I precisely remember the year. It was 2005 and we all were enthralled with Rachel McAdams, a Canadian eye candy who would save Hollywood. She could make us laugh, she could make us cry…We felt like the Golden Globes and Oscars would soon take notice and McAdams would ascend to the Julia Roberts territory of superstardom.
Except it never happened. She takes a break, wins Teen Choice Awards surfing boards, chooses weird roles..Some say she’s shaping up to be this generation’s Greta Garbo. Except that legend had the roles, and McAdams has little to offer at the moment unfortunately.
Wall Street Journal did an article on her not too long ago and said she was Hollywood's most wanted or something, she seems like the type who could come back at any time and be huge. I agree she is Garbo-like with her fear of publicity but there's nothing wrong with that. At least when you see her on the screen, you actually see the performance and not that the celebrity. Anyway she has Sherlock Holmes coming out next year, that will be huge.
I don't think she is anything special. She seems 'dime a dozen' to me - like Katherine Heigl or Cameron Diaz.
Kinda boring and her only real motivation is to overplay a role. She was horribly overacting in The Notebook. You can see in her face a sort of : "look at me - I'm acting!".
She's a step above Jessica Biel/Jessica Alba, but nowhere near Kate Winslet.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: ashmores,
I rented "Married Life' which she was in. It was kind of an actor's piece, and she had the chance to work with Chris Cooper, Patricia Clarkson, and Pierce Brosnan, all of whom are terrific actors. To me, it looked like McAdams was serious about wanting to become a really good actress, and she held her own within this company. There's nothing wrong with doing movies that nobody sees, if it improves your craft.
The home front war movie that she was in with Tim Robbins, I didn't see, but it seems like it also was a character piece. Her strategy seems to improve as an actress while being outside the glare of publicity. More power to her.
I agree with the dime a dozen comment. There is absolutely nothing special or remarkable about this girl. I think The Notebook must be a cursed film because neither she nor Ryan Gosling have made much of an impact. They're both pleasing to look at but they make weird choices or something.
The Envelope's Foremost Blatant Liar & Fabricator
Posts: 1033 | Location: Around the Corner From You | Registered: December 12, 2007
Originally posted by Agrado: I agree with the dime a dozen comment. There is absolutely nothing special or remarkable about this girl. I think The Notebook must be a cursed film because neither she nor Ryan Gosling have made much of an impact. They're both pleasing to look at but they make weird choices or something.
What's wrong with weird? Ryan Gosling is an Oscar nominee who's managed to stay a hot commodity while keeping out of the spotlight. That's fairly difficult to do. So more power to him and his ex. Why must an actor star in high-profile movies to be considered legitimate? Gosling has wonderful dramatic chop and McAdams has an easy charm that unusual for actresses of her generation. Why do people assume that every actor wants to be on the cover os US Weekly?
Rachel is in the same league as Natalie Portman, Keira Knightley and Anne Hathaway. She's defintiely in the top tier of actresses in their 20's. She certainly gets offered enough high profile projects to back that up, although she doesn't always take them.
Originally posted by Brilliance inmorbid: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Agrado: Why do people assume that every actor wants to be on the cover os US Weekly?
Don't discount her yet. She's got a really, really juicy role in The Time Traveler's Wife coming up, and then of course Sherlock Holmes. She's gonna come back in a big way, I'm predicting.
Originally posted by Agrado: I agree with the dime a dozen comment. There is absolutely nothing special or remarkable about this girl. I think The Notebook must be a cursed film because neither she nor Ryan Gosling have made much of an impact. They're both pleasing to look at but they make weird choices or something.
Ryan Gosling being in "The Notebook" was an odd choice for him. He normally picks more off beat roles. Him making an impact though - he received his Oscar nominaton after "The Notebook"
As for Rachel age issue - a magazine did an interview on her a few years ago and printed the wrong age, someone then submitted it to imdb.com and the magazine ran a correction but IMDb refused to change it. I do believe her correct age is up there now since a newspaper announcement of her birth was found and released.
Originally posted by Cisco007: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Zembla: At least when you see her on the screen, you actually see the performance and not that the celebrity./QUOTE]
Agree...big time!
I agree with this as well and the US Weekly magazine comment!! I think Rachel's talented and I loved her in "The Notebook" and "Married Life."
Posts: 4537 | Location: E.S. | Registered: January 10, 2005
Originally posted by Zembla: She certainly gets offered enough high profile projects to back that up, although she doesn't always take them.
Her agent must be frustrated to a certain degree. Any actress who turns down both the Iron Man & Get Smart franchises is someone pretty confident about the type of actress she wants to be perceived as.
__________________________________ For Your Consideration: Stephen Colbert or Conan O'Brien for Oscar Host.
Posts: 4148 | Location: Mooby's | Registered: January 09, 2005
