Reese Witherspoon passes Julia Roberts... (1 Viewer)

[TheLongshot]

I think some people view her as a lightweight because of some of the roles she's taken (Legally Blonde), but when given a role with meat to it, she does a damn good job.

I agree with Chuck. She's positioned herself very well to take over the role of America's sweetheart, which has been Julia Roberts' position in the past.

Jason

 

[todd s]

Whats worse is that Bruiser (the dog from Legally Blonde) is now commanding 10 million a picture.

 

[Patrick Sun]

In dog dollars, that's $70 million!

 

[Shawn.F]

$29 million? You could make three of this year's Best Picture nominees (Brokeback, Crash and Good Night and Good Luck) with that money and cover about 70% of Capote's budget to boot!

I like Reese Witherspoon, but giving her $29 million to star in a movie-a horror movie, if I am not mistaken-proves that there are some people in Hollywood with serious drug problems!

 

[Sam Davatchi]

 

[JonZ]

I saw WTL last night. It was the first movie I saw with Reese since Legally Blonde. I saw that during a blind date (which I didnt want to go on). When the girl I was with said she wanted to see that, I shut up,lowered my head and bought the tickets. I was actually suprised I somewhat enjoyed it.Although shes kind of funny looking(coming from a guy who worships Anna Paquin)I think in both, the term" the camera is in love with her" would apply as she came off as very attractive and likeable in both.

There arent many young actresses out there who are any good. There are exceptions(like Jean M and Scarlett J), but I especially dont like alot of the 20+ year old ones who've become popular in the past few years.Ill take Reese over most of them anyday.

.. but 29 Mil is a shitload of cash.

"Hollywood complains about escalating production costs yet greenlights salaries like this? Ridiculous."

Exactly.

 

[Jace_A]

Given she's not in the league of a Streep, Foster or Sarandon, Reese probably only got another 5 years as an A-list actor and another 10 in movie roles altogether. Women are practically banned from the big screen after 40 in American movies. I say: grab it while you can.

 

[Jason Adams]

She must have pulled an Elizabeth Taylor on them...

"Tell them I'll do it for a million dollars!"

We saw how successful, that movie was.

 

[CoreyII]

In Halle Berry's case, I think the choice to do Catwoman, stemmed from her experience on the X-Men films. Berry and her agent in all their infinite wisdom probably sat down and said "hmm, the X-Men are superheroes and Catwoman is a superhero, the comic book fans will eat it up, especially if I show my super sexy body".

You have to remember Berry isn't a comic book fan and If I'm not mistaken didn't many people on this forum state that she even looked down on the Storm role before the X-Men films blew up. With that in mind, she probably thought playing Catwoman would garauntee instant success.

Of course Berry probably severly underestimated the comic book and movie fans.

 

[Yee-Ming]

True, considering Julia Roberts seems AWOL, but that's possibly by choice.

Then again, it doesn't seem like Sarandon, Streep or Dench are starving for work either. So when does a "Hollywood sweetheart" make the transition to elder stateswoman?

 

[David Rogers]

According to the studios, about the time they can't be cast as a 20something girlfriend/wife.

 

[Patrick Sun]

Well, Julia did have twins a few years ago, so can't blame her for taking a break, plus she's got plenty in the bank to stay on the sidelines nowadays.

 

[todd stone]

 

[Jace_A]

You've named 3 out of probably 5 actresses over 40 that get steady film work. And Dench probably doesn't count because most of her films are British and they don't have the same ageism that exists in Hollywood films.

Most roles for mature women are playing mothers, grandmothers and retired whores. Even Streep has been reduced to drivel like Prime and (if it's anything like the book) The Devil Wears Prada. At least Robert Altman hasn't kicked the bucket yet.

 

[MandyHan]

Wow, go Reese!! That is impressive

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Insane is more like it. She's a fine actress, but nowhere near that fine.

I don't care how many people she pulls into her films, NOBODY deserves that much money, except for perhaps policemen, teachers and firefighters, but hey, why quibble over semantics? :rolleyes

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Maybe, but I don't see how anyone can argue she's worth $29 million when her movies simply don't make all that much money. She's only passed $100m gross a couple of times, and that's only if we include Walk the Line, which isn't her movie to carry. I thought Legally Blonde 2 showed that she WASN'T a great box office draw on her own.

She has a LONG way to go to end up in the box office league with Julia Roberts. Julia long ago proved that she could open movies and be a draw - Reese hasn't remotely demonstrated that.

But if someone's offering the money, she should take it!

(BTW, I'm pretty sure Julia has essentially "retired" from movies. I assume she'll be back someday, but I recall hearing that she was done for the time being. We'll see...)

 

[Colin Jacobson]

As one who works in public education, I'd sure love to be paid millions, but I feel arguments that movie stars SHOULDN'T make that much money if we don't make no sense. Movie stars BRING IN revenue - I don't. If Reese can help a movie make an additional $50 million, then why shouldn't she be paid a high salary?

It's the same with ballplayers. If Shaq is a big draw and helps the league make money, then he's earned a lot of money himself. Taxes pay my salary, so if you folks think that I and other educators should make 10 times our current salaries, then you need to tell your congressmen to vote for 10 times higher taxes...

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Colin,
this is one of those situations where arguing the reality of things is fruitless, Reese making $29 million a movie is the thing that makes no sense.

The way of things or not, bringing in revenue or not bringing in revenue, that salary is just plain nuts and there is nothing that can be said to me that can convince me that anyone in Hollywood is worth that amount of dough for a lousy movie.

Contemplate the following for a second and let me know how badly it turns your stomach...if Fear were her next film, she'd be getting $29 million bucks for it.

If that doesn't slam the absurdidty into perspective, nothing will.

 

[Jason Adams]

Of course 29 million is insane to pay a person for a movie. But, someone or something is worth what someone else is willing to pay. A movie studio thought that Reese Witherspoon she was worth 29 million for a movie, they paid it.

I mean of course teachers and police and firefighters should see maybe a quarter-to-half of that action, but thats the way capitalism works. You pay what you feel someone is worth.