The problems I see with Jennifer Aniston are that 1. rom-coms are stupid and predictable, and 2. she seems like she’s more interested in keeping her body in shape and every hair in place than in taking roles of real depth. She seems snobbish, too. In fairness, there aren’t that many female roles WITH any depth.

  87. jeanne says:

    I can’t believe someone would call her too old to make romantic comedies.

    Gerard Butler is the same age as her and Aaron Ekhart from Love Happens is actually a year older and you would never hear a critic say they were too old for rom-cons.

  88. EG says:

    Romcoms appeal to young girls and frankly these forty plus female leads are too old for young girls to identify with.

  89. Kelly-Michelle says:

    Jennifer Aniston was PHENOMENAL in “The Good Girl.” Instead of being the pretty girl next door, she should give us more complicated white female/Justine-type performances.

  90. santacruz says:

    She should have had Brad’s children instead…only kidding.

  91. Diva says:

    Didn’t Meryl Streep just make a romantic comedy with Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin that did pretty decent numbers at the box office?

    I don’t think romcoms are ageist.

  92. Sunnyjyl says:

    I liked the Bounty Huner OK. I thought the story moved along slowly–not the actors fault. I thought Jen’s acting was fine. Gerard Butler didn’t have the comedy timing down that well, but I thought he was cute, and I was just happy to see him take his shirt off. I also thought their ages were appropriate for the part they each played.
    Let’s not be agist with the female leads. Men can play the romantic lead until they are practically in the ground. As I get older, I prefer seeing the mature women in my rom coms.
    I do like Jen’s independent film roles the best, however. Office Space, Friends with Money appealed to me more.

  93. SixxKitty says:

    What the hell is that Pink thing she is wearing? her doona? she looks like Tom Arnold in that thing!! (no offense intended to Tom).

  94. Guest says:

    Here is a question: If Matt and Jen were in a movie together and it bombed – whose fault would it be? Jen’s or Matt’s.

    Now on E online they have are Jen Aniston and Angelina Jolie worth their pay? See what I mean. Would they ever do that with Jude or Matt? No. Would a critic ever talk about Matt and how old he is and he is too old to do action movies? Would a critic ever talk about the fact he married a waitress and he has bad taste in women? No.

    The fact is Jennifer can act, she has great comedy timing and people enjoy the break from serious stuff it doesn’t make her an less an actress.

  95. d says:

    I think Jen’s a decent actress, but the romcom genre is just so boring and played out and done and it seems ridiculous for her to be in those roles. I really think she can do better — I thought she was pretty good in the non romcom movies actually; they were more interesting and better than most of the romcoms.
    Mostly my irritation comes from the romcom genre itself – it’s just boring now and I’d rather spend my money on something else. Like Bounty Hunter? I could not care any less.
    I’m sure she’s got enough money to live on to find better scripts. And she shouldn’t turn her nose up at TV; I think it’s really her medium. And I think she really does have good comedic timing…she can be really funny, but I just hate the vehicles that she’s typically in (30 Rock aside…her turn was hilarious). It’s good to know the movie numbers/dollars from other commenters (and I agree that it’s probably sexist coverage, but more than that, the way they cover Jen is just good money for them [e.g., controversy sells, who cares about the truth]), but also I think the difference between Jen and Damon and Law is that those guys seem to have at least been playing different roles. In romcoms, Jen always seems to play a similar role. And she always looks the same (CUT. YOUR. HAIR!!! Or style it differently). Maybe people treat her the same because she looks the same. And acts the same. As a movie-goer, I feel like she’s really overexposed and I don’t care about any of the characters she plays. People do pick too much on her, myself included, but it’s just so easy because she’s always THERE with rarely anything INTERESTING or DIFFERENT. It’s just really bland. It’s like someone constantly telling me to buy flour because it’s so great and wonderful, blah, blah, blah, when … it’s just flour, you know?
    She should be really ground-breaking and do a movie that really sticks a knife into the romantic comedy genre. Writers in Hollywood, put your thinking caps on.
    And hey, 40′s not old! I’m 40 and I’m not old! Grumble…

  96. Leek says:

    She seems like a genuinely nice person. If she wants a long career she should put the leading lady dreams away and get some good character roles or do some indie films. People want to like her, (for the most part) so she needs to make good decisions.

  97. the other mel says:

    Mabye someone already said this, I didn’t read through all the posts this time, but it’s the producers of these movies that keep casting her, so if she continues to get these roles, why shouldn’t she continue to take them? If they continue to bomb, one would assume they’ll stop casting her. She’s enjoyable to watch, for some reason, but I agree with those that think choice character roles would serve her better.

    Regarding her taste in men, she may have some self worth issues. That’s just my guess. Even beautiful, successful women struggle with that one, sadly. The issue of self worth does not discriminate!

  98. nnn says:

    I don’t think she is old but let’s be serious, in any industry there is a time (age perception) for ‘rise’, time where you strengthen your position and a time where you are slowly moving out.

    At 40, in most industries you have reached your prime (you usually are in your top position, top managers for some) and keep on gaining and earning the benefits from those professional investments and involvements you made in your thirties, when you rises. At 40 you usually reach that plateau in your core business and maintain it. You specialize, knowing your business very well.

    Hollywood of all places, like modelling is a place where career rise comes even younger. Few, very few at 40, even for the most beautiful and/or talented ones are still chosen to be the lead cause the standard product is young and the turnover is quicker than in any other place. At 40 you are becoming the model that inspire the leading younger generation, the pygmalion of the 20 something who are in their rising process looking up to you an ‘established’ actress in your core business, whatever the genre you are in.

    Your best chances is striving for diversity the sooner the better to stretch your longevity and multiply your options. Some direct (Jodie Foster) others slowly but surely move to TV to act in soaps or shows which are more stable career wise.

    At 41, jennifer is still in the process of making the transition from TV to movie star CREDIBLE, she is still perceived as Rachel Green cause this is still her biggest professional accomplishment.

    Depp, Clooney have succeeded that transition and are not referred to the popular character that propeled them to stardom.

    There are many factors that can explain it. First, it is a fact that there are better, more diverse roles for men who have more tools to cut the ombilical cord with a very popular character they played in their TV career pre movie career.

    Second, again, like for any industries, you build your professional resume through your choices and the very first choices you make can determine the direction of your career.

    I beleive that today, Jennifer’s poor career choices as well as private life coupled with an average talent and yes her age compared to her competitors who are usually a decade younger (except for Sandra) makes it more difficult for her to establish herself as Jennifer Aniston the movie star more than Rachel Green of Friends trying to make it in the Silver screen with credibility

  99. Ericka says:

    I actually feel sorry for her. She spent so much time on trying to have a big movie and tv career that she has really nothing else to go home to or fall back on, i.e. kids, a significant other. I think that she needs to go away for a while and figure herself out and plan her next move in life. It’s time to put Rachel to bed and be Jen for a while.

  100. kiki says:

    I think she’s a bad actress. AND, Why does she keep getting roles? Aren’t there a million rom-com girls out there? Even Heigl’s movie did better than Aniston. Why does Aniston keep getting pegged as A-list? She only does well when there’s a better leading man, a dog or an ensemble to carry her. Otherwise, she’s like dead weight to me. I prefer Heigl over Aniston any day. Now, that girl is feisty and interesting!

  101. kiki says:

    AND, you have to wonder how these Hollywood people earn such large salaries for doing such horrible work. This movie is another failure for her and yet she gets paid millions and continues to make the same type of boring horrible movies. She is treated like some goddess on magazine covers and that she is a wonderful actress. It is really something to live a millionaire’s lifestyle doing below average work.

  102. Trashaddict says:

    Um. I’m no young thing and I like romcoms. When they actually have well-written dialogue. Something which is lacking in many a movie these days. Also actors with a different face and attitude. Most actors nowadays look like Ken and Barbie, you can hardly tell them apart because they look like they’ve all been to the same damn plastic surgeon! Rent “Miss Pettigrew lives for a Day”. It ain’t pretty young things but when you finish watching the movie you are satisfied. The difference between eating a generic vanilla waver and a good homemade chocolate chip cookie.
    Jen actually needs to buy into her age (which is not so old), when she faces up to it and the issues that travel with it, she has a chance of being a real actress.

  103. crash2GO2 says:

    Guest and Other Laura did a great job at bringing this ridiculous article into perspective.

