Year in Review Part 2: Burn the Negatives!

The title of this post is indefensible, exclamatory (!) and puerile. But these movies piss me off and if they can be super obnoxious, so can I. Now, in truth, I probably never see the absolute "worst" of the movies that play in theaters since I can pick and choose my own film menu. My New Year's Resolution is to be more constructive when I criticize (I'm not giving up criticism. That's mother's milk). I'd also like to be more positive in 2010.

Thus, I retract the titular command: No negatives of the following movies and performances should be incinerated ... instead let them live on as cautionary tales to actors and filmmakers. People are watching. Try harder.

Worst Supporting Actor
I've already expressed my concerned about the "too much!" of Stanley Tucci's continually nominated performance in The Lovely Bones. I don't know what the hell Richard Gere was doing in Amelia, do you? And I don't want Alan Arkin to do what he was doing in Sunshine Cleaning one more time. You won an Oscar for that performance already. Move on! Other than his suddenly legal elfin beauty, I can't see what Colin Firth could have possibly seen in Nicholas Hoult in A Single Man. In the end though it was clear that this would have to be a group "honor". I considered giving it to Everyone in G.I. Joe, none of whom seem to nail the cartoonishly one-note style that the movie desperately needs (not that they're playing whole octaves either, mind). I wasn't entirely crazy about what Stephen Lang was doing in Avatar but it's exactly what everyone in G.I. Joe needed to be doing. But in the end I have no choice but to hand this to the Muggy McMuggerson twins Jae Head and Ray McKinnon in The Blind Side. I partially blame them for Sandra Bullock's sudden Oscar contention. Standing next to them (and the unfortunately blank Quinton Aaron as "Michael Oher") she looks like some kind of genius dramatist. I guess that's a new way to be a "supporting" actor.

Worst Supporting Actress
Rachel McAdams seems completely lost in Sherlock Holmes, doesn't she? I love Jenny Beavan's costumes in the movie but Rachel seems lost inside of them. I got nothing from that performance. Nothing! I can barely remember her in the movie and I saw it one week ago. It breaks my hard to express my dismay about Betty White in The Proposal ("too much!") because she's practically our collective grandmother and she's absolutely my favorite Golden Girl. But this dishonor goes no contest to Rose Byrne an actress I have never warmed too. That said, she's not usually flat out awful the way she is in her shrill performance in Knowing. [spoiler] I wasn't so sad when the world ended because at least that meant I was rid of Rose Byrne and Nicolas Cage.

Worst Actor
I dedicate this award to Nicolas Cage but I'm not actually giving him the prize for Knowing (in which he is typically terrible) because, he's won too many of these already. Plus I hear he's lunatic inspired in Bad Lieutenant Port of Call New Orleans and I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt since Werner Herzog is directing him. Herzog is, as you know, quite good with certifiable movie stars (See also: Klaus Kinski). Larry David made me bonkers in Whatever Works because he doesn't modify his schtick at all to suit a different writer's voice and he's even less believeable as a romantic lead to young beautiful women than Woody Allen ever was. I wish Hugh Jackman had remembered to have fun as Wolverine in that X-Men Origins dirge. He was better the other three times he played the role. But the loser here is Channing Tatum as "Duke" in G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra because I think he thinks that the movie was a drama. Oops. He is stupid hot. And I mean both adjectives emphatically.

Worst Actress
I seem to be in the distinct minority that would rather watch almost anything other than Kristen Stewart's mopey twitching ... even in Adventureland but I've already talked about that. It's too obvious to tell you that I thought Hilary Swank was embarrassing in Amelia but, so what, I did. She was stiff, stilted and sexless in a movie that needed an actress with spontaneity and fire. But this one is no contest: Hayden Panetierre plays the title role in I Love You Beth Cooper. Beth is a standard spoiled beauty who discovers that a less attractive 'loser' has real soul (funny how that's always happening in movies. I wonder who the movies are made for?) Panetierre can't even manage this stock character that thousands of actresses have explained how to play for the past century of film.

Hell's Multiplex

The Worst Pictures of the Year

10 Fighting
I still giggle when I think of Joe Reid's brilliant take on this Channing Tatum is a streetfighter drama. Is it really a comedy about retarded men having hardcore gay sex? If that's what the filmmakers intended maybe it's a masterpiece and it belongs on next week's Top Ten list?

