All about Eve - old

Oh Blankments, how can you say this???Nobody could be a more perfect Atticus than gorgeous Gregory Peck.For that reason alone they should never remake the film.

I really need to get out more. I thought the hot guys thread was for women ( if I could make the hidey smiley, I would)

Mr Pink, you certainly are downright sexy.Crispy lips, you scare meCaesar, you are a handsome beastDark elf, sometimes it's good to be a mystery.Empire, don't spoil my fantasy now!I may not have known Ed was a mod ( the second best on this forum, hey Ed, after Peter O'Toole) but I do like to check out people's avatars. And, yes, i think I will continue to think that you all look like the picture you choose. It's more fun.

I'm sure you do but are being modest.I tend to think of posters as looking like their avatars, for some reason, even though I can clearly see the pictures are mostly movie stars. I suppose I ought to put photo up for myself, at the moment I'm a grey, blank, possibly male blob.

Late to the Empire discussion. I always thought he was a guy. ....and I like to think he looks like his avatar

Wow. 6 likes!!! I might just cry.Ed, (second best moderator on the forum after Telemachos), I'm catching up with ya! Just 1995 to go.Ps Blankments, I know you've given up on the Maleficent thread but should you venture there and should you happen to see my recent post to aDIM about the summit- and should you think it funny/ cute/ nice/ interesting and think it worth giving a red bell to.....Well, no pressure but I am chasing the second best mod on the forum and all that:)

Blankments, have the mods supplied you with a new stash of likes yet?I only recently discovered what a like was. I originally thought the red on the bell was a warning and I was in danger of being banned because I'd posted something unacceptable. Now I know what they are, they're kind of addictive..........

Thanks. I'll pm you soon and get the details.

I'd just like to say that despite my name I am nowhere near 70, lol. Also, is there anyone on this forum who reviews movies, maybe for a personal blog and would like a bigger audience? If so, please pm me.

I think it's great Blankments likes so many people's posts. His quota should be increased by the mods forthwith.

Er, no. He said Horrible bosses is the next movie. I corrected him and said no the next one is something that's not getting a proper theatrical release. I'm certainly not getting played by someone whose trolling is neither funny or clever.

Most people I know haven't. And they have zero interest in ever doing so. I saw it, quite liked it but have never felt any desire to see it again. Cameron pursuing the sequels for years at the expense of making other films is baffling to me.

I got Batman. Dark, intense, passionate, rich but messed up.

It wasn't seen by billions for them to have a view either way.

Loved at Cannes, the London film festival, the London film critics, the Globes, the Baftas, the Australian Academy awards, the Cesars, the Oscars - and those are only the awards I actively followed. There were many others.As I said, you either fell in love with it or you didn't. And millions across the world did.

I first saw it on a Tuesday morning at 9am at a press screening at the London film festival. Everyone grumbled like crazy before it started: a black and white film? Silent? No big stars? This early?Whine, whinge, whinge. Whine.Then we settled down to watch it.Two hours later the cinema erupted in a spontaneous standing ovation. 350 people. We loved it.What boggles one person's mind touches another person's heart.

The Artist was brilliant. One of the best films of the past few years. No current American actor could have carried off that performance. The film deserved every accolade it got.

Bit late to the discussion but my observations on the ' is Leo a draw' :I know you guys were talking about north America mostly but I want to throw this in the mix:Some years ago I travelled across South Asia, including up to the remotest villages of north PAkistan, bordering Afghanistan. The shops there were adorned with posters including of: Rambo, Terminator, Michael Jackson from the Thriller video..... And Leonardo Di Caprio as Jack Dawson.In the private homes I visited, young girls had Titanic posters on their walls. It wasn't acceptable for them to lust after many men but 'Jack' was fine because everyone, from the youngsters to toothless granny wept when he died at the end of Titanic, which they watched over and over on their VCR.I haven't returned to this region since but I've been to other countries where there isn't a big cinema culture but there is a huge DVD industry. People watch all the latest films in the privacy of their homes. Even now when people see a clip of a new Leo film they recognise Jack.Unlike RDJ or Depp who are recognised as their costumed characters, Leo is recognised by his face. I'm sure his face on a DVD cover makes people pick it up because they want to see his latest film.With Stallone and Arnold pretty much finished and Cruise waning, I can't think which other actor's face alone (without a famous costume) would draw in a global audience.Angelina is insanely popular in many of these countries and that has helped Brad Pitt but i still think Leo is king of the world.

I think I agree with rukaio. I wasn't keen on the whole vote for 12 years or you're racist arguments. But I doubt members voted just to be PC. I expect many watched it and were genuinely moved by it and recognised that it is a very well made film, worthy of winning on its wn merits without the politics. And I expect there were some members who liked it well enough but didn't love it but voted for it anyway because of the subject matter etc.I never really bought the whole ,'voters can't watch it because it's too brutal' line. I think that was pr nonsense either to stop it winning or conversely to help it win.It won either way!

