I noticed something over the weekend. Yahoo had a little blurb on the top movie stars of 2008. It was an interesting photo selection for one big reason. Almost every one of the people they were touting had a flop in 2008.
The list starts with Gong Li. You may not recall her name. Then again you probably didn't recall Hannibal Rising, with good reason. The list moves on to Nicole Kidman. She has become synonymous with Hollywood failure, which the film Australia confirms yet again. But then the list loses all perspective. It goes into a tailspin of stupidity.
The next "actress" on the list is Paris Hilton. A woman so without talent she couldn't make sex look interesting to watch. Her claim to fame was the film the Hottie and the Nottie. The hottest thing about the film is akin to the apparent intelligence of Hilton - just not being there at all. Is the possibility she will inherit a major company really that important to Hollywood?
The list moves on to Jennifer Lopez. Who is lauded for giving birth to twins. Which does deserve notice. But not on a list of top movie performers. Even when some thought she had a movie career she was bad. And she hasn't gotten better.
To disguise the fact that there were so few good movies and to bolster the huge number of movie stars with flops the list then goes international with Aishwarya Rai. She is a top Bollywood actress. I've never seen her in a film and have no comment.
But the list jumps back to the ridiculous with Hillary Duff and her performance in the mega-flop War, Inc. I reviewed that movie and to summarize both her performance and the movie, disappointing and a waste of time.
The list goes on to name Mary Kate Olsen, The Wackness, Lindsey Lohan, Chapter 27, Jessica Alba, The Love Guru, right up to Angelina Jolie. Jolie is the only actress on the list with a film the average person can say they saw, and actually liked. She is the only woman on the list (perhaps excluding Rai) that had films that made real money. In effect only she and perhaps Rai deserve to be on a list of top movie stars. The rest need to be on the top of a pile of dung for their performances.
The list then turns to men. And the choices are only moderately better. The star is with Tom Cruise because of his appearance in the flop Tropic Thunder, but more likely the Valkyrie movie that has yet to show. Next we get Patrick Swayze - because he has pancreatic cancer. Like Lopez I have to wonder how that has anything to do with movies. It's sad, but it does not go to the top of a list of movies.
Then the list does another odd change of direction. They pick Denzel Washington, who did not have a film in 2008. But at least he was nominated for an award this year. That's closer to a reason to be on this list then most. The list then flies off with failures like Bankock Dangerous (remake) with Nicolas Cage, Orlando Bloom - also without a movie this year. At this point we finally get to someone who was in a movie that made money and most people saw (for the men).
Will Smith is 5th with Hancock and the upcoming Seven Pounds. And right above him on the list is Brad Pitt with a flop - Burn After Reading - and the nominated Benjamin Button arthouse film. Leonardo DiCaprio broke even as I recall with Body of Lies but took 3rd. Next is Johnny Depp who like Bloom and Washington didn't have a film, and like Washington was nominated. And of course 1st went to the dead guy Hollywood can't stop talking about - heath ledger.
This entire list is Bollocks. Of the entire group Aishwarya Rai, Angelina Jolie, Will Smith, and Heath Ledger deserve to be on it. Maybe an honorable mention to Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise. That's it.
I don't know what pipe the people at Yahoo are smoking, but it must be powerful. Either that, or there must be one hell of a kickback coming from advertising for Yahoo to tout this kind of rubbish as a top list of anything. Maybe if they named it the Top Movies Stars of 2008 - whose companies gave us a lot of money. Or is that too long.
And people wonder why the quality of movies is dropping faster than the average IQ of a high school graduate. When you can buy accolades who needs writing. It's just sad.
5 comments:
_The list starts with Gong Li. You may not recall her name_
No, but her looks are easy to remember.
Aishwarya Rai deserves to be on it? Your kidding right?
"Between Angelina's twin births and Heath Ledger's untimely death, it's been a big year for the stars. Check out the top stars of 2008 according to page views by YOU, the Yahoo! Movies User.
Blame the people who use yahoo search" They choose'em by searching for them.
The list is not intended to be a list of the most gifted actresses, or the actresses who scored well at the box office in 2008. From the first page of the story: "Check out the top stars of 2008 according to page views by YOU, the Yahoo! Movies User."
A truly gifted actress on the list is Gong Li. She may not yet be a household name in the U.S.; however, she is a legend in Asia. Her performances in films have earned awards throughout the world, including those given at/by the Venice Film Festival, Montreal Film Festival, New York Film Critic's Circle, National Board of Review (for different films), as well as many awards in her native country. She has also been honored by the United Nations (Artist For Peace, Environmental Ambassador, FAO).
Somehow given the events of the year, and the press coverage given to various stars this year, I am lead to believe that the list is altered from true searches.
Were it a pure list I doubt that Gong Li would be on the list of women. At least in America, and much of Europe. That is not to say that she is untalented. Just unknown. The same can be said of Rai.
For all the searches and media attention on Jennifer Aniston, why did she not make the list as opposed to Rai? or Li? There is no question she is an actress, in movies, and quite popular. And she has been the subject of media scrutiny and blogosphere talk (not to mention tabloid fodder) for months now.
So I do not believe the accolades by Yahoo are from Yahoo viewers. But I could be wrong. It just seems very out of place. Unless the selection was based solely on page views of pictures and nothing else. Which is not made clear, nor how many photos were provided to be choosen from.
And to be honest I was not being as detailed oriented on this fluff as with my other posts.
Post a Comment