Hugh gives Channing the beat down

09 X-Men Origins: Wolverine
Greedily hordes all the well known pitfalls of inferior superhero movies like they're actually merit badges: operatically self important, humorless, needlessly complicated backstories, the introduction of so many characters that none resonate, battles for battles sake, invulnerable characters that rob fight scenes of any actual drama... Note to filmmakers: if people cannot be killed or even injured it is SUPER boring to watch them fight. Unless the set pieces are insanely creative or well choreographed and these aren't. I will always love the X-Men. I grew up reading them. But the past two pictures have unfortunately cured me of all desire to see them on the silver screen.

08 The Lovely Bones

Peter Jackson's nadir. Garishly colorful when it needs the beauty of a simpler palette, entirely negligent about tracking the true heart of its drama (a family torn asunder), weirdly repetitive about its most obvious plot points, lazy with emotional shortcuts and telegraphed character details. In short, a disaster. Most hated moment: [Spoiler] Did we really have to equate Susie Salmon's cathartic posthumous first kiss (which she's happy about by the way) with the extended coundtown scene of her mutilated dead body being rolled towards a garbage dump? It's the worst and ickiest cross cutting I've seen in a movie since Eric Bana's orgasm in Munich but at least the latter made a solid narrative point.

07 My Sister's Keeper review
06 Knowing review
05 Amelia review

04 Push (Not Based on the Novel by Sapphire)
I don't often watch movies and think 'this would be way better as a TV series' but...yeah. Push spends a lot of time (a lot) setting up the mythology of an evil corporation that experiments and tries to control people with psychic powers. The prologue itself felt like it should have been extended by a half hour and function as a "pilot". But even accepting that they decided to make this convoluted premise into a stand alone movie, it's a huge inept mess. It rarely goes for laughs but I couldn't help laughing at one recurring gaffe. Every single time someone used one of their powers in a crowded room the extras mysteriously disappeared. I suspect they couldn't afford the extras for more complex special effects shots but you can't really show them in a scene and then make a quick edit to the same set with special effects occuring and remove the extras and not have the audience noticing the mass vanishing, you know? Worse yet this occurs in the climactic battle. A "pusher" is controlling a small group of armed men. It's actually a cool effect as she turns them like synchronized soldiers to attack any opponent. Then the emotional climax occurs. They're surrounding her like bodyguards in the medium shot, there's some close up drama and suddenly they're not in the scene any more. What... the... hell?

The third stupidest thing I saw in a movie this year: The recurring visual of a "bleeder", whose power is screaming really loud until people die from internal bleeding, removing his sunglasses so that he can scream (f/x magic makes his eyes crazy). Apparently you can't scream while you're wearing glasses. Who knew?

03 G.I. Joe The Rise of Cobra
The stupidest thing I saw in any movie this year: constant fiery explosions UNDER WATER.
The second stupidest thing I saw this year (regarding movies): abundant people trying to make thumbs up excuses for this movie. Thank god that James Cameron finally came back to the cinema to remind people that action films can be thrilling and fun ... especially when you can actually follow what's happening and there's some beauty and style to the big booms.

02 The Ugly Truth
Over the past few weeks I've been trying to catch up with films I'd missed during the year. I've rediscovered something I knew already: it can be easier to watch mediocre or outright bad movies than quality films. I suspect this is why the box office charts are so often littered with disposable junk. Bad and/or unambitious movies require almost nothing from their audience. But if you're not in the right frame of mind, a quality movie's best attributes may slip right by you. I suspect this is why more complicated movies often get the dread "boring" tag from the general public. Junk is easy to engage with on superficial levels if you're feeling tired, stressed, distracted or not completely on top of your game... and who doesn't feel those things regularly? But when a movie is reallllllllly bad and offensive, none of this applies. It can prove very difficult to watch. I actually briefly hated the cinema (my great love!) when the credits rolled on this one.

Who knew that Tom Cruise's 'sperm receptacle' nastiness in Magnolia could actually be played straight for romantic comedy. And that audiences were expected to sign on and swoon? I'd name this the worst movie of the year but for the saving grace/problem of Katherine Heigl. She is actually a natural at romantic comedy but she's totally using her powers for evil. She called Knocked Up out on its sexism and then made this...?

