I find Renee Zellwegger ikky. There is something about her that makes me nuts. Like, she makes my scalp itch. I have moments where I think: If I ever see her puckered-up apple-doll smile again, I feel like my head is going to explode.
I am truly baffled by her success. Her success seems to be an industry-creation, rather than something organic.
By that I mean: The industry anointed her as "she will be the big star for the next couple of years and will get nominated for Oscards left and right" ... as opposed to the PUBLIC deciding: "I love that girl - who is SHE? Let's see more of her!"
To me, it's almost like a scent - the difference in those two kinds of success. The "industry" hopes that we will be fooled. Like: Let's put Gretchen Mol on the cover of "Vanity Fair" ... and see if it takes off! (Does anyone remember Gretchen Mol being on the cover of "Vanity Fair"? It was years ago, 10 years ago or something? The title was: "GRETCHEN MOL. HOLLYWOOD'S NEW 'IT' GIRL". She had done 2 semi-successful indie movies, or something ... and yet - there was the title - she's the new thing!! Gretchen Mol is still working - but in that case, the spin didn't work. Nobody bought the lie.)
This is obviously a matter of personal taste, but I can list a bunch of people that I think have that artificial kind of success. The studios decide to push them to the foreground, or they have excellent publicists, or whatever. Renee Zellweger has always struck me as that kind of success. Not that she is completely talent-less, but ... to get the kinds of roles she's getting? To be pretty much above criticism over the last couple of years? I don't get it. Is there anyone who is an actual Renee Zellweger FAN, who can explain it to me? I've never met one. I've never met someone who said, "My favorite actress is Renee Zellweger" - so I have no idea.
Now somebody like Julia Roberts - whether or not you like her acting - undeniably had the kind of organic success I described originally. Nobody was planning on "Pretty Woman" being a huge hit. She didn't even do publicity for it. She had already moved on to her next job. She wasn't being pampered for stardom, or primed, or pushed into the limelight (the way Gwyneth was with the Miramax boys. Again, I'm not saying that Gwyneth is without talent. But with the power of Miramax behind her, her burst of stardom felt more like an industry coronation rather than a spontaneous brush-fire.)
Julia Roberts' success was a spontaneous brush-fire. People went NUTS over this girl. THEY decided she was a star, and then the studios had to play catch-up. ("Oh yeah, oh yeah, isn't she great? Yeah ... we always knew she'd be a big star ... yeah, we meant to do this ... we knew it all along.") But in the end - the studios had nothing to do with what happened there. She was just a young working actress, and the public went APESHIT, and demanded: MORE OF HER, MORE OF HER.
(Very very rare, that kind of success. Marilyn Monroe had it, a couple others.)
Julia Roberts, busy filming Sleeping with the Enemy, down in North Carolina or somewhere like that, was unaware of how much money Pretty Woman made in its opening weekend, and also was unaware of the kind of manic insanely positive press she was getting. She was just trying to do her next movie, trying to do a good job - unaware that her fortunes had just changed, and the one in a million event had just happened to her: she had become a massive movie star pretty much overnight.
I don't care if you put Renee Zellweger on 20 Vanity Fair covers - I don't care how much the industry tells me how great she is - I don't care how many reviewers seem to unquestioningly believe that she is a great actress - I don't see it. I DON'T GET IT.
I feel like they've just read her press packet and bought the spin.
It's not like I thrash about in bed at night, wondering at this phenomenon ... but it does occur to me sometimes when I walk by a magazine stand and see her smirking apple-doll face on the cover of 5 magazines.
I'm sick of her, frankly.
I have liked her performances before. I love "Jerry Maguire" - but it's really the performances AROUND her that I love (especially the sublime Bonnie Hunt, who plays her sister). I liked "Chicago" (sort of) - but I have to be honest: I truly do not know what the fucking big deal was about that movie. The response to it was as though Rob Marshall had ... made another "Citizen Kane" or something - I thought the "OH MY GOD, HAVE YOU SEEN CHICAGO" response was baffling. "Yeah, man, I saw it ... and ... so?" I thought Catherine Zeta-Jones alone deserved the hoop-la. I didn't think Renee, or Queen Latifah, or Richard Gere did.