TLK, your posts are getting confusing now and the arguments convoluted.You're not dealing with the central issue which is Jennifer Aniston at her age with her limited acting range has little to no leverage in Hollywood when it comes to getting major roles. When Blake Lively is considered for a role that Angelina Jolie has turned down and you are not even in the running for it, you have no leverage to speak of.When you are not considered for any dramatic role because there are at least one dozen bigger and better actresses in your age group blocking your path then you have no leverage to speak of.When big comedy roles are going to Melissa McCArthy and the rare decent rom çom roles are going to younger actresses, your leverage in this genre is sinking and time is not on our side.So if she doesn't get big roles, doesn't get dramatic roles and is losing out on good comedy roles, for what is she going to win an Oscar? What leverage does she have exactly? To do Sandler movies? And you don't need to follow her career closely to read in the industry press that due to We're the Millers making money her asking price has now risen to 5million. Millers was last year so if her asking price has risen to 5 million it was obviously less before. So, no you can't just slip her in with Sandler and throw in figures of 10-15 million.And my last 2 paragraphs make perfect sense. Your original argument was Aniston could easily get any good role she wanted, could easily work with the best writers and directors and be in the running for an Oscar. But she chooses not to. She doesn't care about oscars or good roles or working with good people. She'd rather make bad rom coms because when they don't flop (wanderlust, management, the bounty hunter etc) they make decent money.I said I had never heard of any actor or actress refusing to do good work in order to do shit. I stand by that. It's like you saying Cuaron begged her to do Gravity/ silver linings etc. The studio was willing to pay her 20 million. But she turned it all down because the artist in her demanded that she fellate a banana in Horrible bosses for 2-3million (if that) instead!I'm not going to waste any more time on this. Bottom line: Jennifer Aniton does not get offered good roles. She takes what she can get, which are the shitty rom coms and even they are drying up for her. And she will never be nominated for or win any significant award let alone an Oscar.

The Good girl. About 15 or more years ago. She got an independent spirit nomination for it. Nothing else.

She herself has said she wants an Oscar. ( btw add Theron to the list of 40-50 year olds In her path - another Oscar winner).She very recently just failed to get a role she read for. It went to Hathaway. So if you lose roles to Sarah Jessica Parker and Hathaway, please tell me how you get past Bullock, Blanchett et al to land these good roles that apparently are just waiting for her?I have never heard a single director, writer actor of note say their dream is to work with Jennifer Aniston or that only she could play a part. If I've missed someone's absolute desperation to experience her Rachel hair flick style of acting I'll stand corrected.If she's so bankable and Oscar calibre why didn't Cuaron go to her after his first choice Angelina turned down Gravity? He saw the likes of Scarlett and Portman and settled on Sandra. Why didn't Woody Allen think she'd be perfect for the role of an ageing, deluded narcissist who lost everything when she lost her husband?Why is her name never, ever mentioned in connection with any major or even medium sized role? If she can get any big studio to give her a role why has she just signed for a film with a budget of just 7 million with no distribution deal in sight?I've heard of stars turning down big, bland studio roles to do meaty indie fare in the hope of getting awards or to challenge themselves artistically.I have NEVER heard of an actress CHOOSING to deny herself meaty Oscar worthy roles and / or big lead roles that people are apparently willing to hand her on a plate in order to do shitty roles in a crappy ensemble piece because it might make a bit of money for someone else!!And thank you Futurist for clarifying that your original comment was a joke. I don't think I could take two people on this forum who seriously think Rachel from Friends at age 45 is an Oscar contender!

Recently she auditioned for a small role to play Gloria Steinem in, I think, the Lovelace movie. She lost the role to Sarah Jessica Parker. Yes, Sarah Jessica Parker!In the 40-50 age bracket there are the following: Bullock, Blanchett, Roberts, Kidman, Diaz, Swank, Watts, Thurman, Weisz and Berry. Just bubbling under 40 are Jolie, Winslet, Chastain, Adams and a slew of others. Just over 50 are Foster and Julianne Moore. Almost all are Oscar winners or at least nominees. The only producer who would sign Aniston over any of these actresses would be one who was in a padded cell.So, I don't think she could ' easily' get a good role or, frankly even with great difficulty.And if she could 'easily' get Oscar bait movies made then, why in 20 years hasn't she? Because she loves doing those shitty rom coms? No, because that is all she is offered and it's either do those or go back to television. As for being a box office draw - she has been in movies that have made money, there's a difference. Those movies would have made money if Miss Piggy had been in her place. She has never carried a movie. She heavily promotes the movies for her National Enquirer fans but she has never been the name or face of any movie.There are only 3 certainties in life; death, taxes and that Jennifer Aniston will never be part of an Oscar conversation ( except on this thread and even this has to stop now because it needs to)

I do say never. I will lay anyone on this forum the heftiest bet that she will never get within spitting distance of even being nominated let alone winning. She's 45, has never shown the slightest interest in developing her craft and meagre, one note 'talent' and having never been in the running for a half decent role in her younger days is hardly going to be offered anything now.And, for the record; Sandra's talent made Miss Congeniality work. Matthew M started in serious dramas like A time to kill and then went downhill with the bad rom coms for a few years. Aniston doesn't have Sandra's talent ( and please, yes, I am aware of the one half decent performance she managed some 18 years ago) and will be last in line even for any just ok role for a middle aged woman. There are enough Oscar winners, nominees and amazing actresses in their 40/50s who can barely find a good role to ensure that she won't get a look in.