96 Comments »

chelsea said:
Wow, that was painfully honest. I agree with you, though. She’s not ambitious enough to put all her effort into it. And that really is such a waste of her beautiful, rare, exquisite talent. I think she doesn’t want to be hot and happening. She has said that she wants to enjoy the time with her children while she can, and it’s understandable that she doesn’t want to be away from her family for too long. Let’s just hope she’ll do more movies, because even though they’re not great and all up in theatres, I still enjoy and love all her appearances in movies.
# 1 Febrero 2010 at 20:34

Tim said:
LOL I can’t believe I left ALL THAT as 1 comment hahahaha.
# 1 Febrero 2010 at 23:02

RAMIRO DE SAN DIEGO said:
THIS IS SO TRUE, PFEIFFER SIMPLY JUST DOESNT WANT TO WORK, SHE STATED W BARBRA WALTERS THAT SHE DIDNT LIKE ACTING AND THAT SHE COULD QUIT TOMORROW. STREEP, BULLOCK, KIDMAN, JOLIE (THAT HAS 6 KIDS), EVEN KATHY BATES WORK MORE THAN PFEIFFER. WHY? BECAUSE THAY HAVE THE PASSION, AND THE AWARDS ORGANIZERS KNOW THAT PFEIFFER JUST WANTS TO WIN THE OSCAR AND QUIT FOREVER. SHE HAS NO TIME TO BE WASTING, AT 52, SHE NEEDS TO BE GETTING A BETTER SCHEDULE, LIKE 2 MOVIES A YEAR AT LEAST IN ACTION AND BIG BUDGET FILMS, SHE NEEDS TO STAY AWAY FROM THOSE LOW BUDGET INDEPENDENT FILMS.
# 2 Febrero 2010 at 1:30

bond said:
I share the same thought with you Tim.
# 2 Febrero 2010 at 2:30

Patrick said:
I agree that Pfeiffer should do more films just because I love her in almost every movies. She doesn’t have to take the leading role always. She was so great in White Oleander and Hairspray. Those films were her excellent choices anyway. As long as she enjoy acting she will be rewarded someday.
# 2 Febrero 2010 at 2:39

Benjamin said:
I guess I’ll have to be the bad guy and disagree. Question: If anyone here were free to choose how much they wanted to work, when they do have the financial luxury to not work as hard, how often would you work? If it were me, I would only work when the mood suited me and spend time with friends and family because life goes by so fast and its best to spend it with those meaningful to us.
I can appreciate her being a hands-on mom and I don’t mind her taking years off between films. After ‘Baker Boys’ she worked consistently building a well-respected name and career for herself. She deserves to be selfish and take whatever time she wants off. Look how often Isabelle Adjani works. And Americans consider her the French Pfeiffer and she usually takes up to 7 years off between films.
Pfeiffer’s children are getting older and this is time she won’t be able to duplicate once they leave to live their own lives. Bullock is popular because she makes safe movies and basically recycles the same performance, until she pulled an ‘Erin Brokovich’ and did The Blind Side. Don’t forget it wasn’t that long ago when Meryl Streep was considered off the radar despite her talent and reputation as a great actress. Pfeiffer is NOT off the radar, based on the fact she could take 4 years off and come back and shoot three films back to back, and based on the audience reaction at Palm Springs, which proves she remains a respected LEGEND in Hollywood.
Pfeiffer would make more films if more films were actually being made in Hollywood. Most are shot in Canada. Unless it is what she refers to as a “dead of winter” script, like “Cheri”, she is not willing to travel to some far away location unless it’s during the summer when her children are out of school. Pfeiffer clearly prefers character-driven films, and major studios are only focused on big-budget remakes and sequels. Does anyone want Pfeiffer to star in those? And she is high on independent filmmakers’ most wanted lists, but it is hard to get financing on many of those films.
(There’s already talk if Tim Burton does not cast his wife HBC in his next possible film “Maleficent” that Pfeiffer is high on everyone’s wish-list to star.)
I don’t consider “Cheri” a disappointment because it will maintain a long shelf-life long after everyone has forgotten “The Proposal” even existed. That’s what the best films do. I still enjoy watching earlier films such as “The Russia House”, “The Age of Innocence” and “Frankie and Johnny” among many others. I honestly cannot say the same thing about any of Julia Roberts or Sandra Bullock’s movies.
I do believe Pfeiffer remains passionate about her work, but the work has to be worthy of her, or else why bother? If she chooses to retire tomorrow I wouldn’t mind it at all. She has built a strong body of work in a career any actor would envy.
# 2 Febrero 2010 at 8:33

Patrick said:
I agree with Benjamin. I’m in Europe. Pfeiffer is very popular here compared to Bullock or Roberts thanks to her beauty and specailly her talent eventhough she rarely did self promotion here. We still talking about The Fabulous Baker boy, Dangerous liasions and Batman Return. I like to see her do more films but I prefer her taking interesting role than taking whatever just to gain popularity such as Sharon Stone in Basic instinct 2 or Bullock in Miss FBI sequel. The critics praised her in the late Stardust and Hairspray. Though Cheri didn’t succed, her performance was underlined by critics. Benjamin is right. If you enjoy your work, the quality of your work will show. But I only hope that Pfeiffer will find an exciting role soon. We’d better keep waiting.
# 2 Febrero 2010 at 10:43

getgueti said:
i will always look up to her no matter what :)
# 2 Febrero 2010 at 11:12

alex said:
Totally agree with Benjamin and Patrick. She musn’t work to keep her fans happy or to win an oscar or to be remenbered or respected (she must work if the project is interesting and great, as was Cheri)
She must have win Oscar for Cheri, a really great film¡¡¡¡ ahh
As I always say, she is a human being (as we are) and she must do whatever she wants to do with her life (and I will respect her decisions because I respect her and I like her acting skills)
We have all her movies, and watching Michelle on the screen is always such a pleasure, oh my God, her movements, her subtile expressions, all¡¡¡
Michelle we love youuuuuuuuuuu¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡
Now that her child are growing, growing, she will work more, she has passion for her job¡¡¡¡
# 2 Febrero 2010 at 11:17

Sunfire said:
Well I was just thinking about this yesterday, and well here it is. None of us want to hear this, but sadly it has alot of truth in in. Is she finished? Well I think that is up to her. She would need something really big to pull her out of this. The choices she has made, although I hardly think any of us truly want to admit it has had to do with her age. This has been her theme in her last four films. Is she sending us a message, that it’s over or is she just trying to manage the fact that she is 52? Or maybe its because she hasn’t had much success in her last films. Well I for one think she needs to pull herself out of this slump and move on. Look at Meryl Streep. Her children are old enough to deal with her missing in action for a few months. It is important now that she starts moving or she will lose any thread she has left in the movie business. We all agree she is terrific. Perhaps we should start something to get her moving. I don’t know what. Letters to her agent, more stuff on the website to get her moving. With the internet being so in your face we all should be able to come up with something to get her moving. Let’s go Pfans…
# 2 Febrero 2010 at 13:23

Tim said:
I agree with everything you said Benjamin, if a person is so comfortable, he or she doesn’t have to work all the time. I always understood MP’s desire to be off the radar and work whenever she wanted.
I also definitely respect that she raised her kids so well, and is actually in their lives. Especially compared to someone of her own age, Madonna, who apparently (as reported) hardly spends any time with her kids.
My original point with my “comment” (haha) was why she isn’t in magazines anymore. It’s not because she’s old, it’s not because she’s not relevant anymore. It’s simply because she’s not working enough.
And yea, again, I understand why. Work sucks! Especially for her, she has to keep fit when she works and get up early and learn lines and all that jazz. And the work itself isn’t easy. Most normal people think acting is so simple but it really isn’t (unlike modeling, which IS easy and I will defend that point to my grave).
Cheri really does have a great performance from her. I just rewatched the end of that movie three times last night. I don’t see how she wasn’t nominated for a Golden Globe. Maybe it was bc they were selling it as a “comedy.” I laughed like, twice during that movie, it was definitely NOT a comedy haha. Anyway that whole part where she says “You found an old woman” was just, Meryl Streep level in terms of delivery. It’s the equivalent of Meryl saying “The party doesn’t matter” in The Hours. lol I always look at that line and think it’s so amazing. It’s just a tiny part of the movie, not very important, but Meryl delivers it so well. Anyway MP did a great job in Cheri. Definitely better than actresses who got nominated, like Julia Roberts, although I like her a lot too.
At this point I highly doubt she’ll want to stack up her schedule and work a lot anymore. It is such a waste. I mean not just for us pfans, but for the world! haha. I really think of her as a huge asset towards any production. Oh yea, and as bad as PE was, MP was very good in it. I’ve been saying that for a lot of movies she’s in though, unfortunately. Ugh.
Oh yea and one more follow up point, yea I thought she was the best part in White Oleander (love that movie), Hairspray, and Stardust. The prob with her in those sort of ensembles is that I wish she had a lot more screen time, or that the movie centered on her character instead, hahaha. Imagine a movie about Ingrid or Lamia? It would be awesooooommmee!!!
# 2 Febrero 2010 at 15:32

Tim said:
Oh shoot I wrote another novel haha. I should get back to work!
# 2 Febrero 2010 at 15:32

Benjamin said:
The reason Pfeiffer is not constantly in the media is because she chooses not to be. She has always lived a private life and rarely shows up a red carpet events, unlike some of these starlets who will appear at the opening of an envelope. It has nothing to do with her popularity. It’s because she refuses to hire a publicist to advertise her while she is not working as vigorously as many of these other actresses do, UNLESS she has a movie to promote. Many of these Megan Fox and Jennifer Aniston types have to remain relevant in the public eye to maintain career momentum because they don’t have the type of career Pfeiffer has enjoyed for THIRTY YEARS. Can anyone name a prominent Jennifer Aniston movie? (I feel as if I’m writing a novel myself, Tim). I would like to respectfully address some of the previous comments (which I do appreciate being posted):
“STREEP, BULLOCK, KIDMAN, JOLIE (THAT HAS 6 KIDS), EVEN KATHY BATES WORK MORE THAN PFEIFFER.” — Streep has grown children. Bullock and Bates don’t have children. Jolie has an army of nannies. And Kidman has an infant and an ex-husband who shares custody of their older children, plus she has also chosen to slow down on work.
“Look at Meryl Streep. Her children are old enough to deal with her missing in action for a few months.” — Usually in this country when parents are ‘missing in action’ for a few months the children are taken from the parents and placed in foster care. But any caring parent who does not want their daughter to become the next Paris Hilton or the Kardashians will remain home if they afford to. Streep’s children are grown and are pursuing their own careers now. So she is free to capitalize on her post-”Devil Wears Prada” success by participating in multiple productions, unlike earlier in her career after winning her first oscar for “Kramer vs. Kramer” when she was only doing a film a year, which is usually two or three months out of the year (presumably during the summer vacation period).
# 2 Febrero 2010 at 16:13

Benjamin said:
I forgot to add that I prefer Pfeiffer in lead roles instead of supporting or ensemble roles because she does have the necessary charisma to carry a film from start to finish. I would rather see her in the lead in “Personal Effects” than a supporting role in “Stardust” or “Hairspray”. I do like “Stardust” and Pfeiffer was the reason I watched it (and I like DeNiro and Charlie Cox as well), but Claire who? Danes was the so-called star but Pfeiffer was so much better. She was so good I wanted Lamia to succeed, eat Yvaine’s heart, regain her youth, and run away with Tristan!
And as expected she was NOT nominated for the Oscar for “Cheri”, though I really hoped for a surprise nomination. But so surprise nominees this year so the Oscars will be boring yet again this year.
# 2 Febrero 2010 at 16:26

Tasha said:
i have to say, although i am a massive pfan, i really respect her decision to spend time with her children (not that i wouldn’t like to see her doing more) and while some people think that all she wants is an oscar + then she can retire, i would imagine that, although i dont think you would find an actor out there who wouldn’t like an oscar, having had the amazing career that she has, can you imagine her being so trivial to just want an award so that she can stop doing what she has always said she has loved???
# 2 Febrero 2010 at 18:29

chelsea said:
Uhmm, Michelle’s 51, guys. She’s turning 52 april 29th.
Benjamin, I agree with you about Chéri. It wasn’t the most popular movie of the year, but it had something. When it was over I just sat in my seat for a couple of minutes. I was blown away by the story and especially the ending. The age of innocence had the same effect on me. But maybe that’s just me, since movies in which they don’t end up together always blow me away.
I think it’s great for her and her family that she wants to spend more time with them than with her work (not so great for the Pfans, obviously). She’s great at what she does, but that doesn’t mean she has to do it all. I still think she’s a much greater actress than all the A-listers in Hollywood like Sandra Bullock or Julia roberts (although they’re not bad), even though she’s not in the most popular movies. Movies like The Proposal maybe make people laugh, but what about the movies that actually mean something? I think that Chéri was great.
And sure, it would be great if she would have or will win an Oscar. But that would not make her a better actress to me than she already is. She really does deserve it though.
But she is indeed just a person, like everyone else, and she should be able to do what she wants to do. Even if that means she’ll never do another movie again(NO!). Let’s just hope she’ll make more movies. It doesn’t matter if her part’s big (Chéri) or small (White oleander): they’re all great. Michelle 4ever (L)
# 2 Febrero 2010 at 20:18

Benjamin said:
Perhaps I have a problem with what defines being on the ‘A-list’ or being a ’star’. The A-list has nothing to do with someone’s talent or longevity in the business, but instead their current box office appeal. Because of films such as “Batman Returns” and “Dangerous Minds” Pfeiffer was considered A-list. But many of Pfeiffer’s films, especially “Baker Boys”, which solidified her stardom, were not huge hits, and yet she constantly kept working until she decided she needed a break following “White Oleander”. Once upon a time people like Steven Seagal and Kelly McGillis were considered bigger box office stars than Pfeiffer, until the studios lost interest in them, not the other way around. There are actors with two oscars who don’t get the same star offers as Pfeiffer does even as she gets older, so she clearly does not need an Oscar to validate her career. (Looks like Mo’Nique may win one before Pfeiffer does). I don’t know what constitutes star quality but I know it when I see it. And I’m sure everyone agrees Pfeiffer possesses those qualities that justifies her legend as this generation’s greatest leading lady of the silver screen no matter who’s hot or who’s not at the moment. She will never be over and generations of moviegoers will mention her name in the very same breath as Marilyn Monroe or Rita Hayworth (neither of whom have won Oscars) long after we are gone. I guarantee you.
# 3 Febrero 2010 at 0:22

adelutza said:
The problem is not that Mo’Nique will win an Oscar before Pfeiffer – because Mo’Nique deserves it – the problem is that Sandra Bullock will win one before her – and that’s unacceptable.
# 3 Febrero 2010 at 4:27

Benjamin said:
Adelutza – Trust me, when Julia Roberts stole Ellen Burstyn’s Oscar and won one before Pfeiffer, that was unacceptable. And my contempt for the Oscars went straight through the roof. The fact that people still associate Pfeiffer with “The Fabulous Baker Boys” only proves she should have won for that performance. I won’t even mention the snubs (White Oleander, The Age of Innocence, Batman Returns – hey, Heath Ledger won for stealing a Batman movie!)
# 3 Febrero 2010 at 5:25

RAMIRO DE SAN DIEGO said:
NO, THAT SUCKS THAT MO’NIQUE WILL WIN AN OSCAR B4 PFEIFFER, C’MON, BULLOCK AT LEAST HAS SUCCESFUL MOVIES UNDER HER BELT BUT MO’NIQUE? WHAT HAS SHE DONE? CHARM SCHOOL TV SHOW? AND MORE TV SHOWS? C’MON PFEIFFER WAKE UP AND MAKE MOVIES!!!!! “MALEFICENT” WILL NOT WIN YOU AN OSCAR, MOVIES LIKE “THE BLIND SIDE AND PRECIOUS” WILL. WHO CARES ABOUT BULLOCK WINNING AN OSCAR. PENOLOPE CRUZ WON ONE, HUDSON, ZETA-JONES, SWINTON (WHO STOLE PFEIFFERS CAREER AFTER THE LION THE WITCH AND THE WARDROBE), ANNA PAQUIN, EVEN KATE WINSLET WON ONE, WHAT WILL SUCK MORE IS IF Kristen Stewart WINS ONE, AFTER THAT PFEIFFER SHOULD DEFENITLY RETIRE.
# 3 Febrero 2010 at 5:30

Dani said:
I love her, but I wholeheartedly agree.
# 3 Febrero 2010 at 5:56

bond said:
Looking at the filmography of Michelle, really proud of the projects she has made.
The Russia House, Love Field, A Thousand Acres, Frankie & Johnny, White Oleander…all of these are so much different from each other and all showcase her real talent and variety.
I watched 2 shows of Cheri in Hong Kong just last week and people seems quite enjoy it here, lots of laughing throughout the movie and couple of them cry at the last scence. It’s not a blockbuster but it’s sweet-hearted light drama one. However, it’s a little bit far too short if they want to turn the first half comedy-like atmosphere into sadness drama. I truely in love with the ending now but if in any case they actually shoot the part after WW1 from “The Last of Cheri”, “Cheri” would become a more meaty drama.
# 3 Febrero 2010 at 7:36

tachu said:
I love this post. Pfeiffer has a great pfandom.
I’d really like to see her in more films. Two in a year would be an excellent rate, don’t you think?
# 3 Febrero 2010 at 10:24

Patrick said:
I used to go to the theatre watching films almost once a week. Recently I prefer renting dvd. The ticket is pricy and many movies doesn’t worth it.Anyway I keep going out to see Pfeiffer’s films. It’s a sort of showing my support. I think every of us doing the same because we are her number one fan.I don’t think that Pfeiffer is not off the radar. Her appearance in Palm spring fillm fest can prove that. She is such a well respected hollywood lady.I believe that she will come up with an interesting project. All we have to do is wait.
# 3 Febrero 2010 at 11:10

Annie said:
I totoally agree, but I think this is actually a part that makes her unique and special, and it just…it just makes me love her even more! I think she chose her family over her career is really a right choice, I mean, pfamily is really something that makes you happy, from the bottom of your heart. Acting could never do that. And I’ll always love her (as my friends say, my obession with Pfabulous Michelle Pfeiffer is just can NEVER be cured, and I wouldn’t want it to be LOL)
I hope we’ll always be Pfans~!
# 3 Febrero 2010 at 15:06

Benjamin said:
Annie – You just put a smile on my face ! Thank you !
# 3 Febrero 2010 at 18:43

chelsea said:
Well said, Annie. Family should be more important than work. And that Michelle realizes this makes my Pfandom even bigger. And to be frank, I don’t care that much if she wins an Oscar. She’s an amazing actress and she doesn’t need an award to be so. So RAMIRO DE SAN DIEGO, I disagree with you. She shouldn’t retire based on not winning an Oscar. Maybe Kristen Stewart will win one before her. But that doesn’t mean she’s a better actress than Michelle. Kristen’s just a crowd-favorite, she can’t act! Michelle’s a true actress and she should act no matter what.
# 3 Febrero 2010 at 20:52

Mexie =] said:
Ouch, but shockingly true! I’dlove to see her work, but when I mention Michelle Pfeiffer ot a lot of people they say, “Who?” So I would LOVE to see her bak on the A list and gain the recognition she deserves! I think we all want to see the woman with the fire in her eyes, we want to see the woman who makes our souls melt when she acts, we want to see that woman who fights for a project. Maybe she thinks shes getting too old, NAHHH!! Look at Meryl and Judi Dench! I know in hollywood there aren’t that many roles for “older” actor and actresses, but they’re soo many AMAZING “older” actresses out there, Michelle being one of the best who can change that. Michelle got the honour of a star of fame back in 2007, I want to see her show why, she got the star and I want to see her win the academy award she deserves. But I will forever and always be a pfan, I have NEVER admired someone so much in my entire life! :)
# 3 Febrero 2010 at 23:04

Jonno said:
I love Michelle…. But kinda really over her now. She just doesnt do anything good anymore….Her last 3 films, all flops, she has played a cougar.. She is better than that.. I dont understand why she makes bad career choices.. You know, for years I have wanted her to win an oscar, thats funny, she cant even get a golden globe nomination anymore..
I dont want to say this, but I will, have been thinking about it for a while…. Michelle Pfeiffer is a has-been. She needs a great comeback vehicle and to take some chances with her choices… Think she may also bit lazy, her kids are in their teens now, so she could work more if she chose to… The problem is she wouldnt be offerred parts anymore.. Maybe its time for her to do television. Its that time of her career, and, with a few exceptions, happens to then all. Especially stars that were huge in the 80’s and 90’s..
There you have it guys, still love her, be glad to see her in something, but, think her film career is finished… Go on Michelle, surprise me and prove me wrong :)
# 4 Febrero 2010 at 8:52

Patrick said:
I hope and believe that MP don’t get hurt by not geting any nomination for Cheri this year. Her performance was praised by critics.She brought the best out of it.That’s what she achieved as an excellent actress. She has such a long career compared to some actresses who got an oscar and then disapear(Helen Hunt, Kim Basinger etc). Good actors should be concerned about bringing the best of themselves in their acting role for whatever the project is, and MP is one of them. Getting an oscar is not the only thing that prove you are the best. This can help you earn popularity for a while,but if you don’t provide a good thing afterward you will be forgotten. As years goes by, her beauty will inevitably fade away but her charisma and acting skill will still be there. So I won’t be worried, MP will still make us enjoy her acting for coming years. I do believe.
# 4 Febrero 2010 at 10:57

Jackie said:
Michelle will always be my favorite actress. If she choses to retire, though I would be disappointed, it would be okay. I can understand her chosing family over movie stardom. But I do have to say, if she still wants to take on movies roles here and there, at least chose the good ones. The last two movies Cheri and Personal Effects were ok. Nothing to write home about. Only that we all got to see Michelle again. She is still up there with the A listers because of her talent, proven acting skills and not to mention her rare beauty. Love ya Michelle! No matter what!
# 4 Febrero 2010 at 16:46

Tim said:
I wouldn’t say she’s a total has-been.
I mean compare her to Meg Ryan, who was just as powerful as her back in the day. You don’t see Meg getting movies like Cheri.
But MP’s Personal Effects was pretty much equivalent to Meg’s “In The Land of Women” thing with Adam Brody. Both gigs were pretty sad overall. Did Meg’s make it to theaters? If it did, it has MP’s PE beat.
ICNBYW was a real disappointment. I was really expecting something very good.
The fact is, at the end of the day, Cheri did not get a wide-release. If it were Julia Roberts in that movie, there would have been a real release for that movie. MP’s name doesn’t carry weight anymore.
Dangerous Minds made way more money back in the day than Stardust did, and Stardust has way more stars in it. MP’s drawing power has declined so much that even in an ensemble, it is pretty meaningless.
And sadly, I have to admit that most people went to see Hairspray for Zac Efron or John Travolta. Zac’s the “it” kid, John brings in the older crowd, esp. anyone who wants to see him in a dress. MP’s presence in that movie was like the cherry on top, it’s nice, but it’s not cake we’re gonna eat. (Or some other metaphor).
When ICNBYW was going to be released, magazines listed the pros and cons, with a con saying “But who is going to see this?” MP is not Jennifer Aniston or Sarah Jessica Parker (imo, THANK GOD).
She’s chosen her path anyway. She chose to do movies all through her career that weren’t blockbusters. In a What Lies Beneath interview, she said that she didn’t usually find blockbusters appealing, but that that script interested her. She said the same thing about Batman Returns, that she doesn’t like doing those big sort of movies, but wanted to play Catwoman.
All in all, she did what was important to her. But that didn’t work too well for her either, since she came up with flops like The Story of Us and The Deep End of the Ocean (I personally love those two movies, but I have to admit, they are very sub par, and I would not have seen them if it were some other actress in the part, it has zero-interest value to me).
Anyway, yes, I would like to stress that I like that she stays out of the spotlight and she puts her family first. But 2 things:
1. In this day and age, staying in the spotlight can do wonders for your career. Look at Snooki. She’s a crazy dumb girl who’s getting her own show. These antics work, and it’s proven.
2. Family first, sure, but still, READ the script and see if the work is worth getting into (Personal Effects). There’s no excuse anymore for a seasoned actress like MP to decide to work on crap.
Anyway gotta get back to work
# 4 Febrero 2010 at 19:17

shannon said:
Mmmm i’m stuck on this one!! but what i think about it is that,family comes first no matter how big your stardom is. I mean she has 2 teenage kids and time is crucial she spends as much time with them as possible before it’s to late and she will regret it. But i think once her kids have left home and becoming young adults doing there own thing i think we’ll have the talented Michelle we all love back!! But i’m also agreeing about her talking part in crap movies. i mean if your gunna do a movie every so often cos your busey with your family then you’ve gotta do amazing!! xxxxxxxxx
# 4 Febrero 2010 at 20:22

dreamer said:
If a script interest her she’ll do the movie, if not than not. She doesn’t think in terms of boxofice succes. And you know what… she’s absolutely right. That’s what makes a real actress, it’s a passion. I think it would be sad if you only considering to act in a movie with awards potention.
And if she decides to work on what you call crap than so be it. Btw what crap is to you is for someone else maybe a great movie.
John
# 4 Febrero 2010 at 20:44

emira ayoub said:
all this bla bla bla means that we miss her and we love her no matter what!
# 4 Febrero 2010 at 21:38

Benjamin said:
I do believe Pfeiffer did ‘What Lies Beneath’ and ‘Batman Returns’ because they were great characters as opposed to their blockbuster potential. And she did give Oscar-worthy performances in both. However I do not believe filmmakers set out to make a bad movie. Films are a collaboration and so many people are involved and it helps if everyone is on the same page. And when studios spend lots of money on a film and feel it’s too complex, or too arthousy, for the ‘multiplex’ crowd (not the European audience because most of their films are character driven), they will re-edit the film and hold multiple test screenings until they feel the movie is more audience friendly, which explains the dumbing-down of most movies today. The only recourse are independent films which offer actors the chance to play richer characters, but are rarely guaranteed wide distribution if any distribution at all. “Hairspray” and “Stardust” were big studio films that performed well internationally. Her older woman-younger man films were independent films that couldn’t garner wide release, not because they were bad films, but because these type of films are harder to sell, especially since “How Stella Got Her Groove Back” did not perform to box office expectations. I just saw Catherine Zeta-Jones new movie “The Rebound” in which she falls in love with a younger man, and I thought it was not only a wonderful movie, but also the first time I thought Jones was perfectly cast. But I will bet anyone money here that this film will either get a limited release or go straight-to-video just as well. Proving that it is not Pfeiffer’s star power at question, but just the way Hollywood does business. And for the record, I’d rather watch a so-called has-been like Pfeiffer in any movie before I subject myself to one of the media-popular A-listers like Jennifer Aniston’s movies any day of the week.
# 4 Febrero 2010 at 22:22

Boby said:
Hello guys!
As I´m reading all this issues, I´m finding you´re very nice family here to join. I like Sunfire´s one very much. Let´s put more stuff on the web! Let´s do something! Actions speak louder than words. Tim, your study about “Aging Gracefully” is marvelous and very instructive, by the way. I was thinking about to contribute some way too and got an idea. I´ve started watching every “Michelle´s” movies in English since seeing The fabulous Baker boys, because of her voice. Since then I´ve promised myself to improve my English as I´ve written here somewhere before. Learning “Her” films is one of the way for me to get ahead. One day I decided to do a block with the English vocabulary to the Michelle´s movies. Sort of “Let´s learn English with Michelle”. I “must” do every movie she played in. I´ve just started and you can guess the movie. Check this up: http://michellepfeiffer.blog.cz/ Your comments on English are very appreciated.
Second idea I have is to put together here some screenplay for her.
Could be fun. The fabulous Diamond´s girls, for instance ha..ha..ha..
I love you all,
Boby.
# 4 Febrero 2010 at 23:56

Benjamin said:
Boby, what is your orginal language? And yes, we are huge fans of Pfeiffer. But I think we are all here because we are bigger fans of Fran. He is the one who has organized his time and energy to create this site and for us to enjoy. There are many other Pfeiffer fansites be we always return to this one not only because of Pfeiffer but we love Fran and his work. Am I right?
# 5 Febrero 2010 at 0:17

ianmic said:
I love Michelle and always will, but she seemed to lose interest in her career when she started her family. And it shows in her performances.
Besides A Thousand Acres and White Oleander, post The Age of Innocence she has relied heavily on the same …. techniques (for the want of a better word). She picked up alot of bad habits in Dangerous Minds, where she slightly overacted in some scenes (for comedic effect), and she’s done the same thing ever since.
It could be that it’s Michelle’s charactersistics coming through in the character, but these nuances weren’t there before. Maybe she’s been famous for too long and she’s forgotten what it’s like to be a ‘real’ person.
Don’t get me wrong, she’s still a good actress, and still one of the best, but she used to be great. Her earlier performances felt genuine, like they were actually real people, and her performances were exciing and full of suprises. Now I know what I’m going to see before I see the film.
Or it could be that the roles she has chosen haven’t been that great so she hasn’t had the chance. Personal Effects, which was a new low point, was absolutley terrible; she may have come off better than Kutcher, but some of her scenes in that are embarrassing.
I hope I don’t sound too negative but I want everyone, and not just us fans, to see what a truly great actress she is.
# 5 Febrero 2010 at 0:24

sean said:
I usually read all the post but never write, but now I decide do it.
First becouse I have a reason why I prefer Michelle more than others and it´s becouse she is different.I don´t want another Kidman, Bullock, strepp……she is unique!!!
The different specially between them and Michelle it´s that they are in all the parties(saraos in Spanish)and Pfeiffer´s not.Yes they work more but it´s true that have successfull movies and worst movies just remember the list of these movies at the box office.
We are all the time telling what Michelle must do, but no one remembered that she brings us splendings perfomances in The Age of Innocence or White Olleander and what happens with the oscars? nothing,no nom and of course no awards….
After the last ten years I really think that in Hollywood now it´s more important the marketing tham the act in a film and to be honest I like Pfeiffer becouse she is an Actress a real one and not a product for one film or for sell anything beside it……
# 5 Febrero 2010 at 0:27

Boby said:
Hi Benjamin,
The Czech is my original language. I agree with you. Fran is doing the great job. I didn´t mean this beadly. I only thought it might be useful for some people who are not native in English like me. It´s a hard work for me and I´d like to share.
Maybe I colud do this for Fran here if he wants to.
# 5 Febrero 2010 at 0:46

Benjamin said:
Boby – Actually I asked about your language because I know her voice has to be dubbed for foreign release. I was curious what ‘her voice’ (the actress who dubs her) sounded like in your country. I’ve heard her dubbed in other languages and was sometimes horrified. Sometimes it will sound like a high-pitched teenager, or a heavy older woman…
# 5 Febrero 2010 at 2:03

et said:
Hi pfans!!!
I continue to visit the site daily from my first contact with Fran and then with yours!
As I had said I admired the Pfeiffer’s performance as Ellen Olenska and then I found the site. This wonderful site increase my interest and was a daily break for info. So, I realized that I have read/watch the most of stuff!!!
I used to read the topics without make comments but when I read this I decided that I wanted to share with you my thoughts about this theme as they created after my acquaintance with pf stuff! I try to tell them as briefly as I can!!!!!
I think that Tim’s thought has a point but in my opinion the truth is somewhere between his and Benjamin’s points.
Theme 1: When you are Michelle Pfeiffer, IF you want to be popular you know the way. The theme is if you wanna walk in this way.
And seems that Pfeiffer don’t want. And it isn’t only family thing. Is a life attitude. To be an actor/actress and to be a celebrity is two different things. But in Hollywood if you want to be popular and A-list you MUST be a celebrity. With every thing this includes. Appearances, parties, pr, “famous friendships” and the most of times a scandal. She is away from all these from years as I can see.
Of course someone will ask “Why it didn’t happen at 90’s??”.. For me the answer is simple. The age. When you are over 45 you have more interesting and different roles but also you have less “box office” choices. You can’t play beneficiry roles as “Susie Diamond”, “Ellen Olenska”, “Catwoman”and “Elvira”. Not because you aren’t beautiful anymore but because you aren’t 30! You can play Catwoman but they will cast someone younger!Just because is the way that system works.
Theme 2 Other actresses:
I read names such as Jennifer Aniston and Angelina Jolie. Sorry but I can’t remember their last really success. Aniston – after “Friends” – is famous more than her marriage and divorce with Brad Pitt than her movies.
Jolie at last years, also, is famous for her lips, her scandalous interviews, her humanitarianism, her life with Pitt, if they divorce if they don’t etc.
Both of them are every week in gossip magazines and I am in Europe!!
Sandra Bullock make safe choices without something excellent. I liked “The Proposal” very much and it was unexpected success. “The Blind Side” is the exception. Is a good performance and a good movie but of course not for Oscar. Just she follows Julia’s way and hope to have the same luck! Same movies – one different – Oscar.. But I did never hear something excellent about her movies. She hasn’t a memorable career and maybe she manages well with box office these years but she isn’t acceptable as a super-talented!!!!
Julia Roberts of course had a very big audience. Maybe the biggest. But as we can see, her come-back-movie with a really good marketing, with definitely great chemistry with Clive Owen and great expectations hadn’t the expected success. Why? Because she decided to take some years off. When you pass 40, 5 years is a really big time and it has its cost. Btw, I liked “Duplicity”! It was very good. May be she will make a big success in future but now she isn’t what she was 10 years ago.
Meryl Streep at 90’s didn’t made so many movies. The last years are hers and as you can see the time changes…!
Something different?? See Cate Blanchett.. She is an excellent actress, she is very talented and it’s acceptable but she isn’t a popular/box office actor. Just because she make difficult and different choices. But she has a really worthy filmography!
So, as Pfeiffer used to say, all things are depend on our choices.
She had the easy way to make “easy”- romantic movies based in her stunning appearance and she did the difficult choice. For me, well done. (Except for the 1995-1999..I think that she could have a “new Susie Diamond” role..It wouldn’t bad!!!!)…The 1st choice with a “What Lies Beneath, then maybe brought her an Oscar btw..!!
I disagree with someone who said that he don’t wanna play or she chooses the retirement. At July she said that she would like to play the Catwoman again. If you associate this with her words at Palm Spring Awards (“The failures are so public”) and with not success of PE, ICNBYW and Cheri you can understand that she maybe wait for something not so risky…
Btw, for me, ICNBYW could have good luck with good distribution…Cheri deserved something better but it is another big conversation.
Finally, when you aren’t “baby”, you don’t love the celebrities lifestyle, you give priority to the family, you live away from public eye and scandals and you like your privacy, you have 2 choices: a) you play in independent films or not big releases, b) you don’t play and you expect something excellent.
PS1: Ok, it wasn’t “briefly”…But I tried!!!Thanks for patience!
PS2: [Joke] I noticed that she haven’t a Golden Globe or an Oscar nomination after her marriage..She disappointed them!!They prefer her as single!! LoL!
# 5 Febrero 2010 at 4:13

kelda said:
Age is the main issue. It always is after an actress crosses the dreaded 4-0. The only two examples I can think of who have somewhat defied that are Meryl Streep and Sandra Bullock. Keep in mind that even though both have managed to stay relevant past 40, their prime was still BEFORE that age. They may still do great work (maybe some of their best work) and be popular past 40, but Meryl’s prime was the 1980s and Bullock’s prime was the 1990s- mid 2000s. for actresses, age makes a difference no matter what. As much great work they may do past a certain age, youth matters. Their prime will always be when they were still youthful. Sad thing.
Still, I give props to Bullock and Streep because look at the following actresses besides Pfeiffer: Nicole Kidman, Halle Berry, Julia Roberts, Meg Ryan, Demi Moore, Sharon Stone… and many many more. You will notice that the moment each crossed 40 (some even early as mid 30s!)- the roles seemed to dry up, and/or their movies flopped. It’s tough. It’s not just Pfeiffer. We all know that.
I hope Pfeiffer can turn it around and become a Meryl Streep. Pfeiffer IS a legend. She will always be well-known in the minds of those who were old enough to experience and know of her. And if she gets back in the spotlight, though she will never achieve the height of fame she had in the late 1980s and 1990s, she can enter the consciousness of the new generation of moviegoers. Keep in mind that Meryl Streep did mainly un-notable work in the 90s and didn’t turn it all around until 2002 with Adaptation and The Hours (age of 53). I hope pfeiffer keeps working and I hope she chooses better scripts. But if she doesn’t, I will be disappointed but still flock to her films. :)
# 5 Febrero 2010 at 5:26

kelda said:
I’d also like to say in reference to Scarlett being on the cover of Fotogamas- Though she may have more followers than Pfeiffer CURRENTLY being that she is young and consistently working, it still remains to be seen if she can reach the level of fame Pfeiffer achieved in her prime. ScarJo is still a ‘rising’ star; a starlet. She seems poised to be one of the top stars of the next generation of actresses, which hasn’t fully emerged yet, but again it remains to be seen. The last generation of top actresses (Julia Roberts, Halle Berry, Nicole Kidman, Cameron Diaz, etc.) has passed but a new TOP group has not emerged yet. There are the ‘in-betweens’ like Angelina Jolie and Reese Witherspoon who are not past their prime yet, but a while new crop of top A-list actresses has not emerged. There is a hopeful, rising group: Natalie Portman, Anne Hathaway, Keira Knightley, ScarJo… but none have emerged to the levels of Julia Roberts or Nicole Kidman, or going back further- a Michelle Pfeiffer or Meg Ryan!
The reason actresses like Julia does not have as many ‘followers’ as these young starlets is because she is past her prime. Julia has more overall fans- she was a bigger star than all those starlets combined- but these fans are no longer current followers. They enjoy the Julia of yore and don’t hold an interest for the past-40 Julia. They are fans forever, but no longer current followers. Likewise with Michelle, yes there are her faithful fans who still keep track of her career (us!), but many of her fans are no longer current followers. She has millions of fans from all over the world- but most of them are fans of the 80s/90s Michelle and don’t hold as large an interest in the menopause Michelle. :)
For instance, I will always be a Madonna fan but I don’t hold much of an interest for her recent work.
# 5 Febrero 2010 at 6:00

lola said:
ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh mann this is harsh news but i kinda caught on when cheri came out, i live in australia and although cheri was advertised in the news papers and vogue it was no where to be seen in cinemas here my mother and i lookes everywhere but none of our local cinemas we then went searching way beyond our suburb and finally got to it in a little secluded cinema in the city from then on i kinda new michelle was going. i am truelly upset and very very sad to think that there is a possibility that there will be no more michelle pfeiffer movies is almost like there being no michelle pfeiffer cause without her movies what is she ? i know she is probably the image of an angel but without her movies we wont see that angel and it truely cuts me inside i loovvveeeee her soo uch and i aspire to her aswell ! please dont go michelle i love u !
# 5 Febrero 2010 at 9:09

patrick said:
I couldn’t imagine that there would be a lot of post on this board and on this subject. MP still has big fanclub. I hope she noticed that. You guys don’t get too worried!!!! I believe that MP will come back with a good project. Why will she stop doing what she does best? A meaty role will come along to her. And so we will be able to enjoy her work again.
# 5 Febrero 2010 at 10:07

chelsea said:
I just wish that Michelle will once come across this site and see how many faithfull fans she has. She is truly amazing and I respect every choice she makes. I do hope she’ll do more movies, because I just love seeing her in something new.
By the way, you guys talk a lot about ICNBYW. What is that?
# 6 Febrero 2010 at 0:00

