MovieChat Forums > Cake (2015) Discussion > was Jennifer Aniston really that phenome...

was Jennifer Aniston really that phenomenal, though?

posted 10 years ago by sexandthechitty
25 replies | jump to latest

I adore the heck out of Jennifer Aniston. but I do NOT think she is THAT great of an actress. She's OK. She gets the job done.but In her Cake performance we finally see her taking a step out of her comfort zone and really put herself out there ,vulnerably. Its about time because all we are used to is her same type of blah character, that really isnt that interesting, same types of movies- weak storylines that are nothing special, boring style, same ol brown hair and tan skin. snooooze.

Did you guys see her in 2002's The Good Girl? It was different than the rest and she was exceptional in it, it made me feel SHE BELONGS IN THAT ROLE. the feeling of "you know what, I really couldnt imagine another actress being better for this role or playing this role" this role was made for Jennifer Aniston. It felt right. her career should have taken off from there. A plethora of interesting, versatile role offers should have been coming her way, She CAN do different. She just needed the chance! she was hot, waiting to strike while the iron was hot....and then just like that, she cooled down. She went back to unfunny, unsufferable comedic roles and I will never understand if it was because she was never offered anything else of substance or it was her that made bad, bad career choices. I will never know. do you? tell me if you do.

CAKE. everyone is raving about her performance. "She was snubbed for an Oscar!" She was phenomenal! But I ask : Was Jennifer Aniston really all THAT phenomenal, though? Or are we all just so pleasantly surprised that she succeeded at giving an honest, believable portrayal of a character that isn't a typical JA predictable, safe, lackluster romantic comedy that we are all so familiar from getting out of her? Were we just so shocked that she wasn't playing a same ol same ol and we are just so dam proud of her for doing us good, that we want to reward her? Do you really feel, out of all the leading lady performances of all the movies this past year- from indie to big budget studio and the ones inbetween- did her actual performance outshine all the others? Or are we hyped and screaming "OSCAR NOM!!! SHE FINALLY DESERVES ONE! all because she did something different than all her other roles and its HER BEST performance of HER career. Or is it the best performance out of ALL the female lead roles out of ALL of the films from this last YEAR?
Maybe our our feelings toward JA and her career are temporarily skewing our judgements because of emotions- we are invested in JA and her hollywood journey and we want so badly for her to be recognized, even if it's not as special of a performance or role as we desperately want it to be. Could it be that we fans are just wrapped up in excitement , thinking about how our girl had it hard in Hollywood the past decade,unlucky in love, taking all the wrong roles, being $hit on by media and the public.... she's been thru alot...so she deserves an Oscar!

Just because we are excited and happy and think JA was fantastic as her portrayal of Claire, doesnt mean she deserves a nomination or a win. I'm not saying she does or doesnt deserve one, I'm just curious if everyday people who have personally selected JA as their winner is basing off of talent, range , type of role it was and how their performance moved us as human beings, and truly stood out from the rest, or we think she did GREAT in this film and we are not used to getting GREAT out of her. BUT she is actress. thats her job to make her role believable. Thats the bare minimun called for actors and actresses to do in films and thats why they hire them. it's the ones that go above, beyond and take our breath away that get the nominations.

Do we think she deserves a nomination becasue she didnt look like her normal flawless self,so we see that as "going all out" for a role?LOOK! she she didn't put on makeup this time, she is not goldenly tan and flawless as usual. She cried, She Yelled, She showed emotions this time! She put on pajamas instead of a curve hugging dress this time. We didnt see her sculpted toned defined legs, abs, arms and stomach! Is this performance mind blowing as some of our past winners and nominees? We have seen people make DRAMATIC physical changes like matthew mcconaughey for dallas buyers club and chrisian bale did for the machinist, did she have to have to work her arse off for months learning to play the guitar and autoharp from scratch as well as take voice lessons to realistically depict June Carter Cash like Reese Witherspoon? did she undergo such a transformation and push herself to BE that character, not just "act" the part.Or do so much research and effort for their role that they stay in character and not break it for months, not even to their family and friends like Jim Carrey did in The Man and the Moon or Daniel Day Lewis in...almost every film he is in. Or is just wardrobe changes?

In her Good Girl peformance, I couldnt imagine anyone else playing the part of Justine.That part was MADE for Jennifer. That's how I want to feel about award winning roles. These actresses BECOME their roles, make us feel NO ONE else can do it but them. And in all honesty, I could imagine Julianne Moore nailing Claire in Cake, with her massive emotional range. I could also see Reese Witherspoon. And Charlize Theron. Naomi Watts. Kate Winslet would be flawless.Sandra Bullock. Hell, even Kate Hudson and I don't like her that much. All of those women I could easily see transforming into Claire and doing it just as good if not better than JA. I cannot feel that this role was written for her ONLY. JA was WONDERFUL but not Oscar Worthy. Do you feel her performance was PHENOMENAL and give her a nomination without thinking twice about it - or are you feeling this performance is the best of her career and she should get one based off that?

