Lindsay Lohan: "Hot, Ready, and Legal!"

YOU'RE not that good or charismatic an actress

shes been in like a dozen movies, and has only been good/interesting/likable in one two (ill give you freaky friday) of them... dunno how much more evidence we need

jeez as if being a good or charismatic an actress/actor is some kind of pre-requisite here, rly

well it is! i mean again the guy we keep holding up as a model for "successfully recovered trainwreck" is robert downey jr.

"good" is all whatever, i dont even care if shes a "good" actress, i just mean that i dont think shes really a star actress--its just that her descent into trainwreck-ness and the realization that she isnt very engaging happened at the same time, so people conflate the two

well it is! i mean again the guy we keep holding up as a model for "successfully recovered trainwreck" is robert downey jr.

― max, Wednesday, July 7, 2010 4:40 PM (36 seconds ago) Bookmark

and the (imo) awful drew barrymore

just shootin the shit here but im not convinced she's fucked for life. think she's more talented and likeable than, say, kate hudson, who still gets to topline movies, and everyone likes a comeback.

^

also much hotter than hudson et al

yeah, great point. max, i totally see what you're saying in that her light-up-a-screen charm so ingrained in movies like mean girls and FF was definitely diffused elsewhere in her career, but i still think she can turn it on.

i assume max hasn't seen the altman movie, i thought she was pretty good there

oh i dont think shes fucked for life, i just dont see her winning an oscar or really ever being a bankable star.

shes not hotter than hudson anymore, sadly

i think ppl gave her shit for maybe being a bit late on the altman film?

which i think kind of says it all -- if you can't show up blitzed on an altman set, is it even worth signing on? [via misplaced nostalgia for the 70s]

but she wasn't total tmz-bait trainwreck level at that point. she was that girl who had followed up 'mean girls' with 'herbie'.

― frap your hands say yeah yeah yeah (history mayne), Wednesday, July 7, 2010 11:36 AM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

if you look at say THIS THREAD in the months leading up to that movie the posts are mainly about drugs, eating disorders, etc.

like, there's still something that makes me want to watch her, more than half the other actresses in hollywood, even if she's lost sight of it for the time being.

no, i saw it, but she certainly didnt come across as a "star" in it--she seemed like a capable young actress, which i think she is

if the bar we're lowering for LiLo is "better than Kate Hudson" than this is the saddest game of limbo I've ever seen

up to a point, we have emma stone now, and i dunno if LL brings that much to the table in that context. we shall see!

Drew Barrymore - there's some movie I liked her in, plus I think she's cute and approachable. Also, last name anybody?

Kate Hudson - One good movie performance, otherwise cruising on looks and powerful family connections.

LiLo - I've only seen one performance, but she comes across as a person as witless and pompous and her family are a serious liability to her. A comeback, everyone loves, but she's no longer an ingenue, even at 24, what w/the bad makeup and the drug-addled looks.

see i think she's been looking awesome gr8 lately

re: drew barrymore--yeah i dont know; i dont 'get' drew barrymore but obviously a lot of people connect to her. so maybe im wrong, and im just missing out on the people connecting to lohan in the same way?

then again drew barrymore isnt ever gonna win an oscar. and what was the last hit she had a starring role in? 50 first dates? charlies angels?

i can't remember any point in this history of this thread when you didn't think she looked great tbh surm

im not judging this on who will win an oscar tbh

and yeah kate hudson is a 'star' but shes not a STAR the way i think people expected lohan to be--i mean basically she stars in midlist romantic comedies that do OK, right? and i guess 'nine'

ok, switch katherine heigl for hudson if u like

see i think she's been looking awesome gr8 lately

im just missing out on the people connecting to lohan in the same way?

This must be it for me. I've never thought she was all that so now she's just worse (to me).

Heigl's another who does aboslutely zero for me and that offensive flick she did with Gerard Butler basically black-listed her in my mind for eternity.

my take on the lohan CW is that ca. mean girls people thought she was the next, i dunno, julia roberts maybe? like huge, bankable star who can do romantic comedies and serious dramas? and so the fall from grace is seen as really major. maybe im misremembering. and then people were saying on this thread--she could win an oscar, she could make a comeback. i dont think shell ever "come back" to "next julia roberts" status. i doubt she could even pull off kate hudson, because who wants to see lohan in cute romantic comedies nowadays?

katie heigl has got another couple years as a 'star' id think. shes definitely not has she made anything even remotely hit-like since knocked up? anyway i think were talking two different levels here--'a list' and 'b list' if u will

scratch 'shes definitely not' from that sentence

yea i was gonna mention heigl! ugh, puke.

and lol i know it may not seem like it, but i have def thought lo looked pretty bad in the past (anorexia, bad tans, strung-out-as-fuck) but the few pictures i've been posting of her upthread look pretty great to me.

good point tho, max, re: julia roberts. very good point.

even in interviews you could see she had that sort of magic, just in her presence, for a hot minute there.