Benjamin said:
“I Could Never Be Your Woman”, which I enjoyed and I’m sure would have performed well at the box office if it were released theatrically here in the States as originally planned.
# 6 Febrero 2010 at 0:20

et said:
Haha…:D Is a short way to refer to the movie “I Could Never Be Your Woman”!! When you are boring to typing you have a lot of ideas to avoid it!!! LoL!
PS: Kelda is very right about stardom at nowadays.. No comparison with the previous generation of stars..
# 6 Febrero 2010 at 0:24

Sandy said:
I think Michelle still has a few good blockbuster hits left in her career. Look at Meryl Streep in her late 50’s got Devil Wears Prada, Its Complicated, Julie and Julia and of course Mamma Mia which had Michelle’s name attached to it for quite a while. I just hope to god we hear about a new project soon. Been way too long.
# 6 Febrero 2010 at 18:03

Marc said:
I consider Michelle very courageous and risky accepting her fantastic lead role in CHERI and that’s one of the reasons i always admire Michelle as an actress, because she never mind a lot of the “success” point of view of the movies she does. She just participate because she believe the film will be good and interesting and it’s fantastic she still as the head name of a movie. How many actresses can do that at her age? Her acting in CHERI is gorgeous so i hope she will continue with those interesting roles she loves.
In some comments there are some references about the success of other actresses like the also great Julia Roberts in comparison to Michelle. Of course Julia Roberts still has a big power in Hollywood business (let’s see what happens when she gets older) but well, don’t forget that Roberts also participate with Stephen Fears and Christopher Hampton in the “Mary Reilly” movie that was big fail in her career and then she continue with some other movies that had much more sucess.
Michelle still can do the same, and if she wants i am sure she can decide to participate in a big box office movie next to a George Clooney for example, or to continue accepting some risky movies with less budget but interesting script and lead roles.
Of course is not easy for an actress to get great lead roles after 50’s but Michelle has a strong career to continue in this business if she wants (not a lot of actresses have the same options as her) and as Sandy said look Meryl Steep example.
# 8 Febrero 2010 at 2:01

Benjamin said:
Success is measured by individual standards. And films should be judged by their merits instead of box office performance. Not all films that Pfeiffer chooses to do are guaranteed to be successful. I do admire her courage to work with first-time directors, like “Personal Effects” director David Hollander, because of the strength of the story and characters, and not because of a proven director’s track record. PE gave Pfeiffer the opportunity to play a fiery character I’ve never seen her perform before, which is one of the reasons I liked the film a lot. But because it mostly went straight to video, which she had no control over, it is considered a failure on her behalf. If the film did receive wide distribution and was a box office success, would people still complain about it? “The Fabulous Baker Boys” was a box office disappointment from a first-time director with wide distribution. Does that make it a failure? And because she was not nominated for an Oscar this year had nothing to do with lack of marketing. The oscars have been known to throw in surprise nominees out of left field to keep things interesting. Remember Catalina Sandino Moreno for “Maria Full of Grace”?
# 8 Febrero 2010 at 2:48

patrick said:
She’d better pick up the challenging role that suit her acting talent. She sitll draw attention of many movie goers. Her appearence in Berlin is the highlight of the festival.That can prove. Actress in her generation, she’s the one who have the done the best so far. Look at all the movies she have done and all the great actors with whom she have acted, Robert Redfords, Sean Connery, Jeff Bridges, Daniel Day leiws,Sean Pean, George Clooney, Harrison Fords, Al Pacino, De ni ro etc. How many actress had that chances to work with all those actors and many great directors. With or without oscar, she sill have a very good consideration in movie business. I believe that the studio will easily prefer Pfeiffer to an oscared actress like Gena Davis(no offense..I like her too). It’s because she has a great charisma and all credits wth great movies under her belt. I suppose that money and popularity is not reason why she has to get out bed and go fighting for. That’s a privileges of being her. As long as she still has passion for acting,she will be here in tough movies business for a while. i will anyway keep on waiting.
# 8 Febrero 2010 at 12:01

Benjamin said:
I agree with Marc and Patrick.
# 8 Febrero 2010 at 20:29

chelsea said:
Well, no. It’s not because it wasn’t a big box office success that I don’t liked Personal effects. It’s really just the movie. First of all I don’t like Ashton Kutcher. After this movie I kinda hate him as an actor. He was just so bad in PE! I know he was supposed to be broken and all sad because of his sister, but he made it seem like Michelle was just a woman taking advantage of his grief. Like she was throwing herself at him. It was just embarassing. Michelle wasn’t bad, but not at her best. But Ashton’s performance influenced hers of course. I also didn’t like that blue tone in the whole movie very much. The story was okay and I would probably enjoy it if Michelle was in it with a better actor. But I understand why Michelle took this role. It’s an interesting character to play. It’s just bad luck that it turned out like this. I blame Ashton :p
# 8 Febrero 2010 at 22:05

Benjamin said:
Ashton did the best he could opposite powerhouse actors like Pfeiffer and Bates (and I love the fact Pfeiffer seduced BOTH of Bates’ sons in back to back movies!), but the ladies’ talents clearly overwhelmed him. And if I had to cast “Personal Effects” I would have preferred Chris Evans as the male lead. He is a much better actor.
# 8 Febrero 2010 at 23:50

Tim said:
Btw thanks Boby for your nice comment. And Kelda, you’re right about the lifespan of the female actress. I think Meryl is amazing though for pretty much having a completely new career at her age. She did disappear for a while before The Hours and all. But now she seems to be stronger than ever, she’s in huge movies that are coming out aplenty and actually seen by people. This is in no doubt because of her A. Superior talent as well as B. Excellent movie choices.
For example, I just recently rented Julie & Julia. It’s a very accessible movie. It’s light, plus it showcases good performances. It’s a movie you like to go out and see for FUN, which is essentially why most people go out to see movies.
PE was not fun. Cheri was not fun. It’s part of the reason why less dramas are being made in return for more stupid action flicks. I have to admit, even though I love dramas, most of the time, my netflix is qued up for comedies. I like to relax when I take 2 hours off to la-la land, and unless it’s a MP drama, I will usually avoid drams with other people.
The reason why a drama like The Blind Side did so well is because you get to see the oddness of Sandra Bullock being totally out of her element. The blonde hairdo alone is a reason why people will go see it. People will think “Oh, I heard it’s good, and she looks different” it gives a heightened interest level. It’s like the opposite effect of Keri Russell’s short hair in Felicity. As soon as she cut her hair, ratings dropped, and they actually waited for her hair to grow and styled it longer before they shot new episodes and aired them. It’s amazing how appearances affect us.
Finally, I wanted to talk about something else too. I always keep thinking, Michelle Pfeiffer has to work more! She has to come out with more movies!
And before I continue, let me say that she does have a diverse body of work and she is an excellent actress. It’s why I’m such a huge pfan and own all of her movies.
But I have to admit, and this is kind of a burn to Pfeiffer… Michelle Pfeiffer only plays Michelle Pfeiffer roles. Let’s admit it. I mean we all love her roles, every single one of them (maybe a few exceptions), because they are the kind of roles we like, which is why we like her.
But that is extremely limiting for an actress. I think a lot of actresses are guilty of this. MP once said she takes on a role that she can connect with. But this is also why in many ways, Cheri was the same old thing we’ve seen Michelle Pfeiffer play before (as much as I love it, especially the whole monologue, it’s to die for).
Maybe that’s why she wasn’t nominated. It is after all, a very safe Pfeiffer-role.
You will never see Michelle Pfeiffer play Annette Bening’s part in “Running With Scissors.” I know some pfans thought that movie was terrible, but I remember watching it and thinking how good Bening was in that movie, and compared her to MP, since they are peers in terms of age. Anyway, I remember that I could NOT imagine MP playing that part because she simply could not. Plain and simple. And yes, I can say the same for Annette Bening not being able to play a Michelle Pfeiffer part as well (like Catwoman for example).
But this “limit” I distinguished in my mind is what sets Michelle Pfeiffer below the great actresses – like Meryl Streep, who can play almost anyone.
I also noticed that Michelle Pfeiffer has sort of a cap on how far she can play a part. Like, I thought Tilda Swinton was damn awesome in that George Clooney movie. That scene where she *oh spoilers* wants him to be murdered still haunts my mind. Also when she was in that bathroom stall. It’s something Michelle Pfeiffer cannot do (in my opinion).
Of course Michelle Pfeiffer has moments like these too, the one I love most is when she’s dancing with Bruce Wayne as Selina Kyle, and begins to go nuts with her crying. Excellent. But I haven’t seen her do anything like that again.
I thought her performance in White Oleander really showed her as a seasoned actress who has a skill she can hone and use precisely. Still, the part was simply not strong enough for a nomination.
And Ingrid is a very Michelle Pfeiffer part.
Ok back to my point. What I find amazing with Julia Roberts right now is that she really played a part that was very unlike Julia in Charlie Wilson’s War. I thought her performance was very strong and she should have gotten an Oscar for that INSTEAD of Erin Brockovich which I thought was nothing special.
Julia was also very good in Closer, which imo, is a very Michelle Pfeiffer kind of role.
To me, this is great for Julia, but Julia can never play the sheer vulnerability that Michelle Pfeiffer can exude. Julia’s natural personality has a sort of strength (see her clip on youtube where she curses out the paparazzi), and it shows in her roles. The only time where she kind of showed a bit of vulnerability was in Oceans’ 11 when she tells George Clooney “But he doesn’t make me cry” but even then, she sounds very strong.
MP has definitely mastered the ability to make us want to jump into the movie and save her.
Anyway I typed WAY too much and please know these are only opinions, not fact. So yea, I believe MP has a limit/cap on her ability as an actress (especially with mastering the British accent for some reason, I forgot to mention that), and it could be the reason why she is not choosing many roles – simply probably because she cannot play them / do the role justice.
I have to add one more thing (again lol). The two greatest performances I have ever seen in my life are from Million Dollar Baby and Monster. They are both on a level beyond Pfeiffer, to me. But does that make those two actresses BETTER than Michelle Pfeiffer? IMO, NO. That’s bc when they play other roles, they’re kind of bland. MP is pretty much amazing in many diverse roles. Compare Charlize’s action role in Aeon Flux to MP’s as Catwoman. MP wins, hands down. I don’t know what my point is exactly here, maybe it’s my innate need to defend Michelle Pfeiffer ; )
Also, I need to mention that Kate Winslet is an amazing actress who is a stronger performer than MP. Any time I feel someone is better than MP, I really take notice of it. I went through most of my life believing MP is the absolute best.
I think it’s healthy to acknowledge that she isn’t, and not blindly pretend that she is.
Oh god, ok one last thing, I promise it’s the last. As much as I brag about Meryl Streep, I’d just like to say that I do believe, in some way, MP is better, because she can play certain roles that even Meryl cannot. Meryl could never have played Susie Diamond. Meryl could not play Ellen Olenska as well as Michelle Pfeiffer (this one is debatable). But alas, for every role of Michelle’s that Meryl couldn’t play, there are at least 10x more vice versa.
Meryl Streep is amazing and it’s not because “she’s just naturally that talented” (although it probably is, actually, but that’s discrediting to Meryl). It’s because she tries to play different roles and she really plays them up (in Devil Wears Prada, pay attention to all the details in her performance, simply amazing). To me, in order for Michelle Pfeiffer to GROW as an actress, she not only has to work more, but she has to explore uncharted waters beyond her natural inclinations as an actress.
TIM OUT
# 9 Febrero 2010 at 3:16

Benjamin said:
I saw “Julie & Julia” and enjoyed it so much (well, the Julia scenes mostly) I began learning French cooking. And Meryl Streep should win the Oscar this year for her performance. I have not seen “The Blind Side” because to me it’s basically Sandra Bullock’s attempt at a serious role. There are films I like her in (“Premonition” is one), but I can pretty much predict the storyline for TBS. I did see “Charlie Wilson’s War” and I may be the only one who thought Julia Roberts was so bad I wanted to cut my veins. But that is only my opinion. I do disagree that Pfeiffer needs to make more movies. I believe an actor’s work should be based on quality not quantity. Look at her “Age of Innocence” co-star Daniel Day-Lewis’s career. Since winning the Oscar for his 1989 film “My Left Foot”, Day-Lewis has only made 9 films!! 9 films in 20 years!!! (And I love all his films). DDL decides when he wants to work and chooses only diverse projects which challenge him. And he is still considered one of the best actors ever and still remains a sought-after leading man. Imagine if Pfeiffer had a career like his and only made 9 films in 20 years. Pfans would lose their minds. But they would learn to practice patience until she decides when she is ready to return to work.
# 9 Febrero 2010 at 6:00

patrick said:
Tim’s comment is very interesting. You are quite right that MP has to do more films. But if she didn’t feel that she could do justice for the role, she’d better not doing it. Anyway I think she already tried very hard to widen the range of her characters. But people still look up to her beauty and sometimes blamed her that she is too beautiful for the roles she took. Remember Frankie&Johny, Even without make-up, she was far too beautiful to be a desperated woman like Frankie although her acting was excellent. Even an oscar worthy performance in White Oleander. People still complained that she look too gorgeous as a prisoner. Ingrid was the role made for her. Once Juliette Lewis has said that she was lucky that she didn’t look like MP. She meant that people would look after her acting ability before her good look. We had to admit that MP’s amazing beauty prevented her from getting the roles that Streep did. Anyway I think that MP is very wise not coming out too much in a spotlight by walking down the red carpet or being perfum presenter like many actresses love doing it. So many actresses are addicted to the fame and being glamour in spotlight. Many are too scared to be forgetten. MP doesn’t need that. which actress could be a better Susie Diamond, Selina kline(catwoman) and Countess Olenska. MP made those characters unforgettable. Sharon Stone(the same age as Pfeiffer) who looked gorgeous as Dior perfum presenter. How can she be convincing as an aging middle classed woman in the next movie? I believe that the way MP lead her career is very right. Her beauty is a blessing and she is too damed lucky to have that. she took profit of her beauty wihout exaggeration. She know very well that the beauty won’t last but the quality of her works still show. She hit the right note by playing Lamia in Stardust.That role symbolize very well an aging actress in Hollywood. Now she gonna put her acting skill, the quality of her work before her glamour image. That could be a bit hard but she will make it.
# 9 Febrero 2010 at 11:56

Sunfire said:
I have sat back the last week and read all these post and have come to another conclusion. All of you are correct. Patrick and Tim you hit it on the nail. Where I differ is that I do think she has the ability to come out of her comfort zone. We saw it in White Oleander (which I thought she preformed magnificently) and A Thousand Acres. She came out of her box if only for a moment and showed her real acting skills. She is not a comdey actress and admits it. That being said I would love to see her in a drama or mystery where she is the villian. She has that uncanny ability to show a characters emotions. Including anger and evil. I think now she has moved into another space in her life and you will see her come out as a totally different actress we all have been waiting for.
# 9 Febrero 2010 at 13:05

dean said:
i’m very much agree with sunfire… michelle has more range than most of you giving her credit for. She is a character actress. She can take any role and make it hers. Catwoman, White Orleander, FBB, Thousand Acres, Deep End of the ocean, Russian House, What Lies Beneath, Love Field, Dangerous Liaisons, Married to the MOB and etc. She nails all of them….
# 9 Febrero 2010 at 13:56

alex said:
Pffeifer is as good as Streep¡¡
And Cheri is a great film¡¡ I’ve seen this film 7 times¡¡¡he,he
Michelle you are delightful at screen¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡
# 9 Febrero 2010 at 15:46

chelsea said:
I strongly disagree with Tim. Michelle’s range is huge. She played the whore and the virgin. The waitress and the lawyer. Innocent and evil. I was quite shocked when I read your comment. I always loved that she could play all these different parts. She’s at greatest when she’s vulnerable (the age of innocence) and I agree with you that she makes you want to save her. But she can do more than just that. You can’t tell me that Frankie and Johnny was in the same range as Batman returns. And yet she played both characters wonderfully.
Also, White oleander was worthy of an oscar. It was a small part, but she gave me goosebumps.
Meryl Streep is a great actress, but she’s no Michelle Pfeiffer (to me at least). I do think she takes on very different roles and performs them great.
But you know what? ‘Meryl Streep is an actress who loves to take challenges and go the very other direction. She obviously loves acting and it’s her passion. Michelle on the other hand isn’t that passionate anymore about her work. She has said that she loves it, but compaired to Streep she is more passionate about being with her family. It is since she had kids that she stepped on the brakes. So we can jump up and down and say that she has to do more movies and differ from her other ones, but in the end she does what she wants and if what she wants is to stop or slow down her work then who are we to judge?
# 9 Febrero 2010 at 19:33

tachu said:
I’m having such pleasure reading your posts, that I would like to have more time to post replies, but my working time left me exhausted.
I think you all are truly big Pfans, and as Sunfire says, all of you are mainly correct, but I would like to point out some comments from the last posts
@Marc,
I remember Stephen Frears wasn’t happy about working with Julia Robert, and saying he would never work again with her. Obviusly that’s not the case with Pfeiffer. Michelle’s not a diva.
@Benjamin,
box-office, critics, covers, red carpets and marketing have all to do with nominations, sadly. There are exceptions, but only a few.
And you’re not the only one who thought ‘Julia Roberts was so bad I wanted to cut my veins.’Welcome.
@Tim, you said many things, so my reply isn’t brief.
I don’t think Michelle to be the best actress. I don’t think such a thing even exist, but she’s great, and you can find memorable performances in her career. I would never say in a million year that ‘there is a limit that sets Michelle Pfeiffer below the great actresses’ or than ‘there is a cap’. All I see is a naturalistic, non-affected nor hystrionic performances, what I really prefer. I know it is pfeiffertheface, but it could be pfeifferthetalent as well.So I think you’re completly missing the point when saying ‘it could be the reason why she is not choosing many roles – simply probably because she cannot play them / do the role justice.’
On the other hand, you are right, Lea is a ‘safe Pfeiffer-role’, but sometimes the best roles are also the ones where you can’t imagine any other actress doing it.
I agree wit you, ‘MP has definitely mastered the ability to make us want to jump into the movie and save her’. She can be so subtle in the strong-weak balance, and I think that’s part of her success with female public. You won’t see many women loving La Jolie, eg.
And I like Meryl Streep very much, but I think she’s overestimated, resting in her laurels. Meryl could be reading the news and be nominated. It’s infuriating. I’m sorry to disagree, but I don’t think Meryl has any ‘superior talent’, nor ‘excellent movie choices’. She’s better than Bullock, that’s for sure, But I think Meryl herself wouldn’t talk about superior talent. And Julie&Julia was as fun as a waxing depilation. And don’t make talk about It’s complicated, bc I could cry.
Sandra Bullocks is out of her element since the very moment she appears in a film, so her nomination tells more about awards than about her performance.
Julia in Charlie Wilson’s War is a minor performance, imo.
Kate Winslet’s great , but if you see her films as many times as the Pfeiffer’s ones, you’ll find we could argue that she plays it safe, the same types of roles…But she’s in really good movies, and that’s a plus.
@patrick,
I could have written your post, word by word.
@sunfire, dean
I subscribe your latest posts.
And that’s it. That’s was long enough. I’m not competing against Tim, I promise.
# 9 Febrero 2010 at 19:38

patrick said:
I don’t think that MP is not passionate about her work anymore. She is so right to put her family need before her work. And now her children are grown up. She will have more time to sacrifice in working. Like I said, she lead her career wisely. As I known, she didn’t annonce her retirement yet. She will surely come up with some exciting projects in the future. All we have to do is waiting. If Pfeiffer accidentally come across this site, she will see how much we love her and want to see her back.
# 9 Febrero 2010 at 19:52

chelsea said:
@ Patrick.
Like I said, I love the fact that she’s not one of those celebrities that let their kids be raised by nannies. I think it’s great that she makes time for her family and I wouldn’t want it any other way. I hope you’re right; I hope she will work more now that her kids have grown up. She once said that she realized when her daughter turned 16, how little time she had left with her. Maybe once she’s spend that time with her cxhildren she’ll do more movies. I just hope she’ll still get the oppertunity and get interesting parts.
# 9 Febrero 2010 at 20:10

dreamer said:
You said it well Tachu, that’s also my opinion. And I don’t mind that she takes her time to do another role. Streep does 3 films in a year and I think that’s overkill. She’s a good actress but overrated I think.
And why always comparing and saying that no one could do a particular role better than Streep or Roberts or whoever? A filmrole can be played differently by different actresses, that doesn’t always mean it would be worse or better.
Pfeiffer has never dissapointed me. Sure, sometimes a line or a guesture was less convincing but name one actor who’s flawless. Just like there’s no perfect movie there’s no perfect actor.
IMHO I think she deserve some more credit.
John
# 9 Febrero 2010 at 20:39

frankieD said:
I’m willing to take the inevitable flack for this, but:
Meryl Streep is a STAR because she is a GREAT ACTRESS.
Michelle Pfeiffer is a STAR because she is a GREAT BEAUTY who also happens to be a GREAT ACTRESS.
Sandra Bullock is a STAR because she is a very pretty girl with a very good capacity for comedy and drama.
Can ANYONE tell me why Julia Roberts is (still)a STAR???
I really can’t fathom a good reason…Sure “Pretty Woman” was a delightful mix of what audiences needed in the 90’s, but her appeal surely must have waned, yes? Her acting ability is CLEARLY limited from what she has displayed of late.
If anyone can convince me I would be grateful for the lesson.
cheers!
# 9 Febrero 2010 at 21:35

Benjamin said:
I’m with Frankie. The only reason I can see why Julia Roberts is a star is because her appearance in audience-friendly films earn the studios a lot of money. Eric Roberts is the talented one in that family. And I’m glad Pfeiffer passed on doing films like “Pretty Woman” or “Sleeping With the Enemy” and chose to challenge herself in more character-driven films like “The Russia House” and “Love Field” instead. “Mary Reilly” would have been a much better film if Pfeiffer starred in it.
# 9 Febrero 2010 at 21:46

adelutza said:
Dealing with celebrity is an art. A lot of people master it, but not Pfeiffer. She had never known how to deal with celebrity, not even when she was young and actually needed to work. I think that was and still is a big problem for her career. Meryl Streep is very good, but part of her appreciation comes from the fact that she knows the whole red carpet hoopla by heart. She’s in her element in interviews and in the spotlight.Pfeiffer never was and never will be. That’s probably because she comes from a “working class” background . Who knows why? But , in my opinion, she’s already famous enough for someone who never liked commercials and interviews and all that circus that other actresses do.
It’s her choice, of course, but that comes with a price.
Personally, I don’t care if she gets an Oscar or not ( but it still pisses me of that other less deserving actresses are nominated and she isn’t , I admit). The only reason I care about her getting an award is because seeing that she gets some recognition for her work might encourage her to work more. Other that that .. think of all the great actors/actresses that never got an Oscar. Catherine Deneuve for example. Really, I would rather see her in that company than Julia Roberts’ or Sandra Bullock’s.
# 10 Febrero 2010 at 2:13

bond said:
First of all, I have to say, all the Pfans who gave comments above are real Pfans, althoguh all of us may have different opinions, we still true Pfans.
And in some way, the more we crazy for Michelle and the more we understanding her, the more critical we become. And we can’t be truely objective at the same time.
Personally, I do think that Michelle has a wide range of performances/characters, especially in the late 80s, 90s, her roles could be similar in recent years since these were 3 “cougar” projects and it’s all about mature woman dealing with againg issue. But when u look back from “Scarface” to “Into the Night”, Ladyhwake, her best-performed comedy “Married to the Mob” to “Dangerous Liaisons”, “Baker Boys”s confident/independent singer to fussy housewif in “Love Field”, subtle performance in “The Russia House” to the seductive Catwoman in “Batman Returns”, it all proves that she has the ability in different types of movies and roles and shining in the movies.
Not to mention “A Thousand Acres” was also another successful character she has made, and even before “I Am Sam” & “White Oleander” or even the mean station manager in “Hairspray”, we couldn’t imagine Michelle could do so well in these kind of bitchy characters. And these actually surprised us back to the early 00s.
I never try to compare Michelle with other actress, and I think it’s kind of meaningless to compare her with Merly Streep. Michelle Pfeiffer is Michelle Pfeiffer, Merly Streep is Merly Streep, both of them can’t replace each others.
Frankie D said very right, “Meryl Streep is a STAR because she is a GREAT ACTRESS. Michelle Pfeiffer is a STAR because she is a GREAT BEAUTY who also happens to be a GREAT ACTRESS.” They are both unique.
I like Michelle Pfeiffer since I like her beauty and talent and personality, who cares if she can do all roles in the world as long as she’s truely professional in her own role or so-called the comfortzone.:)
# 10 Febrero 2010 at 4:14

alex said:
I think that Bullock is nor talented nor beautiful
# 10 Febrero 2010 at 10:50

