Ten who get paid
The Hollywood Reporter just released its annual list of the most highly paid actresses in motion pictures. Let's dish, shall we?
10. Jennifer Lopez ($12 Million per film): I'm not among the J-Lo haters. I think she has a pleasant screen presence, and does just fine in roles that don't demand too much from her. I'm just not the audience for the chick-flicky stuff for which she's best suited (i.e., Maid in Manhattan, The Wedding Planner).
9. Renee Zellweger ($12 Million): As much as I loved Chicago (and I did, as you can read in my review here), she was the weakest link in it. I've never seen her in anything that really made me say, "Wow." I'll be interested to see her as Janis Joplin when Piece of My Heart comes out next year.
8. Angelina Jolie ($12-15 Million): Enjoy her on screen — I even liked the universally panned Tomb Raider pictures — but don't think I'd want to spend an evening at dinner with her. There's something very weird going on inside that woman.
7. Sandra Bullock ($12-15 Million): She's delightful, maybe even underrated as an actress, but when was the last time she was in a good movie? I would love to see her star in a big-screen adaptation of Wonder Woman.
6. Halle Berry ($14 Million): Stunningly gorgeous and supremely talented — yes, she deserved the Oscar for Monster's Ball, you small-minded nay-sayers, and if you've never seen her in Introducing Dorothy Dandridge, you've missed another stellar performance — but needs to (a) get over herself, and (b) fire her agent. Yesterday. Catwoman? Gothika? Now a remake of Foxy Brown? Egad.
5. Drew Barrymore ($15 Million): See Angelina Jolie — I like watching her, but wouldn't care to be around her. See also Sandra Bullock — when was she last in a really good movie? And don't you dare say Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle, or I'll throttle you.
4. Reese Witherspoon ($15 Million): I find her chirpy and annoying, but I have to admit she's a darned fine actress within her sphere. The pointy chin bothers me, though.
3. Nicole Kidman ($15 Million): I know it's fashionable now to rip on the former Mrs. Cruise, but I admire her acting quite a bit. She's not afraid to take chances onscreen, which is one of the marks of a great actor. I do, however, want to take Nicole to Quizno's for a big sloppy sandwich everytime I see her lately. And I'm secretly grateful that she was injured 12 days into the filming of Panic Room, because I thought Jodie Foster was incredible in it as her last-minute replacement.
2. Cameron Diaz ($20 Million): Ugh. Just...ugh.
1. Julia Roberts ($20 Million): See Cameron Diaz.
10. Jennifer Lopez ($12 Million per film): I'm not among the J-Lo haters. I think she has a pleasant screen presence, and does just fine in roles that don't demand too much from her. I'm just not the audience for the chick-flicky stuff for which she's best suited (i.e., Maid in Manhattan, The Wedding Planner).
9. Renee Zellweger ($12 Million): As much as I loved Chicago (and I did, as you can read in my review here), she was the weakest link in it. I've never seen her in anything that really made me say, "Wow." I'll be interested to see her as Janis Joplin when Piece of My Heart comes out next year.
8. Angelina Jolie ($12-15 Million): Enjoy her on screen — I even liked the universally panned Tomb Raider pictures — but don't think I'd want to spend an evening at dinner with her. There's something very weird going on inside that woman.
7. Sandra Bullock ($12-15 Million): She's delightful, maybe even underrated as an actress, but when was the last time she was in a good movie? I would love to see her star in a big-screen adaptation of Wonder Woman.
6. Halle Berry ($14 Million): Stunningly gorgeous and supremely talented — yes, she deserved the Oscar for Monster's Ball, you small-minded nay-sayers, and if you've never seen her in Introducing Dorothy Dandridge, you've missed another stellar performance — but needs to (a) get over herself, and (b) fire her agent. Yesterday. Catwoman? Gothika? Now a remake of Foxy Brown? Egad.
5. Drew Barrymore ($15 Million): See Angelina Jolie — I like watching her, but wouldn't care to be around her. See also Sandra Bullock — when was she last in a really good movie? And don't you dare say Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle, or I'll throttle you.
4. Reese Witherspoon ($15 Million): I find her chirpy and annoying, but I have to admit she's a darned fine actress within her sphere. The pointy chin bothers me, though.
3. Nicole Kidman ($15 Million): I know it's fashionable now to rip on the former Mrs. Cruise, but I admire her acting quite a bit. She's not afraid to take chances onscreen, which is one of the marks of a great actor. I do, however, want to take Nicole to Quizno's for a big sloppy sandwich everytime I see her lately. And I'm secretly grateful that she was injured 12 days into the filming of Panic Room, because I thought Jodie Foster was incredible in it as her last-minute replacement.
2. Cameron Diaz ($20 Million): Ugh. Just...ugh.
1. Julia Roberts ($20 Million): See Cameron Diaz.
SwanShadow was randomly pounding the keyboard at 12:00 PM
5 insisted on sticking two cents in:
first of all, Julia should be stabbed at least once for naming her son Phinneaus.
Cameron Diaz? please. she's the least talented of the group. i swear, if it wasn't for "Mary" (and i loved that movie), she wouldn't be anything.
halle? i just hate her. with the fiery burning passion of a thousand suns. she's just the queen of self-importance. fire her agent? she probably saw those scripts and thought that she was a big enough star to carry those films on her name alone. hello, wrongness!
well. at least we can all take heart in the fact that "most highly paid actress" does not necessarily equate to "best actress."
on a side note, i comment on so many blogger blogs, i find myself wanting to get one just so's i don't have to be "anonymous". i'm not anonymous - i'm me!
First off, welcome aboard, and thanks for the comments.
Second, you may not have to remain anonymous forever. I'm thinking about installing Haloscan comments so that non-Blogger folks can represent. I'm still mulling it over, but I'll probably make a decision this week.
I completly agree with #2. Has Cameron Diaz ever actually been in a good film? I wouldn't know. I tend to avoid anything with her name on it.
I find that I usually don't agree with the hype surrounding most actresses, or actors for that matter. Drew Barrymore? Sandra Bullock? They're ok, but for the most part, they play the same part over and over. You don't hear a lot about great actresses in my opinion like Lili Taylor or Judy Davis, who are constantly transforming themselves.
Thanks for the comment btw!
I agree with your assessment 100 percent, Janet. In the business of cinema, photogenicity and perceived sex appeal trumps genuine thespian talent almost every time, especially for women. Thus, most of the "actresses" who get the bulk of the attention don't deserve it, and the ones who do deserve it, rarely get it because they aren't "Hollywood cute."
Certainly there are exceptions -- on this list, for instance, Nicole Kidman is a beautiful woman with legend-caliber acting chops. Halle Berry and Angelina Jolie are both close to that level (Halle needs the right role and a strong director, though, more so than Nic and Ange). Drew Barrymore, Reese Witherspoon, and Sandra Bullock all have camera appeal but, as you say, they've not shown the ability to transcend a single screen persona. I don't think Julia Roberts and Renee Zellweger, to a lesser degree J-Lo, and especially Cameron Diaz, display much (in Cameron's case, any) true talent at all.
Tell you what, Janet. I'll follow up this post with a list of "Ten Who Should Get Paid" -- actresses who deserve greater acclaim and fatter paychecks. Lili Taylor and Judy Davis wouldn't be bad choices for that list. Let's see what I come up with, and we'll chat more. Deal?
Post a Comment
<< Home