    She’s got chops – she proved that in The Good Girl. And her film has already made more than The Changeling did over all? teehee. So much for the Angelina comparison.

  104. Amy says:

    No it’s not her fault. Well maybe partly since she keeps insisting on starring in romantic comedies. In the last few years there haven’t been that many great romantic comedies (Love, Actually is the only one that comes to mind). She needs to choose a different genre or go back to tv.

  105. Eye Opener says:

    Pesonally I would like to see Jen go back to TV – I think it’s her ground! I would love to be able to turn on the TV once a week to see her!

    But maybe when she does another movie she should do something where she is a kick ass action hero!! She would “kill it” especially with her sexy body in a skin tight costume.

    I see something like Black Canary from the justice league OR a CIA agent.

    But my real wish is to see her do something along the lines of Godlie Hawn type characters.


  106. The work is out there – she just has to be willing to try something new. There are plenty of 40 something actresses who are doing interesting and varied work. Look at Salma Hayek, Julianne Moore, Cate Blanchett, Halle Berry, Monica Bellucci, Diane Lane, etc.
    When you compare at their body of work to Aniston’s, she looks like she is just after a paycheck and only do films that make her look good and promote the perky, nice girl image that she continues to sell to the world. And maybe that is who she is but her job is to act, not just do roles that are safe and close to whom she is as a person.
    Maybe her agent needs to stop the rom coms and look for something heavier – but then, her agent probably loves that she/he gets 10% of her salary on the big budget films, so why would they encourage Aniston to do indie films or take supporting roles where in turn, they would make less money.

  107. justathought says:

    Forget Aniston, she’s never going to break out of these “cheesy movie” mold rolls but when is Butler going do films like 300 or Phantom again. Seems such a waste of a good actor.

  108. Lilias says:

    “She spent so much time on trying to have a big movie and tv career that she has really nothing else to go home to or fall back on, i.e. kids, a significant other”

    Wow, is this 1955? Her friends are her family-she’s always talked about it and never denied that she loves her friends like family members. They are who she falls back on.

    What makes so many of you think that she CARES about being a “serious actress”? What makes so many of you think that she wants to branch out and get other roles? Maybe “try new things” means go new places and meet new people?

    Maybe she LIKES where she is and likes the movies she’s starring in and producing.

    She’s not a serious actress, she never has been. She’s always been a comedian and I think people forget that. She just doesn’t work as a serious actress. No one believes it and she doesn’t have the talent for it. She probably doesn’t think she’d do well in a “heavier” film. And not all “heavier” films are better than lighter fare.

    She does light comedy. Get the hell over it. Some of them do well. Some of them do poorly. What difference does it make?

    And last thing, there. was. no. fauxmance. Seriousy. Stop it. Saying something a million times does not make it true. They both constantly denied any kind of relationship. The only time that it was clear that she was fine with him getting anywhere near her naughty bits was when he put his finger up her butt over her jeans. And that was caught by a pap who had to be really far away.

  109. J says:

    I don’t think Ms Aniston is a good movie actress but she is working hard, and people give her works. The box office record is not Avatar degree but solid.

    I am surprised by this “critic” who sounds stupid, biased, and sexist, also keeping calling out actresses “old”.

    I think NY Post should name who s/he is and every woman should throw a stone at him.

  110. Lia says:

    Aniston is so overexposed that going to see The Bounty Hunter would just have meant sitting there for two hours watching Jennifer Aniston trying to play cute. Why bother? She’s in the media so often that it’s almost impossible to buy any character she might be playing. It’s just Jennifer Aniston playing so-and-so onscreen….. boring.

  111. Cheyenne says:

    The question is, does she have the range to expand her roles? If she doesn’t, her career is essentially over.

    That said, from what I heard, it is not her fault that TBH got such godawful reviews. The script sucked.

  112. dizzybenny says:

    agree 100% with Guest!
    i think she probably only does rom-coms because that’s all she’s being offered.
    who knows?
    I liked her in ”Along came Poly”.

  113. Kelly says:

    She’s just boring, is all. I dont think Ive heard a single startling thing out of her mouth and her work erm, speaks for itself. Shit taste in movies, questionable taste in men, seemingly unable to give up a strangely dated and out of touch persona that I just dont think many women relate to any more. The whiny neurotic princess who has everything but wants more. PLEEAASSEEE LOOVVEEEE MEEEEEEE!!
    She and Gwennyythhh should really hook up- theyre perfect for each other.