Or is it that because Lohan was picked to be a big star and failed abjectly that neither she nor Hollywood can forgive her, so she drinks and drugs herself into oblivion and Hollywood stays far, far away from anything that might remind anybody that they were dead wrong.

neway i hope dakota fanning is learning from all this

ca. mean girls people thought she was the next, i dunno, julia roberts maybe?

nah. i don't remember that. don;t think the expectations were that big. people are saying it about mcadams *now*. but lohan was only 17 or whatever when she made 'mean girls'.

so i don't think it was *that* big a fall from grace.

also guys, hudson and heigl are big stars, and reasonable comparisons imo. and im just saying that they're no good! i dunno, ll's options are romcoms (terrible idea), franchise chick (pretty bad idea), ____________ (the best outcome).

bigger fall from grace than mischa barton, who really can't act

hudson and heigl are big stars in a more limited sense than i think people expected from lohan!

but im willing to believe that lohans trainwreck has made her seem in retrospect like a bigger (potential) star than she actually was

if only there was some kind of heigl-lohan girl out there...

we agree on her options in any event. shes not ever going to be a-list again.

katie heigl has got another couple years as a 'star' id think. shes definitely not has she made anything even remotely hit-like since knocked up? anyway i think were talking two different levels here--'a list' and 'b list' if u will

― max, Wednesday, July 7, 2010 11:54 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

88mil for Ugly Truth and 76mil for 27 Dresses ain't bad

neway i hope dakota fanning is learning from all this

Yeah, when I saw 'The Runaways' that occurred to me, too. Thing is, she's cute and all but I doubt she'll ever have the charisma that LiLo had, not to mention K. Stewart whose future genuinely intrigues me since I can't begin to foresee what she does in her mid-twenties.

88mil for Ugly Truth and 76mil for 27 Dresses ain't bad

― some dude, Wednesday, July 7, 2010 12:01 PM (35 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

whoa really? what a world

ugh if i ever have to see those ever i will be v sad

Lohan could definitely revive her carreer, if she became more reliable and got a firm grip on her addictions. But she won't ever be an A-list star now.

Women in Hollywood are a much more perishable commodity than men, and after age 40 the work just dries up for any but the best. All LiLo has going for her now is her infamy, which is close enough to fame that it can stand in for it.

she cld do some oscar bait involving being a bit fucked up, like courtney love in larry flint, theron in monster, stone in casino. but wouldn't she just think it was boring

well in any event i think lohan always had it in her, and still has it in her, to be a heigl or a hudson. i dont think she ever had it in her to be a roberts

but people probably used to say the same thing about sandy bullock and now look at her

ugh if i ever have to see those ever i will be v sad

― janice (surm), Wednesday, July 7, 2010 12:03 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i would be embarrassed about saying 27 Dresses is aight but son you rep for Just My Luck

but i thought you just said that mean girls showed that she had it in her to be a roberts, max! i certainly felt that way at the time.

Sandra Bullock, Goldie Hawn, Fran Drescher, Lucille Ball, etc... all very, very shrewd tactically with their careers. LiLo, not so much.

imo the a-list right now would include heigl (well, ok, up to 'killers'). that isn't my value judgement of whether she's any good.

i guess there is a kind of platinum league of actors like julia roberts and tom cruise and will smith (and yeah i guess bullock... thanks america!), but there's no guarantee the current generation will produce similar figures. arguably they didn't exist before the eighties in quite the same way -- hollywood is always changing.

but which women are on max's a-list? (i'm not saying lindsay lohan is going to become america's sweetheart btw, just asking an OT question.)

but i thought you just said that mean girls showed that she had it in her to be a roberts, max! i certainly felt that way at the time.

― janice (surm), Wednesday, July 7, 2010 12:08 PM (21 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

ha, no, i think it made people THINK she had julia roberts in her, but i dont think she ever did, and people just assume its the drugs and not the fact that shes just not that good

i think lohan was supposed to be a "big deal" ca. mean girls & freaky friday bcuz it seemed like she was a capable comedic actress - like there are lots of actresses that are pretty and some that are funny but its p rare to have someone that's pretty & funny? or least allowed to be?

ne way i dont think the line on lohan was ever that she had crazy acting talent but that shes talented in a specific, kinda special way. & this may be true but we have amy adams now so w/e

ts "we have emma stone now" vs "we have amy adams now"

we have emma stone now

o yes we do!