01 I Love You I Hate You Beth Cooper.
I've already said my piece on Hayden earlier. But I would like to add that after the Home Alone franchise's elaborate pain-making slapstick and this movie's insanely violent "funny" moments (people wouldn't live through these things in real life) I do worry about writer/director Chris Columbus's sadistic streak. Maybe he should make a horror movie instead of all these sentimental pictures. He definitely likes to inflict pain.

*

Whew. Got that out of my system. I'm nice from here on out as I pass out the FB Awards starting next week.

But before we get to the top ten movies of 2009 which movies made you crazy hateful this past year... which prompted your own berzerker rage? And if you love any of the movies I just barked at ... what's wrong with you? (Joking! Don't freak out) If you love any of these movies... teach us how to love them more.

*

Wishful Linking

That Little Round Headed Boy has a fun insightful piece on Amelia and "serious" acting
Gold Derby Ricky Gervais to host the Golden Globes this year
ticklepickleme & elliptical edits thrill to the sight of Julianne Moore in A Single Man and in person. I am officially jealous
The Critical Condition has a change of heart about Where the Wild Things Are. Good read
A Blog Next Door appreciates Dollhouse when its icky ethically. As do I
I Need My Fix Emily Blunt & Matt Damon on the set of The Adjustment Bureau


Gawker Paul Haggis (Crash) resigns publicly from Scientology over gay rights. Quelle Scandale!
Gallery of the Absurd twists Mel Gibson's upcoming Beaver picture
wowOwow great and lengthy piece on Madonna Louise Veronica Ciccone Penn Ritchie by the one and only Liz Smith
Boy Culture speaking of the big M, did you hear about her gift to Glee?
Towleroad gay neo-nazi drama Brotherhood wins the Rome Film Festival
Art of the Title Sequence on Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs. They used Olivia Newton-John's "Xanadu"?!? Now, I have to see this movie
Noh Way on Carrie Fisher's family tree and her broadway outing in Wishful Drinking

And to send you on your way or off to the comments (I always root for the latter) the Sherlock Holmes poster...


Guy Ritchie has made five films prior to this rethink of a classic franchise. None have opened wide in the US to this date (Snatch, his biggest hit here and elsewhere eventually played in 1,444 US theaters but it started in one). Christmas competition will be ridiculously fierce: Avatar will be enjoying (?) its second weekend, two top Oscar hopefuls will go wide (that's Nine and Up in the Air), Meryl Streep's latest comedy It's Complicated debuts, and finally families without taste will presumably flock to that "squeakquel" [*gag*] in droves... I just can't bring myself to type the whole title. Weirdly The Lovely Bones is not going wide until January... I guess Peter Jackson isn't concerned with being to Christmas what Will Smith once was to the 4th of July. But the holiday weekend is super crowded even without him. It's so much competition... so why do I feel like Sherlock Holmes is going to be huge? I'm guessing it opens with a US gross that tops the size of all of Guy Ritchie's previous US grosses combined. (It'd need about $40 million to do that). Doesn't it just seem like the right unexpected-but-familiar topic with the right actually-talented cast at the right time of year?
*

Where We're At: Best Actress

At the beginning of the year when the buzz for Precious had just begun, Gabourey 'Gabby' Sidibe seemed like no more than a long shot. Mo'Nique's tour de force as her monster mom hogged the buzz and Sidibe had several disadvantages: fat, unknown, minority. The Best Actress category, more than any other acting category, is obsessed with beauty, stardom and whiteness*. [Tangent: the DeGlam phenomenon is also connected to the beauty preference. In a perverse way it's still all about the beauty that the voters are aware the famous actress is hiding].

<--- Two weeks before the film's opening, Sidibe's star is rising with coverage in major gets like The New York Times Magazine.

Now that I've seen Precious (see previous post) I can safely say that the Academy won't pass over Sidibe come nomination morning (February 2nd, 2010). It helps tremendously that in real life the first time actress is very different than her character.



When Sidibe is interviewed you quickly realize that the only thing she shares with her character is that plus sized body. She's articulate, educated and appears to have a far more lighthearted soul. This immediately dispells the dismissive (though not always incorrect judgment) that can sometimes attach itself to performances by non-traditional/unknown actors. I'm talking about the "they're just playing themselves!" reaction. Sidibe isn't. So she's in. It seems strange for a major category to be 60% wrapped up before November and any precursorage has taken place but it's tough to argue with the lock-up probability of the Streep/Mulligan/Sidibe trifecta.

