With British actor Rupert Everett’s recent http://thecelebritycafe.com/feature/rupert-everett-disses-jennifer-aniston-12-30-2010 epic rant of questioning why Jennifer Aniston has a career of course got him crucified by the celebrity fluffer crowd since she apparently occupies some Hollywood royalty. Seeing as a funeral gets more laughs than one of her patented romantic ‘comedies’ it does raise the question of why does she still have career. Post Friends she has 0 Oscar noms, 0 successful movies and since 0+0=0 that should be the sum of her box office viability. In the real world regardless of your chosen profession if you suck at what you do chances are you won’t last long in that career (unless you work at our local K-Mart then you get promoted to store manager.) but I digress.
This got me thinking about five other celebrities whose career I don’t understand
1.Gwyneth Paltrow - Owen Gleiberman at Entertainment Weekly recently http://insidemovies.ew.com/2011/01/12/gwyneth-paltrow-why-do-they-hate-her/ovies.ew.com/2011/01/12/gwyneth-paltrow-why-do-they-hate-her/ asked whether Paltrow’s movies bomb because of audience’s perceived bias against her because of privileged background. There is that, given her insufferable attitude exhibited early in her career (remember the ‘revolted by Americans’ comment) and let’s be honest would she have gotten famous if her mother wasn’t Blythe Danner (Answer No.)
My response to Mr. Gleiberman is she is underappreciated because of her underwhelming talent. Yes she’s an alright actress but if acting were like dessert, Paltrow would be vanilla ice cream compared to the Ben and Jerry flavors of a Kate Winslet or gourmet chocolate cake of a Meryl Streep. Oh one more thing Mr.Gleiberman, according to your magazine's poll of Oscar voters. If there was ever a recall vote for Academy Awards, her 1998 one for Best Actress would be going to Cate Blanchett.
2.Ryan Secrest - Here's where I’m confused. When I think of the qualities needed for a live TV show host I think of someone with charisma, charm, and above all a personality. Same goes for a radio host, and a New Year’s Eve host especially if they get paid $20 million a year. Which brings me to the human rice cake Ryan Secrest. His career personifies my Jonas Brothers theory of music applied to television. Simply put the theory states network TV like radio has now gone full circle from its inception in the 50’s of bland, boring, milquetoast programming to edgy social satire of the 70's (ala All in the Family, Maude, M.A.S.H) and back again. Much of this driven by Janet Jackson's flashing her boob at the Super Bowl so present day TV execs look for the whitest, blandest, non-threatening person you can find leading to Secrest…IN
But here’s where Secrest crosses over into douche territory. He actually believes his success to be the result of hard work, determination, and…wait for it….talent. (pause for you to laugh hysterically) When in actuality he got his job through sheer, dumb, odds-defying luck. Not even Judd Apatow could make him the least bit entertaining in Knocked Up. He’s like that RA in college who was the resident killjoy and trolled the halls of the dorm on Saturday nights looking for people to bust for having a good time. Then gets rewarded by hosting the dorm talent show.
3.Ashton Kutcher - Here is something you’ll never hear around the watercooler or at parties when the conversation veers to comedies, ‘Man that new Ashton Kutcher movie was hilarious!’ Sure his Michael Kelso character on That 70’s Show was funny and Punk’d was clever for about 3 episodes but over time he’s proven to be a one trick pony. The pitch meetings for his movies are summed up as “So it’s Ashton as Michael Kelso playing a (fill in the blank) opposite actress (fill in the blank) in an overly contrived (fill in the blank) situation and hilarity ensues!” Only it never does.
4.Kate Hudson - I always wondered how Hudson avoids the TSA watch list given she’s strung together more bombs than the Irish Republican Army. Similar to Aniston, a commercial pleading for starving children in Africa generates more laughs than any rom-com Hudson has appeared in. Similar to Paltrow begs to ask the question, if she didn’t win the genetic lottery of being Goldie Hawn’s daughter would she still be famous (Answer No.) In terms of her acting skill, I've seen a mannequin exude more vitality and emotion
5.The Olsen Twins - Not that I'm one to pick on looks but the Olsen Twins (Ashley and Mary-Kate) highlight unique example of where the ugliness of the outside is matched only by the ugliness of what's inside. Evidenced by how not once in any interview or public appearance have they ever shown any ounce of gratitude to the fans who made them stars and made them rich growing up. Not once. And has resulted in a obnoxious sense of entitlement as adults rearing its ugly head in public where they seem unhappy about everything is what makes them so loathsome.
First were the movies, starting with the truly craptastic straight-to-video gems that can now only be found in the $1 clearance bin of any Blockbuster store liquidation sale. Their only real feature film New York Minute was so bad that ticket takers in theaters would reply 'Uh, really?' to the handful of people idiotic enough to pay money for it. So with their acting career flushed down the toilet in the same manner which their bodyguard dumped the prescription pills belonging to Mary Kate when Heath Ledger was found dead in her apartment(allegedly).
The undynamic duo then became primarily famous for showing up at Red-Carpet events looking emaciated, in state of perpetual moping, with the facial expression of someone who just sucked on a lemon and a 'fashion' sense that would drive Michael Kors to rip out his eyeballs. Yet amazingly, the self-appointed Glitteratti swoon to every appearance and they somehow manage to get taken seriously for their opinions of taste and style matter. The mystery of who actually digs the Olson Twins is right up there with what kind of music honk buys Yoko Ono's albums.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment