Can ‘it girl’ Megan Fox actually act?
‘Jennifer’s Body’ star is compared to Jolie but doesn’t have her talent
Slideshow |
Megan Fox heats up Hollywood “Transformers” actress takes aim at blockbuster success and holding onto her sexiest woman alive status. more photos |
Movie video |
‘New Moon’ preys on box office rivals Nov. 22: The film blew past decidedly mixed reviews to rake in more than $140 million over the weekend, making it the third-largest film debut ever. NBC’s Lester Holt reports. |
Slideshow |
December movies James Cameron’s spectacle “Avatar” hits theaters, along with George Clooney, who is “Up in the Air,” and Robert Downey Jr. as “Sherlock Holmes.” more photos |
In a Newsweek article published back in June, entertainment writer Ramin Setoodeh observed that movies and television these days are rife with older female actresses, because there are no 20-something female actors around who can “open” a movie.
“Just ask Jessica Alba, Lindsay Lohan, Jessica Biel, Natalie Portman or Jessica Simpson,” Setoodeh wrote. “Someone like Sandra Bullock is still a brand in Hollywood, and even if she’s had a recent string of flops, there’s still hope she can sell out theaters.”
Don’t expect that situation to change as Megan Fox ascends to leading lady status with her role in the upcoming Diablo Cody-scripted film “Jennifer’s Body.” Fox has been the entertainment industry’s “it girl” since she starred alongside scene-stealing special effects in the hit “Transformers” franchise, and then became a media sensation.
But for her breakout vehicle, Fox isn’t being showcased in a romantic comedy or drama, where she can show off her acting skills. She’s being featured in a horror film. “Jennifer’s Body” features Fox as a cheerleader who becomes possessed by demons and kills off boys in her town.
Cody’s film, which is the follow up to her hit “Juno,” might be high-grade, knowing horror, with its tongue firmly set in its cheek. And it might provide Fox with a role so good, she becomes a leading actress, the way Jamie Lee Curtis and Sissy Spacek did after they respectively starred in “Halloween” and “Carrie.”
But it probably won’t because of a crucial difference: in Curtis’ and Spacek’s case, they played humans who became victims, which demanded a range of on screen emotions (plus Spacek had already garnered critical acclaim for “Badlands”). Fox, on the other hand, is playing the role of the victimizer — another tough girl role, like the one she played in “Transformers.”
And while “Jennifer’s Body” gives screenwriter Cody the chance to reverse longstanding horror film gender roles, it’s not going to give Fox the chance to do what she really needs to do to become the next Julia Roberts: humanize herself. Unless Fox is burying her inner Meryl Streep somewhere, she’ll be bringing little to the big screen than her famous attitude and even more famous curves.
Hot or not
Fox seems to like to draw comparisons with Angelina Jolie, by copping elements of Jolie’s style, such as the many tattoos. But style is where the comparisons begin and end. Jolie was an actress who became a tabloid fixture. Fox is a tabloid fixture who hasn’t yet earned her stripes as a serious actress.
|
Playing tough in “Tomb Raider” was just one element of Jolie’s acting style. Since her personal life has started to draw more attention than her acting in the past few years, people tend to forget how much range and skill she had as an actor.
But when it comes to actresses in their 20s, Hollywood doesn’t seem to recruit from acting schools anymore. They now seem to draw from the men’s magazines, all of which feature women like Alba, Lohan, Simpson and Biel — women with great curves but dismal box office results.
Fox seems almost genetically engineered to be a Maxim cover girl. But getting 13-year-old boys to drool over magazines isn’t quite the same as getting adults of all sexes to plunk down nearly $10 for a film.
|
If you’re wondering where the next Sandra Bullock is, she’s probably in some indie film playing in a theater at the edge of town. She’s not at the multiplex, because somewhere along the line, Hollywood decided that hot women make for better leading movie roles than talented female actors.
Looks over talent
So we have a situation where female actors who might have been bound for stardom 15 years ago are now designated as “quirky” and not given a fraction of the hype that the Maxim crowd gets. Think Zooey Deschanel and Alexis Bledel, both of whom starred in smaller films this summer. Meanwhile, former model Fox gets the big budget roles and the hype.
|
As previously noted, Jolie’s talent provided the springboard for her hype. Fox’s talent seems to be in generating hype itself. This is why she’s becoming known more for the continuous stream of outrageous things she says in interviews than for any of her on-screen work.
There’s an old saying that goes “Looks get you in the door — personality makes sure you stay.” Fox’s looks have obviously opened a lot of doors for her. But unless she shows she can be a compelling on-screen personality, she’ll stay around only until the next “it girl” with a hot body arrives.
|
- Discuss Story On Newsvine
-
Rate Story:
View popularLowHigh - Instant Message
MORE FROM MOVIE OPINIONS |
| Add Movie opinions headlines to your news reader: |
Sponsored links
Resource guide