I don't talk much about my own experiences with acting here - It's hard to write about my own acting and not feel self-conscious about it - but I'll just say this:
Renee Zellweger reminds me of the chick in EVERY class - who has a bunch of bad acting habits - but who plays the game so well that she fools even the teacher. And so the bad habits become applauded, engrained, and solidified. And you just keep hoping that someday, someday, someone will tell the TRUTH to this person.
There was a chick like that in my graduate program (I'm telling you - there's a chick like that in every acting class. She skates by on some facile ability - but it's all on the surface. She is deeply dishonest on some level, and she can't bear criticism because it will crash the house of cards she has erected for herself) ... it wasn't until the third year when someone FINALLY had the guts to try to crack the edifice with this girl in my class, and try to actually say, "Listen, sweetheart, your acting isn't perfect, okay? You have a lot of work to do ..."
By this point, though, this girl I refer to had been coddled and lied to so much about her talent that she was literally unable to hear criticism. She literally did not understand what was being said to her. The ego had calcified. Nothing could get in there. (And of course, when something hardens like that, it becomes 100 times more fragile. This is what I saw on this girl's face: a hardness and also a fragility. The truth was terrifying to her.) She had been breathing rarified air of no-criticism for 2 years. Meanwhile, the rest of us - in the trenches - having to deal with tough truths about ourselves, willing to do the damn work - had hardened up so much through the graduate program that I feel like someone could say, right to my face, "You completely suck", and I flat out would not believe them. It's a subtle difference, and maybe I'm not describing it well.
You MUST believe in yourself. You MUST believe in yourself in the face of 1000 "No, thank you"s. You MUST believe harder than anyone else that YOU CAN DO THIS.
But that's not what I'm talking about here.
To be blunt: I think reviewers have been blowing smoke up Renee Zellweger's ass for the past 5 years, and over-praising work that is merely adequate.
And I also think that Renee KNOWS THIS HERSELF. She never seems to be really smiling, she never seems to really inhabit her own body, she never seems to be having all that much fun ... I think she's hoping that nobody will eventually guess what she already knows: that her acting is kind of shallow, and that she's scared to death. That's what her smile says to me, the same smile she gives in every photograph. You know the one. No teeth showing, chin lowered, a kind of knowing close-lipped smirk. It's not the smile of a woman who really gets a bang out of what she's doing, or who knows who she is.
I admit, I'm a bit obsessed with her. She comes up for me a lot, but only because ... I have watched her rise to the top and have been utterly baffled by it. Is it the Bridget Jones thing?
I can see the appeal of that movie, but again I would say that for me the real appeal of that movie is the performances of the MEN in it.
Same with Down with Love. I was baffled at the free pass she was given with that film. Her acting was bad, her understanding of the style of the movie was bad and shallow (unlike McGregor, who totally got it) - and yet - the reviewers gave her a free pass. Didn't call her on her shit.
I watched her sashaying around in that movie, basically just a clothes-horse, doing some weird thing with her walk (I think she was imitating Audrey Hepburn - but she was doing so very badly) and I thought: Damn, if I were teaching a class, I would stop her immediately, 2 lines into the scene, and say, "Okay. Breathe. Take a couple minutes. Get your act together. Ask yourself: What do I want in this scene? What is my objective? And THEN start the scene."
I mean, it was basic acting 101 shit in that movie. She sucked.
Oh, and lastly: I don't think gaining and losing weight for a role is indicative of anything. I was so sick of hearing about "Renee eating donuts" and "Renee eating pizza" that I wanted to fly across the Atlantic and punch her in her puckered-up mouth. That whole thing was vanity. Not dedication to the craft, or to her part. "Oooh, look at me, I'm so dedicated that I am going to gain 25 pounds ..."
The second Bridget Jones just came out - and I actually felt a thrill of excitement when I read the great James Berardinelli's review:
The Bridget of Bridget Jones' Diary seemed like a real person; this one is a caricature. The performance is lazy; this may be the least appealing work Zellweger has exhibited in a major role. And, although she gained back the pounds, she lost the knack of the accent. This time around, it would be charitable to call Zellweger's accent "uneven."
I thought when I read this: Jeez, thank God. At last. And not only is it a bad review, but it zeroes in on her acting. "The performance is lazy." I have thought all along that Zellweger was lazy - she doesn't seem to come across the screen at me - she plays it safe, and coy.