Which means the battle for those final two spots will be the main place of speculative Actressy drama for the next three months. What's more, the precursor awards might not help us. It seems easy to imagine a precursor season that's filled with the aforementioned trio... leaving the last spots volatile until the end.

The other competitors are plentiful though none seem like a sure thing. Hilary Swank has the right type of role (biographical, teary, ennobling) but practically nothing about the movie including her all-surface performance works (my review). Helen Mirren has the pedigree and a scenery chewing role in The Last Station (my initial reaction). If voters like the way she masticates the bedroom, swallows the furniture and spits out the table ware (I see a Spacek-style plate smashing sequence as future overplayed Oscar clip) they'll ignore the fact that she's not carrying the film exactly and that she won very recently. Marion Cotillard, if pushed lead for Nine, will have Mirren's two drawbacks tenfold, since she won even more recently and she's sharing her film-carrying duties not with two famous men but with one famous man and several famous women. Maybe other people know something I don't but surely she'll be defeated by the limited screentime unless they put her back in Supporting where all the Nine women belong. Abbie Cornish's Bright Star role would easily place her in the Best Actress shortlist if she had more of an Oscar-bound career profile. For her I suspect it's all about the campaign.

Finally, two of my favorite actresses of all time could still be contenders if the Academy is feeling either discerning and adventurous (Tilda Swinton in Julia) or 'we're sorry' career sentimental (Michelle Pfeiffer in Chéri). There are many things that are entirely predictable about the Oscar race in any given year. But when and if AMPAS will feel adventurous or sentimental are not among those things. Sometimes they feel it. Sometimes they don't.

*This is statistically true. Only 10 Best Actress nominations have gone to women of color, compared to 20+ supporting actress and actor nominations and 25+ supporting actor nominations (I don't have the exact numbers) though it's not entirely fair to blame the Academy since they can only vote on what's presented to them and actresses of color still don't get big roles as often as actors of color.

AMELIA

The review...

If you’re going to make a film about an aviatrix, it better soar. Mira Nair's AMELIA seems to understand this with reverent voiceovers about flight sprinkled throughout. It even begins by prepping for liftoff as we see Amelia Earhart (Hilary Swank) waving from her plane’s wing, about to embark on a historic flight. Unfortunately it's the historic flight, as in her last. Argh! The movie has opted for that musty old biopic framing device: Start at the famous end, jump backwards in time to see how it all began, count down with us to the famous celebrity death! When a biopic begins this way, you have to worry that it has nothing fresh to say, being closer in spirit to a Wikipedia entry than a movie.

From that initial take off, complete with an overzealous score that assumes every moment's a climactic one, Amelia the film zooms through Amelia the person's rise to fame as if we all know every detail and can't wait to get to that doomed flight. Though clearly in a rush to get there, it feels like it's crawling rather than flying toward its final destination...

Read the rest at Towleroad.

In that weekly column at Towleroad (for those of you who don't read it, it's a popular news site "with homosexual tendencies") I'm expected to cover new releases but the content and focus is of my choosing. I knew I had to write about "Amelia" since she's a lesbian icon although the movie Amelia won't be a hit with the ladies who love ladies. [Tangent: I'm unsurprised by the immediate regurgitated arguments about Earhart's orientation popping up in the comments at Amelia's official site. This always happens with historical figures who are either rumored to have been gay or are of particular fascination to the gays. It's the way of things.]

One thing I didn't mention in this review is how absolutely crazy the sanctification of Saint Amelia made me. I understand that the rarity and vast achievements of iconic historical figures practically insures that they will be viewed through a distorted lens (color, rose). They're our cultural heroes, after all. But it's anti-dramatic to sanctify your lead... not to mention historically suspect. If you're going to make a movie about a hero, allow them to have edges or curves. We know them two-dimensionally already! The casting of Hilary Swank (though she looks nearly perfect for the role) adds to this problem since she loves to be martyred and sanctified as an actress. Oh shush, you know she does!

"Sorry, haters. I got two! No takebacks allowed."

Oscar hopes? Two longshot possibilities only I think: Swank for Best Actress (they sometimes lose their minds for this sort of stiff biographical posing. See... well, see a lot of nominees) and the cinematography by the great Stuart Dryburgh (The Piano, The Painted Veil). His work is part of the sanctification problem but hot damn it's pretty.