  114. Jag says:

    The movie actually looked kind of cute, but I just can’t get past Gerard in a rom-com. Jennifer always plays the same character imo, so if the script works, then it would work. I totally can’t see her as a country singer, so that will flop, imo. Agreed that she should do some voiceover work and maybe go independent movies for a while.

  115. Bee says:

    Why would I waste $10 to see Jennifer Aniston in the Bounty Hunter or any other movie? If I want to see her portray the same character over and over again I’ll just watch reruns of Friends.It’s cheaper and I don’t have to leave my house.

  116. Maravilha says:

    Why do people always say awful things about Jennifer? And why the need to compare to Angelina? Yeh, Jen always seems to make the same movies, but Angelina ALWAYS, plays the same characters!!! “A CIA agent”, a “contract-killer”, blah, blah, blah…Jolie is a terrible actress and spend the whole time pouting and “looking seductively” to the camera! She is lucky she is beautiful, otherwise nobody would go and see her stupid movies!

  117. ogechi says:

    Aniston doesn’t make mistakes to me.

  118. daisy424 says:

    Marley and Me grossed Worldwide: $242,717,113.
    Not too bad.

  119. Scarlet Vixen says:

    I’ve been thinking…maybe she LIKES doing light, romcom roles. You hear alot of actors tell us what kind of roles they prefer–dramas, physical comedy, action, etc. Maybe Aniston doesn’t do a wider variety of roles because romcoms are what she enjoys. We complain when actors do roles ‘just for the paycheck.’ So, why bash her for doing roles that maybe aren’t the most challenging but she finds to be the most fun? If I could make $8 million for 3-6mos of work AND have fun doing it then hells ya I would!

  120. Bek says:

    This is the most ridiculous article. Ever. The mere mention of Angelina and/or Jen’s choice in men CLEARLY shows this “critic” for what he or she is. If Jen weren’t doing well, she wouldn’t be getting work. She’s making more money than most, and there are countless others right now who’ve had less than stellar performances and earnings, but there’s a demographic of people who are frothing at the mouth that Jennifer was once married to Brad Pitt. And they continue to try their damndest to find fault with her. I don’t believe this sh!t article anymore than I believe a tabloid that says Angie is dressing her child like a man on purpose. It’s perpetuated from haters on both sides who obviously have issues with Brad Pitt. These poor women. No doubt they don’t give a flying rat’s ass, but they’re forever doomed by the media to be “jealous” of one another, or always in competition.

  121. clare says:

    I enjoy rom-coms, and I’m with the crowd who aren’t “young things”!
    There are plenty of great books that could be done with actors who are older – whose faces still move- and aren’t so generic Hollywood -looking!
    I think Jennifer just needs to shake thing up a bit with her acting role choices. And do different hairstyles!
    I loved P.S. I Love You with Hilary Swank and Gerard Butler, and also The Ugly Truth with him and Katherine Heigl. Debra Messing was great in The Wedding Date.
    Give me a rom-com any day over all these Transformer Iron Man type movies!
    The upcoming Knight and Day looks too stupid to be enjoyable, plus it has Tom Cruise in it, so scratch that one.

  122. Kim says:

    Gerard and Jen appeared on ET, Access Hollywood and Extra several times. they appeared on Letterman , Regis and Kelly and GMA . With all that exposure it should have done better. As for Marley and Me the dog was the draw The posters I saw didn’t even have Owen and Jen on it. Jen can be choosy she doesn’t need the money. Why not do a movie where you look different like Charlize or even Sandra in that Truman Capote movie

  123. nnn says:

    Guest and Other Laura did a great job at bringing this ridiculous article into perspective.

    She’s got chops – she proved that in The Good Girl. And her film has already made more than The Changeling did over all? teehee. So much for the Angelina comparison.
    Uuum not really, the comparison is flawn, Changeling that some of you always refer to INDEED did poor in the domestic market BUT did better (and more than twice as much than in the domestic one) than HNTIJ in the foreign one, the rom com with the ensemble cast did less than that drama movie abroad.

    It also did twice and even three times as much as other movies from the same genres with a strong theme related to death or rape of a child. Themes that culturally don’t appeal to teh average people who goes to the tehater to relax not to be stress with those types of themes.

    Consequently ‘Changeling’ did 112 millions worldwide, hardly a failure. It just happens that this genre didn’t appeal to the US audience as it did abroad.

    By comparison, Changeling doing 77 + millions abroad while “4 Christams”, a rom com did hardly “40 millions” abroad, which is something that i have noticed for years : strong themes culturally appeal more to the european market (mainly, France, Spain, Italy and Germany) and Japan while lighter themes like rom coms that usually have a cultural related type of humour in it appeal more to the US than in the foreign market where they usually drain much less cash than in the US.

    Actions on the other hands appeal unevenly and the more a star has an international aur, the better the movie can capitalise on it to make cash and get maximum financial return

  124. Lilias says:

    Kim, exposure doesn’t mean a movie will do well. A movie’ll do well if it’s good, not if the a actors spent enough time talking it up.

    And think about this: Jennifer likes doing romantic comedies. Maybe that’s a factor in why she chooses them. Maybe it’s easy, fun work? Not every actor has to be in heavy, dramatic roles. Not every actor has to “change their look”. She found a look that works for her, why change it?

  125. Ellen Smith says:

    She is one smart broad. Good or bad, young or old, she is getting paid a pretty penny to do these films. At the end of the day she gets to retreat to a plush new home, has gourmet meals, pedicures, manicures, etc. and exotic vacations. Whether she is good or not as an actress is immaterial – she’s out there earning a hell of a lot of money. We’ll never know if she really desires more interesting roles in films, but the bottom line is that she is raking in the big bucks doing the same thing over and over again. I do the same thing over and over again each day in my job, and I can assure you I will never see the kind of income that she has amassed.

  126. mollination says:

    She’s fucking gorgeous – why is she too old to play the romantic lead when Sandra Bullock isn’t? (see: The Proposal, with the MUCH younger looking/seeming Ryan Reynolds).

    I know people love to have someone to hate, they love to tear someone down (especially like Gaby Sidibe, someone that perpetually portrays being unbothered by it), but to me it’s verging on sick the fascination with trying to tear this woman apart. Enough.

  127. mollination says:

    OOOoo, seeing a commenter up there mention stoner movies, that’s a good idea! Seriously. I could see Jen going away for a couple years and coming back in a supporting comedic role in a seth rogen-type movie. I think that could be really likable.

    It *is* strange that Jen doesn’t see what the romcoms are doing to her image when everyone else seems so blatantly aware of it – and all the things she *could* do that would be better options. Who’s managing her? They’re deluding her. Bummer.

  128. Bored says:

    The Bounty Hunter;

    Worldwide: $50,253,198
    production cost: $40 million

    The Changeling;

    Worldwide: $112,994,004
    Production cost: $55 million

    these figures do not include promotion costs (it probably safe to say that promotion for The Bounty reached saturation). If you’re going to make any claims about box office its very easy to google!

  129. Jazz says:

    I read a review of The Bounty Hunter recently that said “it sucked harder than a leech”.

  130. crash2GO2 says:

    @Bored: Why don’t you wait until the Bounty Hunter has been out for a few months and make it a valid comparison? It just came out – how can you expect it to have grossed as much world-wide as The Changeling that came out a year ago? Unless I am misreading your stats?

  131. Ursula says:

    Why would anyone call it a bomb? It cost 40 million quid, it is a rom com. I don’t see what the fuss is, especially since it is still going pretty strong at the box office. Give the girl a break.

  132. Tiff says:

    She just seems to play the same character in every movie to me. Its like I already know what to expect so why bother watching it.

  133. Kim says:

    Yes. She is the same character in EVERY movie. She has no acting depth at all. She cant act. She is a girl who got lucky on hit tv show (which she was decent on) and rode it into movie fame but she cant act for the life of her.

  134. Kim says:

    I dont think she CHOSES only romantic comedies. Its more like the only thing she gets offered. Obviously no one is coming to her with Oscar scripts because she is not an Oscar caliber actress. Well hey neither is Sandra Bullock and she won one but i think she has done more dramas than Jennifer.

  135. Life of famous different about our mere mortals.