Good for Berardinelli. More truthful observations:
The only time the movie gains a pulse is when Hugh Grant is on screen. Grant reprises the part of Daniel with the perfect mix of charm and oiliness. It's a delightful mix, and Grant plays the role to the hilt. Unfortunately, his screen time is no more than 25 minutes, and the running length of the movie is quadruple that. Character actors like Jim Broadbent and Gemma Jones (as Bridget's dad and mum) are short-changed - they have glorified cameos.
I know I probably sound petty and jealous. I suppose I am. But I have also always disliked this actress, and do not understand the appeal. At all.
"This performance is lazy".
I'm allowing myself a moment of schaudenfraude. It's been a long time coming.
Not only have I never met a Renee Zellweger fan, I've actually never met anyone who did not LOATHE her. I can hardly stomach the woman. I think you hit the nail right on the head. There is nothing about her that makes her a stand-out from a public point of view. She just has an industrious publicist or something. Who knows. Maybe she blew all the right people. I know that's cruel, but so is subjecting this woman to a public that doesn't really seem to want her. At least not in the doses we're getting.
Posted by: Emily at November 8, 2004 5:13 PMI think Renee knows it, too. There was something subdued and self-deprecating about her Oscar speech ... like she didn't think she should really be up there.
Compare that to Julia's speech. Which I thought was great.
"I'm totally going to talk over my allotted time slot, because I have no idea when I'll be up here again!"
Posted by: red at November 8, 2004 5:20 PMYou are not alone. Her face, apple doll is good, but also like an apple doll that has just eaten something that tastes awful but she isn't able to spit it out and then she has to smile. And when she was using Botox, could you really tell? I don't get her and Jack White, either. The woman projects no emotion. How could she, with her scrunched up eyes and bulbous lips? No, Sheila, you are not alone in your perplexation of Renee Z.
Posted by: Carrie at November 8, 2004 5:25 PMYou are insane. You just wrote a ginormous post about Renee F'in Zellweger.
I am insane. I read the whole damn post.
And no, for the record I've never met a Zellwegger fan.
Posted by: Dan at November 8, 2004 5:32 PMRenee doesn't bother me, cause I never watch her movies, and that's all she does. However, I do have this visceral, negative reaction to Julianne Moore every time that I see her. I'm not sure what it is, it seems to be subconscious, but she bugs the crap out of me.
Posted by: skillzy at November 8, 2004 5:38 PMShe was the main reason I put off seeing Cold Mountain for so long. When I did see it, I was at least surprised that she had a unique part. But her acting made the character difficult to believe.
I totally agree that her movies are only good when the people around her make the movie good. She has little to do with their success.
I am being lazy and not sending you an email directly, but you may forgive me due to the subject.
I heard last night on AMC or TCM, can't remember which, that there is a new bio on Cary Grant coming out.
Were you aware of it?
Posted by: j swift at November 8, 2004 5:47 PMI actually have seen that there is a new one out - it was on display at Barnes & Noble. It looks great. And I'm touched that you would want to tell me about it!
Cary Grant is the obsession that will never die.
I. Love. Sheila.
This is why you are one of my favorite people on the planet. Zelwegger is a complete and utter waste of time and celluloid. When I saw that Bridgett Jones thing, I walked outside, and screamed at the top of my lungs:
"RENEE ZELWEGGER!! YOU OWE ME 2 HOURS OF MY LIFE , DAMMIT!!!!!!"
And I'm not kidding.
She's false and as blank as they come. I also saw that other thing she did, that Mountain thing with poor Nicole Kidman trapped inside of it. What the heck was she doing, and who on earth did she think she was fooling? What was up with her "Mountain Accent"? Moron.
I'm upset now.
Posted by: Alex at November 8, 2004 6:14 PMSigh... Well, I about laughed my frick'n' arse off at the BJD movie, and have liked Zellweger ever since (even though the book's like a bazillion times better.) I've been looking forward to the next movie for months now. And she wears Caroline Herrera like nobody else. Which for me counts for a lot, since almost every actress seems inexplicably to pant over that platinum-silicone skank-mistress ho Donatella Versace.