Coming tomorrow: "Antichrist" and by that I mean the movie and not Hilary Swank.
*

The Amelia Trailer Has Landed

Hilary Swank is flying right at her third Oscar nomination.



I fear she'll use the red carpet as her landing strip and slice me to bits with her propellor. On purpose!

While I think the Amelia trailer is trying a little too desperately to make this seem action-packed -- the music and the sound mix in particular are screaming "it's not just a stuffy period biopic. We swear!" -- it looks right up Oscar's alley all told:

• Inspirational. Check!
  
• True story. Check!
• Tragic ending. Check!
• Iconic Historical Figure Everyone Is Duty Bound To Love. Check!

I wouldn't put this on Oscar's best picture list just yet but who knows. People are already getting carried away claiming locks for dozens of pictures that haven't opened yet. I remind once again: 10 nominees, not 50 ;)

I like the timbre of Swank's voice in the trailer. I must admit. I've clearly underestimated her in my Best Actress predictions (my excuse: previously she'd been less than convincing in period pieces) for she manages just fine for these 113 seconds. Oscar prediction updates coming on Sunday.

Earlier this year when I was watching Night at the Museum ... Resurrection, Salvation, 2 (?) ... I was giggling to myself about how Amy Adams was practically starting Hilary Swank's Oscar campaign for her. Like "See how important and strong this woman was, Americans who always fail history tests ?!? Now that I've reminded you who she is, won't it be awesome to see her biopic this fall?!?"

The happiest moment of the trailer for me was seeing EWAN MCGREGOR again.


I'm always pleased to watch him. But I'm sad that his only "prestige" films these days seem to be biopics which pair him with my least favorite actresses in thankless roles wherein he helps their character achieve greatness (see also: Miss Potter). I'm even sadder that now he's asked to do this without so much as a title card in the trailer. Sigh. He needs another Moulin Rouge! sized hit quickly.
*

An Afternoon at the Museum

As you read this Katey and I will almost be finished with our critics screening of Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smitsonian. Or as I like to call it Night at the Museum 2: Now With More Amelia Earhart. This is not to discount the efforts of Owen Wilson ( ♥ ) and Hank Azaria ( ♥ ) but... Amy Adams !

If one museum exhibit could come alive for you, which would you have it be?
Discuss in the comments.
*

Group Think: Best Actress 2009 Prediction

Your votes have been tallied. 262 people entered the Actress Psychic contest this year. I play too, (I just am ineligible for the win) so that makes 263 Psychics. How well can the contestants predict the future? Does the wisdom of crowds really apply to something as unpredictable as awards season, and ten months early at that before virtually any of the movies have been seen?

In late January will the Oscar nominees for Best Actress really be... ?

• Michelle Pfeiffer, Chéri (157 votes... more than half of the ballots)
• Hilary Swank, Amelia (142 votes... more than half of the ballots)
• Carey Mulligan, An Education (127 ballots)
• Meryl Streep, Julie & Julia (120 ballots)
• Penélope Cruz, Los Abrazos Rotos / (Broken Embraces) (on 75 ballots)

Nobody else came close to these five, making your collective prediction quite decisive indeed. That's a Best Actress shortlist composed of three Oscar winners (Cruz, Streep and Swank) and a possible comeback queen (Pfeiffer). The newbie would be twenty-three year old Brit actress (Mulligan) who has already won brilliant reviews for her portrayal of a teenager in 1960s London, greatly changed (and sexed up) by the arrival of an older man (Peter Sarsgaard). Sony Pictures Classics is saving the release of An Education until October so unless you live across the ocean or you make it to festivals you'll have to wait and see if she delivers as well as early audiences claim she does.

One of the most interesting question marks to pull from the whirlwind of possible futures these ballots offer, involves sexy sexegenarion Dame Helen Mirren. You're confident that she'll be nominated (she actually won more votes than Penélope) but you totally disagree on which performance will do the trick. This year we'll see her as Leo Tolstoy's wife in The Last Station, the owner of a brothel in Love Ranch and as Prospera in Julie Taymor's gender-reversed adaptation of Shakespeare's The Tempest. The last divisive auteur to take a whack at The Tempest, was Peter Greenaway (I'm definitely on the "pro" side of that divide) with the extremely naked Prospero's Books. If Julie Taymor is interested in an equally fleshy take we're certain Helen Mirren will comply. "Fish out your teats!"

