Just one review that doesn't slavishly ape the Kael style--and badly, at that. Her "line readings are sharp yet light." You're a friggin' master of evoking performance, Steff. Go console your jobless husband and stop torturing me with ghastly Paulettian prose.

Not that this really matters an iota in the grand scheme, but in every picture I've ever seen of Jennifer Aniston, she has greenish/blue eyes.

http://imstars.aufeminin.com/stars/fan/D20060424/32_251578926_jennifer_aniston_0077_H162928_L.jpg

http://www.wallpaper-library.com/en/index/images/thumbs/300/2784.jpg

Unless Steph knows something the rest of us don't, she needs to do a tad more factchecking on her celeb coverage...

I haven't seen the movie yet, so I can't yet say whether this is a fair review, although I did hear that the ending had to be reshot and I am always wary of a movie that can accommodate such a reversal of the director's (and the writer's) original intent. I had the sense that this was originally intended to be a sort of "War of the Roses" for unmarried couples, so I am unsurprised that test audiences were repelled. One need only recall the reshoot of the conclusion of "Fatal Attraction" to understand that audiences code their responses to movies of sexual conflict at a very deep level. I am ambivalent about whether this is a good or a bad thing. But that's an argument for another time.

I am writing merely to add one more performance for Ms. Zacharek to consider: "The Good Girl." In that movie, Aniston did many of the things that Zacharek hoped she might accomplish in this movie, i.e., reveal dimensions of her character through indirection. She also did something extraordinarily difficult, portray a character whose motivations are opaque to her, but transparent to the audience.

There is also Aniston's performance in the movie "Derailed," which I cannot speak about in much detail without spoiling its plot, but it does showcase a fine bit of acting by Aniston who is required to imply two separate qualities simultaneously and in retrospect.

Comparing Jennifer Aniston to Goldie Hawn is a false dichotomy, I think. It is always tempting, of course, to do this compare-and-contrast sort of review because it is far easier than simply probing the actor's work within its own context.

Why the need to review Ms. Aniston's naked figure? Depressing to read a cheap shot like that from one woman to another. Give yourself a break and review her work, not her ass. Wake up, girl.

Stephanie, your astute review of this film makes me believe in film journalists again. Aniston is drip, drab boring onscreen, Even her supposed breakthrough film, "The Good Girl," was television drama. Poor Jake Gyllanhaal is the one who kept the film afloat. Of course, in the Zeitgeist that was Brad and Jen, he was overlooked. Instead Jen was hailed as a rising, exciting new film star.

I never saw it. But just like Farrah twenty years before, America was mesmerized with that hair. They wanted to love and believe the person behind it was worthy of their fascination. She is not. There is nothing she's done in any of her films that another more talented actress could not expand or improve on. And yet she gets job after job. It's frustrating for me as a moviegoer because there's so many other actresses I'd love to see getting half as many opportunities.

I really hope the whole Aniston illusion is ready to crack. That she is finally exposed as having nothing substantial under those expensively tended locks. On the other hand, as long as she continues playing up her innocent, accidental sex-kitten act those of us weary of her will not be getting any relief anytime soon. The girl is nothing if not attached to her fame. She's dyed, sculpted, and plastic surgeried her way there. That's quite an investment from an obviously ambitious girl.

I'm sorry, but Jennifer Aniston was the worst thing in a pretty good thriller. She was lifeless and boring and did nothing to explain why these 2 men might be taken with her.

Unfortunately, Jennifer Aniston is just not a Movie Star. She topped out being America's sweetheart on TV. And, also unfortunately, she is approaching 40 and in the Hollywood/youth market, she is getting to old to build her career in romantic leads. The Scarlett Johannsons and Natalie Portmans are nipping at her heels.

I like her even though she seems a little too needy for our attention, and it's possible that she can cash in her fame and lakability for a more interesting, smaller film career. I hope she does.

Um-likability. :)

I have to say this is one of the best appraisals of Aniston I've ever read. I don't usually find myself completely agreeing with Ms. Zacharek's reviews, but this is terribly astute. Jennifer Aniston, if anyone would ever care to notice, is, essentially, a one-note actress. She has delivered some o.k. performances, but even those weren't masterful and still ahdered to her usual tone. Jennifer Aniston lucked out by being on a t.v. show that was successful but which was successful, in large measure, because it was an ensemble. Even if she were a strong, talented actress, she was only responsible for 1/6 of its success, so to speak. I stongly suspect her role on "Friends" was, as time went on, even tailored to her personality (as I've seen suggested somewhere about Lisa Kudrow's character as well), which helped her appear more natural on the show, but which is not condusive to the development of real acting skill.

Her movies I've bothered to see and in which she gave credible performances, such as "The Object of My Affection" and "The Good Girl", benefitted primarily from original scripts, good directors and strong costars, but in both she essentially played the same person she always plays. It worked better in "Object", because the film was about the devolution and complications of urban, non-traditional relationships not all that alien from the world of "Friends", except played for drama rather than comedy. She wasn't nearly as good in the "The Good Girl", however, primarily because she couldn't play working class effectively. She conveyed dissatisfaction well enough, but she didn't fit into the film's milieu.

Basically, in a nutshell, Jennifer Aniston seems to be completely devoid of a sense of humor, and seemingly lacking it, she can't play it or convincingly fake it onscreen. Her most successful characters, starting with and largely constituted by Rachel, took that into account and made it a means of deriving humor at her expense if necessary. Her lack of a sense of humor is usually written about as "brittle" or "shrill," but the straightforward way of saying it makes it clearer what her fundamental problem is, and why she'll never be a good comedic or romantic comedy actress because of it.

I didn't find her as irritating as I do now until the breakup between her and Brad Pitt, something which she's milked for all it's worth, despite her protestations to the contrary. (If you don't really want to talk about your divorce, you just don't give any interviews until it's all said and done, instead of giving dozens, but each time talking about how it's painful and how you don't want to talk about it.) She IS in pursuit of maximum fame, instead of increased artistry, and her recent roles evince it.

If she were talented enough to give anything besides the Rachel Archetype Performance-- slightly shrill and brittle, driven and put-upon-- I might be able to overlook her personal foibles. Talent Trumps Everything. She just doesn't have enought talent.

Bravo, Zacharek!