::dodges broken beer glass hurled at virtual head::
But I have to admit, I've always been puzzled by why they didn't cast BJ as the 'dusky' beauty she was described as in the book.
"The ego had calcified" - what a great line Sheila.
Posted by: Betsy at November 8, 2004 6:18 PMFirst of all, Sheila, you're my hero for your brilliant use of the word "calcified." Bravo.
And this particluar line:
"It's not like I thrash about in bed at night, wondering at this phenomenon ..." made me snort. I would have done a spit-take if there was a beverage in my mouth.
Renee doesn't really bother me but I completely understand where you're coming from. I feel the same way about some celebrities. For instance, Tom Hanks would have dislodging my foot from his ass if I were to meet him in the street. I want to punch his jiggly face with all of my might. I know to some it's the equivalent of knocking down an old lady or kicking a puppy but I don't care. That man makes my blood boil.
But I digress, this was a brilliant piece. :)
Posted by: curly mcdimple at November 8, 2004 6:24 PMOh Sheila, I'm glad you spilled the beans on Renee. Her "big" scene in Down With Love, where she turns the tables on Ewan and explains how she fooled him, is one of the most atrocious moments in cinema history! Her little girl voice becomes more and more weak, almost whispery, as she recites her lines with not a trace of conviction, energy, or emotion. Three interminable minutes later, Ewan's only possible response should be, "Drop dead," but instead he's even more smitten. Smitten being the operative word, because that's what you feel when a kitten becomes manipulative.
Another skin-crawlly moment may be found on the bonus materials section of the Cold Mountain DVD, where La Zellweger expounds on the remarkable movie-making skill of Anthony Minghella. In her breathless recounting of the war scenes, she expresses her blown-awayness from seeing row upon row of Romanian soldiers lying on their bellies. "There they were, rows of men, all lined up, oh wow, it was so . . . so wow, so like rows of men, so amazing, really."
She's sweeter than saccharine and just as tumor-inducing.
Posted by: Stevie at November 8, 2004 6:42 PMSheila, my father's description of Renee Zellwegger is "vapid". It is sort of heart warming that you and my father agree ;)
Posted by: Noggie at November 8, 2004 7:38 PMI feel the same way about Brad Pitt. 99% of women think he's the best thing since sliced bread, and I'm all, "I don't get it." He ooes NOTHING for me.
I mean, he's all right, I guess. He's certainly not UGLY. But he always looks like he needs a bath. Or some Ban Roll-On. I just. . .I don't know. Not my thing.
If he was a better actor, I would feel differently, I think. I could get into him like I did with Adrien Brody. But I never feel like he inhabits a character -- he's always playing "Brad Pitt in the role of . . ." if that makes sense.
What were we talking about? Renee Zellweger? Oh, yeah. Hate her. I sort of liked her in "Jerry Maguire," because I thought it was great that they didn't cast a classic beauty in the role. She looked like a real person. But I got sick of her REAL quick.
Posted by: Lisa at November 8, 2004 7:48 PMSheila, once again you've outdone yourself (sorry, the phrase came to mind). An instant "Sheila Classic"! You do have the gift of articulating in simply amazing language what so many of us feel.
Bee-stung-faced Renee strikes me as a one-trick pony that, as you suggest, has a powerful hype machine behind her (or in front of her, as per Emily above). As to "Chicago": ditto your sentiments. Not one of the leads can sing or dance (OK, Queen can belt them out). But our little Renee was a gymnast or some such thing when she was a kid, so she was so quickly able to learn how to dance; so goes the PR.
Excuse me while I now run to watch Part 1 of Masterpiece Theatre's "Henry VIII" that I taped lat night. I NEED to wash that cow out of my hair by watching some real acting.
Posted by: Bud at November 8, 2004 8:02 PMYeah, well, I'm still pissed at the "public" for demanding the screen killing presence of Julia Roberts on us. When she's in frame, the whole thing...flattens and I start scanning about for any product placements that might be spotted. I've never understood a second of why she came into such demand and power.
Posted by: timmy at November 8, 2004 8:36 PMI've got to add this about "Chicago." Rob Marshall, as you all know, was widely praised for bringing it to the screen. The hype goes that no other director could figure out how to transfer it from stage to film. Why? Because they knew better; it simply doesn't work.