Want more?
See the Individual Ballots ~ If you entered but don't see yours here, please contact me at filmexperience (at) gmail (dot) com. Maybe it went in my junkmail? I know a few did that I fished out but if you're not there and you should be, contact me. Maybe you could reforward me the original. Etcetera...

Collective Prediction/Rank ~ all 78 performances that received votes.

"What about your predictions, Nathaniel?"
Those are coming this weekend (Hold tight. I'm only one man) but in terms of Best Actress I'll just say for now that only two of these five you picked will be on my list. Streep won't be one of them. I'm guessing that her Julia Childs is campaigned supporting since it would take both a reworking of the source material to make her a lead and a non starter campaign for that Untitled Nancy Meyers feature (in which she is definitely the lead) to not make her compete against herself. But then again: look what happened to Kate Winslet this awards season past and look what happened to Streep for Devil Wears Prada. Maybe I'm wrong.
*

Vanity Fair's Hollywood ~ Episode 10 (2004)

Missed previous episodes? See: 1995 , 1996, 1997, 1998 , 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005

With the annual Vanity Fair "Hollywood" issue about to debut for 2009 -- I'm guessing we see the new cover in less than two weeks (UPDATE: the new cover has been leaked and Vanity Fair has chucked their traditional photo shoot *sniffle* for the millionth magazine cover featuring President Obama), let's briefly return to our Vanity Fair retrospectives. "Send in the Gowns" was the title of 2004's photo shoot and they returned to the first year's game plan of glamour girls. The cover was more crowded though, bringing us an unlucky 13. But who was this cover unlucky for?


Maybe all of them, with the exception of Maggie Gyllenhaal (hurrah) and Hilary Swank (known affectionately around these parts as Beelzebub), who was just 11 months away from her second Oscar. Vanity Fair had gotten less daring in their cover selections as the year's passed (at least in terms of fresh "they'll be famous!" proclamations), but many of these careers had arguably peaked and were headed downhill.

Strange coincidence: 23% of these women are starring in He's Just Not That Into You

Julianne Moore was 43 at the time. She had been on the first "Hollywood" edition in spring '95 (before anyone had seen [Safe]) and got a deserved promotion. In the 9 years between the covers she'd gone from gorgeous up and coming redhead to a famously talented familiar actress as well as an Oscar nom' magnet. Unfortunately, round about this time as her fame and price kept escalating, she stopped wowing. 2004 brought her her only solo film-carrying "hit" in the traditional sense (The Forgotten) but it also brought stinkers like Laws of Attraction and films that no one even knows exist like Marie and Bruce (the only Moore film I haven't managed to get my eyes on). She's been misfiring both critically and box office wise since though she did have small roles in two acclaimed films Children of Men and I'm Not There.

This past year's double Moore dip, Savage Grace and Blindness (FB Body of Work nomination), reminded us that she's a unique and formidable dramatic actress... when she's not trying to be a romantic comedienne or action heroine. Next: She has three films in the can for 2009: the lead in a thriller (uh oh -- not playing to her strengths!) called Shelter, and supporting roles in the dramas The Private Lives of Pippa Lee and fashion god Tom Ford's filmmaking debut A Single Man.

Jennifer Connelly was 33 newly married to fine actor Paul Bettany and had just starred in a hit that everybody thought of as a flop (Hulk) and an Oscar misfire of sorts (House of Sand and Fog) but she was still considered a major get. Only she wouldn't be got. So to speak. She took only co-lead or supporting roles that didn't do much for her in Oscar Bait projects that didn't hook any statues (Little Children, Reservation Road, Blood Diamond) and now she's doing CGI flicks (The Day the Earth Stood Still and Inkheart). Is there a second wind to this career? And if there is, doesn't it need to come very soon? Next: He's Just Not That Into You and then Creation, a Charles Darwin biopic where she and her husband will play the Darwins.

Gwyneth Paltrow, 31, was still arguably suffering from the Oscar Curse -- that messy career period that can follow an Oscar win (which she won for Shakespeare in Love, discussed at length right here). The Royal Tenenbaums and Sylvia had reminded that she had plenty of acting skill but something about the career wasn't taking with Oscar or the public. Did she not care enough? She was a newlywed when this cover hit (to Coldplay's Chris Martin) and already pregnant with their first child, though she wasn't yet showing (she's pictured right, a few months later). Her acting career definitely went on the back burner. She's had 7 films released since this cover debuted and only one true leading role among them (Proof). She's now far more of a celebrity than an actress. The fame part stuck. Next: Two Lovers is inching it's way into view. King Lear and Iron Man 2 are coming for 2010.