Fran (author) said:
Pfans!! I’m really amazed with all your comments and thoughts about Michelle and the current time in her career…
Thanks a lot for taking part in this heated discussion!!
Julia Roberts and Sandra Bullock’s fans could get it?? NOOO!! LOL
Being a Pfan is very ungrateful!! It is like a mix of love-hate!!!
# 10 Febrero 2010 at 12:05

tachu said:
As it should be.
# 10 Febrero 2010 at 19:23

patrick said:
‘Physical beauty may have been the reason for her early popularity, but she has developed into an effective and nuanced actress’ said by James Berardinelli Top Critic (Reel Reviews)
What he said about Pfeiffer is so true.
# 11 Febrero 2010 at 23:44

Tim said:
Hey, I read everyone’s comments but I’m just going to respond all at once. I do agree that MP has done a variety of work, it’s one of the reasons I’m a huge pfan. For example, her role in Love Field is vastly different from I am Sam. The characters are completely different in many regards. But still, I do think for the most part, she chooses a “Pfeiffer role” (which actually, the character in Love Field was not a typical Pfeiffer role).
Maybe it’s all in my head, but I really do believe this concept is there, and is evident in most of her work. She has an inclination to play a certain role — and this inclination is NOT a bad thing, it’s why most of us love her. I mean, why would she choose to play Eris in Sinbad, and not Catherine’s role? Because that’s the role she liked. And I gotta say I loved her in that movie.
I forgot who brought up A Thousand Acres and White Oleander, and though I love her in both movies, especially in White Oleander, I have to say that they are VERY MP roles. I think Michelle Pfeiffer’s dark side, which we don’t see in real life, is very specific and hard to describe. But in both movies, we get to see the “Pfeiffer glare” a lot (I love the Pfeiffer glare). For example when her dad didn’t let her cut the food in Acres, or when Astrid was saying everything is about you, never about me (or something). I love the Pfeiffer glare, can’t get enough of it.
But I think that’s also a weakness. Let me get this straight, I am not attacking my main gal. I love that in The Prince of Egypt, she not only played a role extremely well, but she also did her own singing. Other A Listers like Bullock didn’t do that. It just goes to show how extremely talented Michelle Pfeiffer is. Sure, the new actors today like Zac Efron does his own singing (albeit studio mixed to sound significantly better in those kid movies whatever they’re called), but Zac doesn’t have the dramatic acting chops that MP has. MP’s superior acting is noticeable even in one of her first movies like Grease 2.
Alright, so given her range as well as her innate talent, I still think that what separates her from Streep is her confinement to a certain kind of role. I know the whole statement kind of contradicts itself, but I swear I’m not making it up. Am I really the only one who notices this? I mean, there are roles out there that MP will not touch. Roles that are more meaty than let’s say her part in Personal Effects. Roles that she simply, for now, cannot play.
Which is why I think it would do her good to dabble outside of her box a little and try something else out, even if she fails at it. I think she’s choosing her safe Pfeiffer-like roles because she’s afraid to get a bad review. Which you know what, I totally get it and it’s actually what I would do too. I mean hell, I don’t want to take on a role I can’t see myself playing.
I always thought Cate Blanchett did so well in her part in The Aviator, and I think that is a kind of role MP probably could not play as well. It is not a “Pfeiffer role.” Meanwhile, Julia Roberts part in “Closer” would have been great for MP, because it is a very typical “Pfeiffer role.” Am I making any sense?
Anyway, I have no idea what I’m getting at, I might have deceived myself into believing this. But as it stands, in my opinion, an actress like Meryl Streep stands about all other actors and actresses because she simply plays ANY role and almost always nails it above and beyond our expectations.
I will be glad and happy if Michelle Pfeiffer continues choosing roles she likes, as long as she does anything! But, I think in order for her to GROW as an actress, she has to test the waters outside her comfort zone. Again, I am not disputing that she is already a fantastic actress.
Someone mentioned that Julia’s part in Wilson’s War was minor, and I agree, it was a small part and not really a juicy role. But to me, it showed for the first time ever that Julia Roberts was playing someone other than herself (well, in a way she kind of just played herself with a Southern accent). I don’t see why she got nominated for a Globe for a movie like Duplicity when IMHO, she plays the same role she’s always played her entire life in that movie. If she could get a nom for that, MP definitely should have gotten one for Cheri. MP played a very MP role in it, but nevertheless, did a very good job at it. Far superior to Julia’s Duplicity, imo.
Oh yea and people asked why anyone even likes Julia. I guess she might have been overrated at times, but I can definitely see why people like her (myself included). She can act, is personable, and has an undeniably stage charisma and presence. I mean, every second she’s on screen, I like it. It’s the same kind of likeability factor that someone like Drew Barrymore has (although in her case the ratio is much lower for me). It’s a feeling I don’t get with actresses like Renee Zellwegger. Julia Roberts exudes that something. Can’t explain it. Not every actress has it. Julia has it in a massive quantity.
It’s my dream to see MP, Julia, Angelina, Meryl, and Sandra all in the same movie. None of this Valentine’s sht with bullsht actors like Jessica Alba.
Oh yea speaking of Angelina since I haven’t mentioned her yet even though I love her, she plays many “Angelina” roles too, and also has a “cap” on her acting ability (although again, for the record, I believe she is immensely talented). She stole the show in Girl, Interrupted. But I saw a cap on her ability in A Mighty Heart, when she found out her husband (SPOILERS) was uh (SPOILERSSS) no longer alive. She was crying and screaming and all but it didn’t really ring completely true for me, for some reason. I mean it was still quite good, but eh. You know who’s really great? Lynette from Desperate Housewives. That episode where the crazy lady shot the woman in the supermarket, Lynette’s reaction and crying was great and completely dead on. I can cite a horrible crying scene too, like when Ashley Judd cried in Where the Heart Is about her kids or something, horrible. Or when Julianne Moore cried in that movie where the aliens took her son. Horrible. Meanwhile she was awesome in The Hours, where her crying scene in the bathroom was great. I’m totally ranting now, but Angelina’s crying scene where she only shed one tear at the table, in that movie with Antonio Banderas, that was amazing.
I guess that’s all personal preference and directing. MP’s best “crying scene” (although there were no actual tears) was in I am Sam, even though everyone else seemed to hate that scene. I loved it. Her crying scene in Frankie & Johnny was great too. Maybe in the I am Sam scene, it wasn’t really the “crying” that did it (or lack thereof), it was the unraveling and trueness of Michelle Pfeiffer’s feelings coming out.
When will Tim stop talking? lol OK BYE!
(it’s just that I never get to talk about this stuff with people in real life bc no one knows what I’m talking about bc they haven’t seen any of her movies lol).
# 12 Febrero 2010 at 6:06

Benjamin said:
Tim, it’s in your head, dude. The problem when people review an actor’s performance is that they tend to search for big dramatic moments and neglect those small, subtle character choices actors make. Choices that I’ve noticed which marks the differences between her performances in, for example, “One Fine Day” vs. “I Could Never Be Your Woman.”
Best MP crying moments for me, two come to mind – the most heartbreaking in “The Deep End of the Ocean” when she loses Ben at the hotel – the most heartwarming in “The Story of Us” when she gives the speech at the end.
AND I thought Angelina Jolie gave a brilliant performance in “A Mighty Heart.” That was such a heartbreaking film to watch, as was “Changeling.”
and Tim, NEVER STOP TALKING! It’s pfans like you that keeps the boards interesting and creates very interesting dialogue for us all to respond to. Your views are truly appreciated.
# 12 Febrero 2010 at 6:35

dreamer said:
@Benjamin
I agree, that speech at the end of Story of Us was absolutely amazing!
@Tim
Sorry Tim, I have to disagree with you. I believe strongly that she only chooses the movies, and what character to play, she likes. I don’t think that she avoids certain roles because of maybe bad reviews. Also she will get out of her comfort zone if the role is interesting for her. She does what ever she likes and doesn’t care about awards. She hates to walk the red carpeds and is a lot of time nervous in interviews. She only wants to work in movies and thats it.
It is us Pfans who wants the oscar and recognition for her. I think Michelle doesn’t care, only whe do. Just IMHO.
John
# 12 Febrero 2010 at 18:32

et said:
You are really good dear Pfans!!! You make me want to response!!
Benjamin you are a really hard-shell Pfan!!! But I really agree with your points/posts.
Tim before you I thought that I write very big posts!!!lol!
Hmmmm… Even my knowledge isn’t so specific and I am not expert I must say that I disagree with Tim even his opinions are very challenging!
About MP, even I haven’t see all her movies yet (I have 5-6 to see) I don’t think that she choose the same roles. Exactly the thing I think about her career is that she tried hard to create a career and a fimography which won’t bank on her beauty. And when I read reviews and try to understand how the system works I really believe that it was too hard!!!
I watched “White Oleander” last night (yes, the glare was wonderful Tim!!!) and she was really stunning at this and also the movie was really good. But I just remembered that I had read somewhere the opinion “Pfeiffer was too beautiful for a prisoner”!!!!! I can’t believe that is kind of vritic! I thought that nobody notices that Astrid’s first lines have these words:
“She was the most beautiful woman I’d ever seen.
Everybody thinks that when they’re small…
…but she was the most beautiful woman most people had ever seen.”
It was a characteristic of her role but her extraordinary beauty was always a “theme”..
Which role you choose depends on which roles are offered to you. And I can’t imagine that when some want a sympathetic, next-door girl would have Pfeiffer as first choice!
The point of whole thing is that for me all actors/actresses have a range. No one can do anything. In the same way Al Pacino always made a mobster/gunsel/etc. It can’t change that he is one of the best actors. Some things fit to you an some other no. Especially for an actress her offers for roles isn’t independent of her look.
For example next-door girls fit better to Roberts/Bullock (I prefer the first one) than Pfeiffer. But for me the plus to MP is that she could play roles such Pretty Woman/Notting Hill/The Proposal/Closer/Runaway Bride. I don’t say if she would be better or worst but she could. On the other hand none of them could have casting for Elvira/Susie Diamond/Catwoman/Ellen Olenska/Igrid.
In conclusion this kind of extravagant beauty has a lot of unique benefits but also a chain of limitations.
I must admit that she handled it good even in my opinion wouldn’t bad to had role Ellen or Susie between 1995-1999.
Also I must notice that Tim has describe Roberts thing fine. I agree that she has something familiar.
I haven’t see Jolie’s movies because the first movie I saw was “Mr & Mrs Smith” and she didn’t make me to want to watch her in more movies! I don’t know.. maybe it’s because I didn’t like the movie but I find her slack.
That’s for now!I believe that I haven’t forget something!!
# 13 Febrero 2010 at 1:47

lola said:
actully i kinda take back what i said before, even if michelle doesn’t make anymore movies she will always be a legend in my eyes and if she does come across this site i would like to say i aspire to her very much not many actresses as famous as her can keep total privacy as well as having a killer acting career ! michelle is beautiful and fran please if worse comes to worse please keep this site running if not on knew news about her than all the exquisite work she has produced for us all! xx
# 13 Febrero 2010 at 8:44

Tim said:
lol well I’m still sticking to my opinion. To me, especially nowadays, MP seems to enjoy choosing Lifetime roles a la Personal Effects over a role of let’s say, a crazy girl (like an older Angelina role from Girl Interrupted, I don’t think she would ever play a part like that).
But just to back up my point, look at the facts. One Fine Day – smart, neurotic woman. Story of Us – same deal, neurotic woman. I am Sam, neurotic woman. There is definitely a preference there.
I mean, it’s part of why I like her, I share some of those same qualities. An example of which is my website about how she hasn’t had plastic surgery. I take a point and I back it up with a ton of proof, covering every angle because I feel I have to. It’s a bit OCD or something lol. I mean it’s not the best example ever, but it’s similar. I do a lot of stuff in real life like that, and I’m quite the neurotic guy.
Also she almost always chooses a melancholic role (a la Roberts in Closer). She is far less likely to choose a bubbly/cutesy, fun role (a la Reese Witherspoon in Legally Blonde). Again, that is a reason why I like her, she chooses roles I enjoy watching (although I enjoyed the roles in all these examples).
I mean, I could never see MP choose to play a wild and crazy girl who likes to have fun. She might, but all I’m saying is that it’s far less likely. In the same way she is less likely to play the part of a drug addict (a la Jennifer Connelly in Requiem). She fits her own sort of category — which WORKS for her. Unlike Meg Ryan’s category, which will not work as she ages (which is why she tried unsuccessfully to deter herself from those roles, with In the Cut and Against the Ropes).
Again I hate to keep using Meryl as the same tired example, but she has played almost every kind of role I can think of (key word, almost), including a leader warlord-like part in The Manchurian Candidate. I don’t think MP could have done Manchurian Candidate as well. In fact, MP will not even touch that part. That speech Meryl gave to the people in that role was done so magnificently well, I doubt there is any actress who could do it besides her, Tilda or Cate Blanchett.
I’ll use that as my strongest case for my point. MP is just far less likely to choose a role out of her comfort zone. She will have a much easier time playing a melancholic beauty like in Cheri than she would as the dictator like mother in The Manchurian Candidate. This “limit” does not affect the FEW actresses who I believe are better than MP.
She is far more likely to play another neurotic businesswoman than Queen Elizabeth (speaking of Blanchett). That’s just my opinion, it’s not a fact.
*oh yea, MP did sort of play a cute girl next door kind of character who liked to have fun, in Married to the Mob!
# 13 Febrero 2010 at 20:40

chelsea said:
@ Tim:
Well, what about Grease2? That was kind of fun. Michelle in Legally blonde? That would be dreadful. How could she play a dumb blond (who turns out to be smart, but still)? It’s not a part for her. And btw, She has said it herself: comedies are harder for her than dramas. And she’s just good at drama. The few comedies she has made (One fine day, The story of us, among others) were great and she really gave the characters good representation. But I’m just more a fan of her dramatic roles. Frankie and johnny (my favorite Mp movie) is said to be a comedy, but I think it holds dramatic aspects as well.
Her being the smart, neurotic woman is common, I guess. But she has also played (like you said) the woman next door who likes to have fun. And in F&J where she was a broken, low-educated woman. Also, Elvira, the drug-using, cold woman in Scarface. And many more movies where she was anything but smart/neurotic.
# 13 Febrero 2010 at 23:33

lola said:
i totaly agree with chelsea, while michelle tends to play the neurotic woman in alot of her movies lets not forget that our michelle is also very versitile. i mean look at her in batman returns compared to dangerous liasons i mean im no expert but i suppose anyone can see her versitility in those two roles! then you have her as someone like Velma Von-tussle in hairspray a racist stage mother compared to her charecter in Love Feild. so no i dont think michelle is always the smart nuerotic woman people label her as ! she is a mixture of everything and its all amazing!
# 14 Febrero 2010 at 2:04

patrick said:
Jeff Bridges hit the jackpot with Crazy Heart. This movie with a very tiny budget is praised by every critics. They raved about his standout performance. In MP’s speech for Palm Spring Festival. she said that Bridges’s career is very inspiring. I hope she will follow his steps, finding a meaty role in a successful story.
# 14 Febrero 2010 at 9:49

Benjamin said:
I’m sure Pfeiffer comes across many meaty scripts. The problem is not her finding scripts to commit to, the problem is the movie actually getting made. Think about the movies she has committed to but were never made for any given reason. Even after “White Oleander” she did agree to a number of films which eventually sat on the shelf, or were made without her. Films like “She’s Gone”, “Taming Ben Tyler”, “Chasing Montana”, “August and Everything After”, “Coraline” (this was originally live action with MP playing both Mother and Other Mother before deciding to animate the film because of the budget.)
# 14 Febrero 2010 at 20:06

Tim said:
hey Chelsea,
Of course I’m not disputing that MP has a variety of work under her belt. That’s why I’m a huge pfan. But take it this way, even her first big role in Grease 2, her character is a very Pfeiffer-role. It’s many times different from Olivia Newton John’s part in Grease 1. I obviously prefer MP’s part, but again, it’s because it IS a Pfeiffer part. It wasn’t exactly a happy-fun kind of character, she has this dark side that we all love. But yea, for the most part, MP will NOT be choosing parts like Olivia Newton John’s role in Grease 1 (in this instance, it is a good thing, imo).
Yes, Elvira and Frankie are very different. I love how MP did Frankie’s accent in that movie too. Total New Yorker, naturally, not over the top. Excellent work. But again, there is a very distinguishable similarity between the two roles, making them “Pfeiffer roles.” And you know it makes sense, she has said so herself that she only takes on roles that speak to her, that she can identify with, and I can see why. She played these parts so well, and it’s partly because of that connection.
All I am saying is that this connection limits her progress as an actress. Let’s be honest, most of her roles in the last decade or so have been VERY safe choices. She has NOT taken any meaty roles. There has been zero risk.
Btw, not all of her roles are very “Pfeiffer-like” – Dangerous Minds for example is not a typical Pfeiffer choice, imo. Maybe it’s because this was still somewhat earlier in her career. Later on in her career we really see her taking these sort of “Pfeiffer-roles” – Story of Us, Deep End of the Ocean. She kind of just plays herself in those mediocre movies (for the record, I have watched those 2 movies the most out of all her movies, for some reason, I just love her in them, so I do not regret that she did those movies).
I do regret that she does not take more challenging roles though. Silence of the Lambs is one. Even Basic Instinct, although, I’m on the fence about that bc I don’t like that she would have to show her body like that. But still, that is a very meaty role that MP simply wouldn’t take. Nowdays it’s almost as if she doesn’t even try. The whole Personal Effects thing was an extreme mediocre disaster.
Let’s use that movie as an example. That role, for MP, is nothing. It’s a casual part for MP. Not very challenging at all. It was easy for MP to play and nail that part. There is ZERO room for growth. I’m sure we all realize that MP’s talents exceed the needs of that part.
Her part in Cheri was a good choice, can’t dispute that, but like I said, it’s a very Pfeiffer-role, we’ve seen a variation of it before. I know everyone here will try to deny it, but I’m a pfan, and I’m not afraid to speak my mind about it. It’s been done by MP in countless other movies. I should know, I have all of them.
As a person, MP keeps saying that there are fewer and fewer roles out there for older women, which IS true, I can’t blame her for saying it, but at the same time, her peers are still working a lot. Even Julianne Moore, I was surprised at how close she is to MP’s age, and she’s been working.
Anyway, all I am saying is that I hope MP can take on a role that is out of her comfort zone, and somewhat challenging. I have to say that Cheri was a nice movie, best contemporary performance by MP in her comeback, but still very much not a challenge for MP. It simply wasn’t. I did not leave the theater thinking, “Wow! MP blew my mind with her performance!” Not at all, no matter how much I personally love her, and loved her monologue (O love how she said “You found an old woman” for example). It was simply not an exceptional part.
Of course I see actresses being nominated for awards left and right for their mediocre performances too (Julia Roberts – Duplicity, what a blah part, and yea, I’ve seen her play that part a hundred times in all her other movies).
I’m not asking for a super high “Wow!” factor like Charlize Theron in Monster (I definitely left the theater thinking it was done amazingly), or a “Wow!” factor like Heath Ledger as the Joker. I’d settle for a “Wow!” factor that I saw after my first time seeing Batman Returns, where MP just blew my mind! Let’s face it, after the mid-90’s, her career went downhill.
She just hasn’t been taking on any very good roles. Cheri was a breath of fresh air, only bc PE was so horrible. If MP made Cheri in the 90’s, it would be an average MP film, comparable to Age of Innocence, but not as good. We only think it’s so great now bc of her latest duds and disasters. And it sadly did not have a “Wow!” factor for me. If some other actress who I didn’t care about were in it, I would not have gone to see it. Charlize Theron is an actress I don’t really care about, but I saw Monster and loved it. That was definitely a meaty role. But I realize a movie like that is extremely exceptional and not very common. But still. MP would NEVER play a part that meaty, even if the idea were different and it was not so violent or full of sex. MP just doesn’t choose very challenging roles anymore.
Btw, it’s not only MP who does this. Look at Drew Barrymore. She’s still playing Julia Gulia in her movies, like that last one with Hugh Grant. Same Drew Barrymore with her same ol’ schtick. But it’s a Drew Barrymore crowd pleaser. I’m guilty too, I saw the movie to see her play Julia Gulia again. At least MP’s Pfeiffer-roles are on a higher caliber than Barrymore’s type of roles. Or look at Ashley Judd’s work. It’s mostly “tough cop-woman or something like that” kind of parts. I prefer MP’s roles over hers any day.
Again, I do not regret her choice in Cheri, bc I think it was a fine addition to her IMDB credits. But I do hope she chooses to work more, and on top of that, take on non-Pfeiffer-like roles.
# 19 Febrero 2010 at 1:35

Tim said:
lola, you’re right, MP’s part in Love Field was very different than most of her line of work. That could be why she was nominated.
Hairspray and Stardust are nice but I haven’t been using them as examples because her parts in them were so small and they were exposure movies, to cushion her comeback.
I’m starting to think that maybe MP wasn’t nominated for Age of Innocence bc her role in that is so similar to her part in Dangerous Liasons. And maybe she wasn’t nominated for Cheri for the same reasons. Yes, I know they are only similar because they are all period pieces (and I am aware they were different periods also, and places), but I have to admit, it was sort of the same exact role again and again with a different story. She played a melancholic beauty in all of them.
I love it when she plays roles like that. But like I said, I’d love to see her work more, and play parts that are more different.
You know who I’m finding out is very good? Toni Colette. I couldn’t even recognize her from The Hours compared to In Her Shoes. I think I’m starting to get the notion of what a “character actress” is, compared to a “star” who generally plays the same part over and over in different movies (with exceptions here and there). Like Julia Roberts, she’s always just playing herself in every movie, in one way or another, for the most part. On the same token, MP does the same, again, with exceptions.
# 19 Febrero 2010 at 1:49