When I think of "Chicago" comapred to "All About Eve" in terms of the conniving upstart lusting after stardom, I'd suggest that the Oscars that went to the former should be followed by an asterisk (as they do in Major League Baseball to indicate that some records were achieved in a longer season than the records that were broken). And that asterisk would indicate that as Sheila writes, the hype/PR machine was in play.
Posted by: Bud at November 8, 2004 8:45 PMWell, l'il ol' Renee's a hometown gal, from right down the road in Katy. Doesn't mean I like her all that much!
I liked BJD, but I think there were any number of women who could have pulled it off just as well. Shirley Henderson (Topsy-Turvy; Once Upon A Time In The Midlands; Potter #2) could have done it. Ditto Martine McCutcheon (Eastenders; Love, Actually), Dawn Steele (Monarch Of The Glen) or Julia Sawalha (AbFab).
Ms. Zellweger's days of fame were called to question a long while back, when in Sopranos Season #1 Carmela Soprano told Father Lecherous "I told you I didn't like Renee Zellwegah movies!"
Posted by: El Capitan at November 8, 2004 9:00 PMHer and Princess Michael of Kent, Sheila. ;-)
Posted by: Dave J at November 8, 2004 9:27 PMEmily says she has never met anyone who did not LOATHE Renee Zellweger. Here I am. I kinda recognized the name as I started reading the post, but I know nothing about any of the movies she's appeared in. One of them there "proves the rule" type exceptions.
I just ordered a video from the library for the first time in two years. "Love Happy" because the last time I watched it I didn't appreciate that Marilyn Monroe had a minor role.
Posted by: triticale at November 8, 2004 10:36 PMI was living overseas, I guess, when the media annointment of Zellweger happened, 'cuz I missed it completely. But having seen her in films, I think she's one of the finest actresses out there! From "A Pearl of Great Value" through "Bridget Jones I" and "Chicago," I've enjoyed every one of her films. Haven't seen her latest, nor--of course--"Bridget Jones II", so no comment there.
I also think Zellweger is hot, hot, hot, but realize that "eye of the beholder..." is the rule.
She did strike me as very original as a real human being in the few interviews with her I've seen. She seems like a real Texan.
But I'm bored far beyond tears, far beyond sh*t, even, with Julia Roberts, Meryl Streep, and just about any other actress out there. I'd be delighted to find someone new, with talent.
Posted by: John at November 8, 2004 11:17 PMhate her.
Posted by: mere at November 9, 2004 6:32 AMred:
that was a frickin' BRILLIANT post. Loved it.
And I loathe R. Zellweger too. There's something - ikky - about her, as you put it.
I can't stand the commercials for the new Bridget Jones movie, they just creep me out.
As for the whole no-talent-but-skates-along-because-of-surficial-crap: That, sadly, is true in every profession. If I had a buck for every scientist-poseur and professer-poseur and college-administrator-poseur I've met, people who really don't know their crap, but who make a mad success of it anyway because they've got some kind of mutant charm and they've been coddled along by people they've bamboozled, well, I'd be able to retire. (Like, I'd be able to retire today. I'm not talking about taking my few sorry dollars and investing them for thirty years and retiring on the return)
Posted by: ricki at November 9, 2004 9:44 AMLike I said in the post:
Whether or not you think Julia Roberts is a good actress, the kind of success she received was an organic phenomenon - an outpouring from the public - as opposed to anything generated by a team of publicists.
Huge difference.
Tom Cruise had the same kind of success. Risky Business happened and BOOM - the public wanted more. He wasn't being groomed or pampered - he had had bit parts in tons of movies, nothing big ... and then like a flash the Tom Cruise thing HIT.
Posted by: red at November 9, 2004 9:45 AMDave J:
I KNEW you were gonna bring up Princess Michael!! HAHAHA
Posted by: red at November 9, 2004 9:59 AMwillow:
I enjoyed Bridget Jones as well, but obviously because of the 2 hot guys in it ... who also are lovely actors!
I read the book, thought it was hilarious - and I thought that Renee gaining weight missed the entire point of that book. In the book, she calculates on a daily basis her weight, which never goes over 122. That's kind of the joke. That she is counting calories and obsessing when obviously her weight is fine. At least, as a woman, who behaves that way myself, I really related to that - the satire of that.