Naomi Watts, 35, had recently moved out from under that 'Nicole Kidman's best friend' tag and into her own celebrity. The fresh Oscar nomination for 21 Grams (due in no small part to the Mulholland Dr lead in we're sure) went a long way towards that. She was still dating Heath Ledger, who came with her to the Oscars, but their relationship was about to end. (Thank god she convinced him to take Brokeback Mountain first!). In 2004 she had two heavy dramas and one comedy (the brilliant I Heart Huckabees) on the way. She chased those with the massive King Kong. Ever the multi-tasker since stardom hit she's still busy busy busy despite being a new mom. Next: Mother and Child for actress-loving director Rodrigo García and possibly Need with Nicole Kidman. That would be their first movie together since the charming Australian romance Flirting in 1991.

Salma Hayek, 37, still had residual heat from the success of Frida in late 2002. She had broken up with Ed Norton and was dating Josh Lucas but her movie career was about to collapse. Flops like Ask the Dust, Lonely Hearts and After the Sunset were all on the way. A savvy star she's stayed in the game by seguewaying to television production, bringing the big hit Ugly Betty to ABC and doing guest work (30 Rock). Next: "Madame Truska" in Universal's Cirque Du Freak opening in time for Halloween

Jennifer Aniston had just celebrated her 35th birthday, and her career was coming to the crossroads. She was finishing up her last season on TV's mega hit "Friends" and her marriage to Brad Pitt was also close to wrapping (though we didn't know it at the time). They divorced in late 2005 shortly before her first two post TV stardom movies (Derailed and Rumor Has It) opened. Her feature career has been middling peppered with the occasional high concept hit but she's forever ubiquitous in the media thanks to that decade in our living rooms as "Rachel" and her gossip-drenched marriage and split from Mr. Pitt. Next: the star studded romantic comedy He's Just Not That Into You

Kirsten Dunst, almost 22, was about to dump Jake Gyllenhaal (my theory as to one of the reasons people hate her so), Eternal Sunshine was playing (she does not get enough credit for her wistful funny turn in that film) and Spider-Man 2 was about to open. She was extremely famous / busy. It's been a bumpy ride since with rehab, a misunderstood star vehicle (Marie Antoinette), internet backlash and flops outside of those webslinging blockbusters. Next: All Good Things, the narrative feature debut of documentarian Andrew Jarecki (Capturing the Friedmans) opens this summer. Possibly Spider-Man 4 after that. Don't do it Kiki! Save yourself

Diane Lane, who had been famous since she was only 14 had just turned 39. She had seen her lengthy career hit a new peak with an Oscar nomination for Unfaithful in 2002 which she followed with another minor hit Under the Tuscan Sun. She was about to marry Josh Brolin whose career was still a couple years away from supersizing. More films were lining up for Lane but things aren't as rosy now since none have really matched that Unfaithful triumph and some (Kill Shot and Fierce People) had trouble even getting into theaters. Next: nothing announced.

Lucy Liu, 35, had just given the performance of her career in Kill Bill but then... that tends to happen to people when they star in Quentin Tarantino movies, doesn't it? Liu had always toggled between features and TV and she kept doing so. She's never left wanting for work but no great successes since. Next: nothing announced since her last two televisions series Lipstick Mafia and Dirty Sexy Money were both cancelled.

Hilary Swank in '04. Photographed by Stephen Meisel for Calvin Klein (photo source)

Hilary Swank, nearing 30, was on this cover because she had a frankly amazing agent. I kid, I kid. Her career post 1999 Oscar had been unremarkable. The Core was her last release prior to this cover but 2004 was looking big for her on paper (a respectable TV movie Iron Jawed Angels and a Clint Eastwood picture Million Dollar Baby -discussed here) and looks weren't deceiving. She won another Oscar for the latter and promptly returned to doing what she does: random disposable projects of multiple genres. Next: Two Oscar hopefuls for 2009 and in both of them she plays the title character. There's Amelia, a biopic in which she plays the famous aviatrix and Betty Ann Waters an Erin Brockovich style working mother turned legal eagle drama.