Sunfire said:
I just love all these comments. This is just speculation but as a mother myself and of a “certain age” once the children grow up it gives you the opportunity to explore yourself a bit. I think this is what your going to see with MP. She will be taking more chances and take on more risky roles. I think your going to be surprised in the near future as to what roles she is going to take on. She is begining to show signs of it already. I honestly can’t wait to see what she will be getting into.
# 19 Febrero 2010 at 13:25

chelsea said:
Tim:
I suppose you’re right on some level. She’s an actress that does “safe” roles with a couple exceptions. And sure some actresses are very different in each movie and have so many different sides. But I think that Michelle mostly stays on the safe side because she takes on roles that she can find herself in. Too really get in a character, you have to put a little something of yourself in there too. Taking risks is not for everyone, especially not when the whole world is watching you on the big screen.
What would it be like if Mp took a role that was totally out of the obvious? Something completely unexpected. On the one hand it could be mind-blowing. It could amaze everyone and win her awards. But on the other hand how dissapointed would we all be if she took this unexpected role and she couldn’t deliver? Wouldn’t that be more devastating than her taking on safe roles?
But I think if she were to do something unexpected, she would really try her best to deliver a good performance. I don’t think there are many roles she couldn’t take. I would love her in a Action/Drama scene with some great actors opposing her. That’s actually the only thing she hasn’t done (apart from Batman returns). She’s done drama, comedy, suspense, horror, even Shakespeare. And if that doesnt come, at least some good old “Pfeiffer-act” again with worthy actors opposing her (no more Ashton Kutchers, please) I got really excited when there was word about a project with Pierce Brosnan. Too bad that’s probably not happening anymore.
Anyway, I hope for more roles. Unexpected ones would be great, but I don’t think there’s a lot of chance it’ll happen (not to sound pessimistic or anything). But let’s just keep our fingers crossed for more work. I admire all of her movies because she’s just plain good!
# 19 Febrero 2010 at 21:12

roald77 said:
Hi, guys, have really been enjoying your posts here. must say that i agree with you tim, well mostly, and i’m a huga fan of mp as well.
on the other han i have to say that even though her roles in movies like starsdust and hairspray were maybe small they were more remnisent of mp’s earlier career choices and show more variety than her roles in movies personal effects (which i dont think is so awful as everyone says), chéri (which i thoug was so and so due to a bad script) and I could never be your woman (which i think is just awful, but i think that has a lot to do with post production).
personally i think pe, icnbyw and chéri remind me more of mp’s career choices in the late nineties which for me were safe and well quite boring to be honest.
i will watch movies like witches of eastwick, frankie and johnny, batman returns any day just because they´re so darn fun to watch. and love field because mp is just amazing in that movie. but i care less for movies like the story of us, deep end of the ocean and especially up, close and personal (which in my oppinon is the second worst movie shes done after icnbyw) just because i think the storyline is somewhat flat and well those movies remind me of those lifetime dramas they show on hbo.
of course i will go and see all her movies and buy them on dvds – even thouch i dont always like the roles she takes on….but id like to see her do more movies that show her variety as an actress anda are more risky…:)
# 21 Febrero 2010 at 17:08

chelsea said:
Well, I’ve done some observing. The last couple of days I’ve been watching a lot of Pfilms and I’ve really noticed something. The period from around 1988 to 1993 was indeed her golden age. That is what was said by the interviewer at the beginning of an interview. It was the one that included that whole Pfan/Trekkies-fuss. Well, naturally I was a little shaken up from that (well, what Pfan wasn’t) and so didn’t pay much attention to that particular statement. But I’ve been digging up some old posts and came across that one. At first, I was kind of displeased that the interviewer putted it that way. But I decided not to judge before I knew some facts.
On her Filmography you can clearly see what age was the time of her most popular work. There’s Dangerous liaisons (1988), The fabulous Baker boys (1989), Batman returns (1991), Love field (1992) and The age of Innocence (1993) among others that prove her work in this period to be very successful. She got three Oscar nominations and one Golden Globe. Those were her most important nominations/wins to date. These were also the years where her legendary performances took place. The sexy dance on top of the piano in tFBB, the incredible moves of Catwoman, the unbelievable vulnerability in The Age of Innocence and Dangerous Liaisons. All very strong aspects of her success in these years. She had enough experience from her previous films and didn’t have other things, like her family, on her mind. And of course her raw, natural talent helped a little bit :p
Before this period her work contained the starters of her career: Grease 2(1982), Scarface (1983), which was kind of the starting point when people began to know who she was. Into the night (1983), Ladyhawke (1985), The witches of Eastwick (1987) and Married to the Mob (1987). I’d like to point out that some of these movies were really great too (Lh, MttM), but they weren’t so popular because she simply wasn’t a star yet.
Her acting skills after 1993 (ironically my birth year) are still strong, but less memorable. For example One fine day (1996) is a lovely movie. Good cast and a funny script. I personally love it and watch it at least once a month, but it wasn’t mind-blowing. Dangerous minds(1995) was also a good movie. I liked her as the teacher. The whole being-pregnant-while-filming was very well disguised. After I discovered she was 6 months pregnant while filming that movie I went looking for a pregnant belly, but except for a few glimpses I never saw anything. The part was surprising to me after her previous movies, but again not memorable. The deep end of the ocean (1998) is a great movie. I don’t know why people don’t like it. It’s very dramatic and real, which I love. The part where she gets an attack when she realizes her son is definitely missing is very moving. I have something for roles in which she plays a normal, plain woman. Like in Frankie and Johnny (my Favorite movie of all time (I know I’ve said it over and over again, but I just love it)). To Gillian on her 37th birthday and Up close and Personal (both 1996) were both disappointments to me. Her part in TGoh37thB was way too small. She delivered the part well, but the story didn’t appeal to me. I also, for some reason, don’t like Claire Danes. Maybe because I saw Stardust before TGoh37thB. She was plain irritating in Stardust. I just wanted Mp to catch her and eat her heart! (Evil, I know). I am Sam and White Oleander are among my favorites. Love the whole dark side/evil mother in WO. And the bitch that turns soft is perfectly portrayed by Michelle in IaS.
Her parts are probably less interesting (teacher, mother and reporter following villain, escort/singer and countess) and therefore less successful in the movie-world.
Her last five films were Hairspray, Stardust, I could never be your woman, Personal effects and Chéri. The most successful was Hairspray. But that was mainly because of the cast (John Travolta, Zac Efron etc.). Even though Michelle delivered her part very well, it was very small and not worthy of an award. Her part in Stardust was, again, good, but small. The movie itself wasn’t great. I didn’t like the whole romance-part of Stardust, but I loved the Evil-witch-who-wants-to-kill-Claire-Danes-part :p. ICNBYW and PE were both horrible movies. No new challenges and awful scripts. They’re definitely in my top three of worst Pfilms (the third being Up close and Personal). That leaves Chéri. Not a masterpiece, but truly a beautiful movie. Great setting and touching ending. I liked the monologue. The famous phrase “You found an old woman” was shockingly realistic and really moving. It was the only movie of these five that deserved an Oscar. And I genuinely think that the movie is good for a Pfilm and not just because the previous ones were so bad.
I consider ICNBYW and PE to be mistakes and I forgive her. She probably found the character ,Linda, interesting, but the truth is that it was too easy. It was something that anyone could’ve done. And then Ashton Kutcher opposite her… I can’t stand him for some reason. Already in Dude, where’s my car, I found him annoying. Whenever Punk’d or That 70s show is on I switch the channel immediately. It’s a mystery to me why she took ICNBYW.
We can’t expect her to do another seductive dance on top of a piano or squeeze herself into another tight, leather suit. I mean, let’s be honest, she’s not in her 30s anymore. But I think I speak for all of us when I say that she, as one of the most talented actresses, can easily do the next big movie. In her last 3 movies she was the older woman and I would like her to be in a movie with someone her age. Not just her age, but also her level of experience. Paul Rudd, Ashton Kutcher and Rupert Friend don’t have that much experience. John Malkovich, Jeff bridges, Daniel Day-Lewis are worthy actors she has worked with. Another one with George Clooney or Jeff bridges would be great. Or someone new like Pierce Brosnan or Tom Hanks. But in the end it’s about Michelle herself and how she handles her role. So I hope she’ll be more picky (or less, considering the roles she turned down) and go for the good parts.
Anyway, it occured to me that her roles became less memorable after 1993, the year that she had her first child. I don’t believe in coincidence. But let’s all just hope for the best and wish for her career to go up the hill even though she now has a family.
# 24 Febrero 2010 at 0:47

roald77 said:
very well put chelsea.
# 25 Febrero 2010 at 20:26

Benjamin said:
Each individual actor defines success differently than others. For Pfeiffer it has never been a matter of whether she’s hot or not, or how well her films perform at the box office. I believe she bases her definition of success on the freedom to pick and choose the films she wants to do and when she wants to do them. Not many actresses have that freedom, especially the ones she used to compete for film roles with. Whether people want to believe it or not, Pfeiffer is always on Hollywood’s radar because she is just that iconic and long considered one of the most professional. I’m sure if she decides to go to work this year it will more than likely be during the summer when her kids are on school break and if it’s a role that interests her.
# 26 Febrero 2010 at 6:07

Sunfire said:
Boy this is intense. Chelsea I think you were right on. However I do think the best is yet to come. Once she has a bit more freedom with her children, she is going to start doing films we have never thought she would get into. She has commented herself that she can only stay away for so long. Her daughter is going to be 17 and her son will be 16. That being said her nest will be empty soon. Watch out guys she will be coming back full throttle.
# 26 Febrero 2010 at 13:22

Tim said:
Hey Chelsea, I agree with everything you said too. In your response to me, I wanted to add that yes, it will suck to take on a risky role and fail at it. I mean, that’s one thing I’d never want to see. But then here’s the problem. Should MP take on a meaty role with the risk of getting negative criticism, or should MP take on another PE role?
And honestly, I have to say, I’d much rather her take on a meaty role and get negative criticism. It may seem like the end of the world as we know it in the Pfeiffertheface comments pages, but we’ll get over it. Jessica Alba’s a terrible actress and it never stopped her from working. One bad review on Pfeiffer’s acting won’t end hers either.
We all know at this point that MP doesn’t have much on her resume bc she is choosing not to work. There are plenty of actresses around her age with a ton of stuff. And we all know if MP wanted to, she could be cast in many, many, many movies. It’s the truth. She just doesn’t want to be in any right now (which sucks!).
So let’s say she does a crazy IMDB thing where she’s got a ton of works in progress (like Julia Roberts or Meryl Streep). Let’s say she takes on 5 non-Pfeifferized roles, and she is GREAT in 2 of them, but is blah in the other 3. Would we mind as pfans? I wouldn’t!
I’d love to see her take a risk and act outside her comfort zone. I truly believe she has the skill for it. And you know, it’s never too late for her to take more acting classes. I think we all noticed that she was rusty in ICNBYW. If she spent those hiatus years vigorously training with more acting classes rather than taking care of her children (lol) she would’ve been much better.
A lot of the best actresses have had a lot of training, Meryl Streep, Cate Blanchett. It doesn’t happen magically. I know MP has had some training in the past, but I don’t believe it was anywhere near as much as Meryl’s.
For what MP can do, she does great. I know I always say Meryl and Cate are so good (and Tilda, though I don’t know much about her), but I believe MP is a better star than any of them. She has a greater screen presence. Of course us Pfans know this, but even casual audiences will say she’s a good actress and that she’s so beautiful. I used to watch my movies at my dorm and people would just come in and stare at her. Sorry but Tilda, Kate, and Meryl never had that effect. Neither do the “beauties” like Jessica Alba, bc she lacks the ability to act, everyone knows she’s a joke.
Anyway so yea, I hope she’ll take on new, great roles. Btw Chelsea I loved Frankie & Johnny too. And I also loved One Fine Day. F&J has a deeper connection to my heart, and OFD is just a movie I love to have playing in my house, bc it’s so light and lovely. I know pfans hate TDEOTO and TSOU, but I love those too. But yea I can see how those movies must have sucked to the casual audience. The interest-value in those two films are remarkably low.
And yea, I’d love to see her work with her peers again, like George Clooney. I really don’t see why she doesn’t… She can hold her own with the big stars. I think she knows that. I mean she worked with Travolta in Hairspray and all. So I don’t think that’s a problem.
Ashton in PE was definitely a mistake. I don’t care how serious he was trying to be, in every scene of his, I could tell he was acting. He should be on the CW network. God I saw one episode of “The Vampire Diaries” to see how Ian Somerhalder was doing, and that dude can’t play a vampire. He’s the strongest link in that show and he still sucks. Back on Lost, he was playing a regular guy, so that was fine. Back in Young Americans he played a high schooler, so that was ok too. But playing a vampire? Not believable at all. In every scene I could tell he was acting. This really makes me respect David Boreanez’s Angel more, bc he was always believable (imo).
Although I never watched Buffy or Angel, they were terrible shows. Buffy is leagues better than this Diaries crap though. Back then they cast real actors who didn’t look like models. Back in the day I thought Sarah Michelle Gellar sucked, but compared to these new girls on the CW, she’s like Meryl Streep. I always thought Willow was alright and Xander was ok too. Those new guys just suck. And they all look like models. I did get into Angel once they introduced “Darla” played by Julie Benz. I watched every episode she was in. The episodes without her just sucked. I really liked the gal for Drusilla also.
Ok I went way off topic, and now no one knows what I’m talking about.
# 26 Febrero 2010 at 17:53

Leave your response!

Tags

Pfeiffer Pfamily

Elite Affiliates

Elite Affiliates Simply Brad | Brad Pitt Claire Danes Fan | Claire Danes Elizabeth-Perkins.org | Elizabeth Perkins Hilary Swank Fan | Hilary Swank About Julia | Julia Roberts Pure Elegance | Kim Basinger Meg Ryan Network | Meg Ryan Adoring Natasha | Natasha Richardson Penelope Fan | Penelope Cruz Glamour Reese Witherspoon | Reese Witherspoon Rene Russo Fan | Rene Russo Sharon Stone Europe | Sharon Stone View all affiliates

Disclaimer

PfeifferTheFace is 100% unofficial. We are not in contact with Michelle Pfeiffer, her manager of her family. The site is pfan run, for the pfans. All original text and graphics belong to PfeifferTheFace, all pictures, articles, etc. are copyright to their original owners. This site is non-profit, and is in no way trying to infringe on the copyrights or businesses of any of the entities.