So I thought her making a big to-do about gaining weight was silly, and a publicity stunt, and blah blah blah.
I will not be seeing this second movie. It sounds dumb. But I did enjoy the first one. Like I said, I've liked a lot of movies that she was in - but not because of her. Jerry Maguire, etc.
Posted by: red at November 9, 2004 10:02 AMcurly:
hahahahaha "The man makes my blood boil"
Isn't it so funny how some people just GRATE on you for no particular reason??
like - do not even ask my brother, "So - what do you think of Laura LInney" - if you are not prepared for him to go OFF on her for about 20 minutes. (Of course, it's so funny when he does go off on her, that I purposefully ask him, "Talk to me about Laura Linney, please...")
Posted by: red at November 9, 2004 10:03 AMEl Capitan:
"Carmela Soprano told Father Lecherous "I told you I didn't like Renee Zellwegah movies!"
hahahaha! Too funny! I remember that.
Posted by: red at November 9, 2004 10:04 AMwhy do they give her a free pass? sheez, where have YOU been! we live in the country of american idol, survivor part XXIX, macdonald's, nicholas sparks...of COURSE renee zellwegger gets a free pass.
that said, it's always fun to read about anything the writer is passionate about. you are obviously passionate in your hatred for renee. good show.
perhaps i will one day open up about my intense, fiery, burning, all-consuming HATRED for the very CONCEPT of nicholas sparks.
but first, you need to email me back. ;-)
Posted by: beth at November 9, 2004 10:05 AMAlex:
Sorry to upset you. I think it's one of the funnest things in life to get all upset over ridiculous things like Renee Zellweger. I think it's hilarious.
I got so upset and so angry one day while ranting with my sisters about how much we all hate Jewel that I had to go take a walk.
hahahaha
Posted by: red at November 9, 2004 10:05 AMI cannot believe how many comments and how many Trackbacks this ridiculous post has generated.
Posted by: red at November 9, 2004 10:06 AMbeth- I know. You're on my To Do list. Sorry - going to Ireland next week. I'm a bit nuts.
I hate Nicholas Sparks too.
And I submit that there's an enormous difference between giving the American Idol and Bachelor stars a free pass, and nominating this chick for Oscars. There is a difference, a huge difference.
I'm about to say something EXTREMELY controversial:
As much as I have liked Kevin Spacey's work in a lot of things, I also think that he is way over-praised for work that is pretty much adequate.
Posted by: red at November 9, 2004 10:09 AMricki:
You know, I have had conversations with friends from all walks of life - in all different professions - and they all say what you say: There are those people who seem to FOOL everybody, and still rise up to the top. And it's enraging, no matter what profession it is!
John:
I would pay 10 bucks to watch Meryl Streep read the damn phone book. ha! I don't care WHAT that woman does - I pay my money, I go to see it.
Posted by: red at November 9, 2004 10:14 AMtriticale:
I am thrilled to hear that there is someone out there who barely knows who Miss Z is.
It is quite comforting.
I've never seen Love Happy - odd, because of my Marilyn obsession. The other one of hers that I have still not seen (sorry, Alex) is called, I believe, "Don't Bother to Knock".
Posted by: red at November 9, 2004 10:16 AMJust realized this is the perfect place to finally rant about Kevin McCarthy, whose entire career I find completely perplexing. Mannequin? St. Elmo's Fire? Class? Has he ever been even approaching adequate? I figure he must have some amazing sexual skill to have been cast so often.
Posted by: stevie at November 9, 2004 11:06 AMAndrew McCarthy, you mean?
Posted by: red at November 9, 2004 11:07 AMI actually liked him in St. Elmo's Fire and thought Ally Sheedy was INSANE NOT TO GO WITH HIM, and he was pretty good in Dorothy Parker and the Vicious Circle.
I wanted to punch him in the head in Pretty in Pink but mainly because he was a wuss, and Jon Cryer REALLY loved her, while his character was a wimp.
Unfortunately, his youthful pseudo-handsomeness has degenerated recently into kind of rat-like features.
I need to be locked away.
Really I do.
Posted by: red at November 9, 2004 11:09 AMVery intersting and I mostly agree.
I was one, however, who wanted to see a lot more of Renee Zellweger after seeing Jerry Maguire. I wanted her cast again and I wanted to see more. Not that she was such an outstanding actress based on the film, but she did very well and came from nowhere(at least from my perspective). It was a great movie with great performances and she did well in it. I thought that she could really become a star and looked forward to seeing it happen.
Unfortunately, I haven't seen it. Everything I have seen her in since that time has left me unimpressed. It began to appear that it was simply the role in Jerry Maguire that lended itself to her ability and not vice-versa. I have enjoyed other movies she has been in, but certainly not because of her performance in them.
All in all, I thought should could become something, but she didn't. I don't know why hollywood keeps trying to insist that she has.
Posted by: Aaron Pohle at November 9, 2004 11:41 AMAaron - I very much liked Jerry Maguire because it was unexpected ... she was an unknown girl, and the character was interesting. But ... to keep hearing that she is God's gift to acting ... I don't understand.
Now I really will lay in bed, thrashing about in torment, wondering WHY WHY WHY
:)
Posted by: red at November 9, 2004 12:03 PMI've always found Zellweger pretty innocuous - worthy of neither excessive praise nor particular ire.
Demi Moore and Bratt Pid make me grind my teeth. And something about Susan Sarandon has always rubbed me the wrong way, even in movies I loved.
Oddly enough, I don't WANT to like Julia Roberts or Tom Cruise, but there's something disarming about them once the actually start acting.
Posted by: mitch at November 9, 2004 12:24 PMAltho Marilyn's role (Clara) in "A Ticket to Tomahawk" was uncredited, the Narrow Gauge and Shortline Gazette found a publicity still with her front and center. It was featured in their series on film use of narrow gauge railroads
Posted by: triticale at November 9, 2004 1:45 PMsheila, as long as you agree with me that joaquin phoenix is friggin' amazing, you can say what you want about spacey.
Posted by: beth at November 9, 2004 2:04 PMBeth:
I loved him in Parenthood (when his name was Leaf) and I thought he was fantastic in Signs. Loved him in Signs.
"I'm a miracle man..."
Great performance.
We cool now?
Posted by: red at November 9, 2004 2:37 PMsure.
Posted by: beth at November 9, 2004 4:25 PM//As much as I have liked Kevin Spacey's work in a lot of things, I also think that he is way over-praised for work that is pretty much adequate.//
Yes. Like American Beauty.
Posted by: Dan at November 9, 2004 4:54 PMYes, Andrew McCarthy. And you're so right about Kevin Spacey.
Posted by: Stevie at November 9, 2004 5:20 PM"The ego had calcified" - what a great line Sheila. -betsy
I don't know that a greater line has been written. "The ego had calcified" I think I could now write a book on the calcified ego and human beings desire to calcify their own egos and yet, the absolute destruction of the psyche when one's ego becomes calcified. I may lay in terror tonight praying that my ego doesn't calcify.
Posted by: David at November 9, 2004 7:10 PMIn case anyone is still around...
I recall someone using the example of "Chicago" with Catherine Zeta Jones and Renee Zellweger as proof that standards are lower for blondes.
I was not convinced by the argument, but had to admit it was a good supporting example.
Posted by: Ash at November 11, 2004 5:29 PMall i can say is amen!
Posted by: girlwonder at November 14, 2004 12:20 PMI stumbled upon your post, after looking for bad reviews on the second BJD movie, I just watched on DVD.
I thought Renee was simply dreadful, ( as usual) looking especially horrible. ( extra beady eyes and red apple flushed face) and wow, the gut hanging out, oooh scary! Imagine my surprise when I read your thoughts, and found someone who was reading my mind! About everything! Wonderful!
I have no idea who you are, but Im about to google you and find out!
well done!
Linda Lee
California Native
(former resident of La La Land, and home of the vapid and fake)
I just googled "Does anyone else hate Renee Zellweger" and found your wonderful, beautiful, heart-warming and awe-inspiring declaration. And have enjoyed all the delicious comments (including the one from Linda just previous -- you almost word for word stole my thunder!).
Bless you!
Posted by: Toni at June 2, 2005 6:10 PM