Alison Lohman, 24, was just off of a few high profile gigs (Big Fish, White Oleander and Matchstick Men) but her follow ups were very low profile. Tell me, have you seen: The Big White, Where the Truth Lies, Things We Lost in the Fire or Flicka? Next: Two thrillers one called simply Game leans scifi, the other Drag Me to Hell is auteur Sam Raimi's return to the horror genre. That might be something to look forward to but can it raise Lohman's profile back to early 2004 levels?

Scarlett Johansson, all of 19 years old, had just become the movies hottest young star. Offscreen she was a dynamo in the Young Hollywood scene --vaguely around this time she moved from dating Jared Leto to a fairly lengthy romance with Josh Hartnett. Onscreen she was a fresh sensation. Girl with a Pearl Earring and Lost in Translation had both opened to enviable acclaim for the young starlet and an awards run, too (though Oscar passed). When this cover was shot she was a critics darling, a paparazzi treasure and very much in demand by both auteurs and corporations (her endorsement side career might be as profitable as her film career by now). She's been super busy these past 4 years with numerous films, marrying Ryan Reynolds and that fledgling recording career. But is it quantity over quality. A lot of people are beginning to think so. Next: He's Just Not That Into You

Maggie Gyllenhaal, 27 at the time, had become ubiquitous around 2002 appearing in critical hits like Adaptation and Secretary. She and Jake her brother ascended in very close succession. The next year or so was less eventful cinematically for Maggie but two years after this cover hit she was all over the screens again delivering you-can't-look-away performances in films ranging from World Trade Center (blech) to Stranger Than Fiction to Sherrybaby and off screen she was having her first child with Peter Sarsgaard. Oscar still hasn't taken a liking to Maggie but few would argue that she isn't one of the most impressive actresses of her generation. Next: Crazy Heart a drama with Colin Farrel and Away We Go a comedy for director Sam Mendes.

PLEASE NOTE: If you'd like to read more about any of these stars, click the names in the labels section below.

*
median age: 32. Julianne Moore was the mamma (isn't she always?) and ScarJo the baby.
noticeably absent: Who else was topical around 2003/2004? Let's see... Halle Berry was about to screw up her career with Catwoman, Angelina Jolie (who has never been on one of these "Hollywood" covers) had a bunch of movies about to come out, Emmy Rossum was just off of Mystic River and about to co-star in two epics, Kate Beckinsale had had a minor hit with Underworld and was chasing it with another supernatural flick before co-starring in Martin Scorsese's The Aviator.
collective Oscar noms before this cover: 10 nominations (40% of those for Julianne) and 3 winners (her front cover co-stars Connelly & Paltrow and then Swank in the backfold)
collective Oscar noms after this cover: only one but she won (Hilary Swank)
fame levels in 2009, according to famousr, from most to least: Jennifer Aniston, Gwyneth Paltrow, Hilary Swank, Kirsten Dunst, Scarlett Johansson, Lucy Liu, Salma Hayek, Julianne Moore, Naomi Watts, Jennifer Connelly, Diane Lane, Maggie Gyllenhaal and Alison Lohman
previous episodes of 'VFH': 1995 ,1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005.
*

Thoroughly Modern Hillie

<--- These pictures making the web rounds from next year's Amelia biopic are freaking me out. It's not because I don't know what to make of its Oscar chances which break down like so:

biopic = take it seriously
cast = who knows. Richard Gere and Ewan McGregor are always ignored. Madsen... wronged wife. so maybe. Swank... only when she's manly. Which...
director =Mira Nair (good director but does Oscar care? probably not)

The pictures are haunting me because... 1: she's kissing Ewan McGregor and that just reads all kinds of wrong. Plus: His lips are busy! They belong to Nicole Kidman, Tilda Swinton and Jonathan Rhys Meyers... not Hilary Swank ! I'm still recovering from the Renée Zellweger romancin' he attempted twice over. And 2: Swank in 20s garb? I don't see her as a period actress. Put her in cloche hats and bandeaus and I am absolutely... freaking... out. And not in the good way.



The 20s and 30s seem to be making a fashion/subject matter comeback with Hollywood after years of being ignored in favor of the 40s & 50s. In the next 12 months or so we've got Angelina Jolie (Changeling), Nicole Kidman (Australia), Michelle Pfeiffer (Chéri) and Hilary Swank (Amelia) all headlining 1920s or 1930s pictures.