[–] JeopardyLeyton 10 years ago

I'm no Aniston fan particularly but I thought she was amazing in this. I completely forgot she was 'Jennifer Aniston' and when she broke down in from of the framed picture I actually inadvertently welled up! I suffer from chronic pain, and I thought her performance was really accurate, and it made me feel validated a bit somehow - her movements and facial expressions and little gasps were spot on. I actually think she deserves an Oscar, if it was up to me I'd give her one!

[–] eclipsed-bythe-moon 10 years ago

Two very very rude girls chose that scene to walk out giggling and ruined the moment, so I need to rewatch it and maybe I'll get a better effect. That's why I don't like going to the movies!

[–] spasticfreakshow 10 years ago

i agree with this. i like aniston as a person but never respected her as an actress, and yes - i saw and liked good girl. but this was really powerful, really raw and well done.

moore in still alice - yes, i loved her performance and was particularly impressed with how beautiful and sexy she is at her age. but i wasn't shaken like i was by aniston.

witherspoon in wild - yes, i felt that here's another silly talentless rom-com girl suddenly showing her chops - her acting was emotional and moving but the film was very poorly produced - cinematography was GARBAGE and i just couldn't relate to the character AT ALL. in THIS case i was more impressed by the dumb blonde actress finally putting some effort in, as the OP says.

but with aniston - well, i was spellbound. she took us into a story - and i hate stories of insane suffering - and she made it real. very real. it's not just that i didn't think she had it in her (and i didn't), it's also, just wow. and then there are moments of hope at the end.

unbelievable film. a 10. and jennifer certainly deserved an oscar nom.

[–] yajji 9 years ago

witherspoon in wild - yes, i felt that here's another silly talentless rom-com girl suddenly showing her chops - her acting was emotional and moving but the film was very poorly produced - cinematography was GARBAGE and i just couldn't relate to the character AT ALL. in THIS case i was more impressed by the dumb blonde actress finally putting some effort in, as the OP says.

The cinematography in Wild is some of the best I've seen in years. A lot of people felt the same way, it was actually one of the strongest aspects of the film. Witherspoon was also known for dark roles long before she became the rom-com American sweetheart. In fact, most of the early work that got her noticed was in very controversial indie material like Freeway and Election back in the 1990s.

Anyway, Aniston was great. I probably wasn't as gobsmacked as everyone else, because I knew she had the ability to play dramatic roles, having seen her in The Good Girl years ago. She played a similarly damaged character in that film, however very few people saw it (I think it was released in the wake of 9/11). The Oscars bear little weight these days, there's been so many snubs, but I do think she deserved a nomination.

[–] ScrystaLz 9 years ago

I thought Jennifer did a good job with the role, I certainly don't think she was "phenomenal" and deserved to win an oscar award or anything, but I still thought she did a good job. I thought her acting was convincing, I felt every emotion from her was genuine and made her character believable to me...sure there are other actresses whom I thought could've done a better job, but overall I think Jennifer did a good job.

[–] netshopper-2 9 years ago

I didn't think so.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] VIETgrlTerifa 9 years ago

All the people who said Aniston was better than Moore, Witherspoon, or Pike are type of movie fans I simply cannot connect with. I thought she was merely serviceable in this movie and I wondered what another actress who can actually handle nuance and subtlety could have done with this part. Her snarky bits were just one level above her sitcom persona except she curses a bit more. Nicole Kidman handled a grieving mother much better in a much better film called Rabbit Hole. I will giver her credit for looking like she was in chronic pain and she mimics people who live with pain well. But that's mimicry. In terms of acting a real character, I thought Marion Cotillard handled dealing with new pain (and a missing limb) and with depression from it better in Rust & Bone. As for Best Actresses Julianne Moore (Still Alice and Maps to the Stars), Anne Dorval (Mommy), Agata Kulesza (Ida), Reese Witherspoon (Wild), Rosamund Pike (Gone Girl), Marion Cotillard (Three Days, Two Nights and The Immigrant), Jessica Chastain (The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby) among others simply blew Aniston out of the water in terms of acting and should have been on the shortlist of Oscar contenders before even considering Aniston for this good, but not great performance.

It also hurts that this film was simply lacking in real substance. It was trying too hard to portray the grief and struggle after losing a child and dealing with physical and emotional pain, but I didn't believe her depression or suicidal tendencies (or even contemplating it). This movie was just full of broad characters (wow, how cool that Claire and Sam Worthington are so different and angrier than anyone else who has to deal with issues similar to them. What individuals! Look at how shocked everyone who isn't them is!) and has no understanding of how to really show all the nuance it thinks it's showing. That last shot was ridiculous and so over-the-top, but pretty much sums up this movie's heavy-handed though trying to look indie and quiet and real approach.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]