MovieChat Forums > Derailed (2005) Discussion > Jennifer Aniston completely misplaced

Jennifer Aniston completely misplaced

posted 11 years ago by hmguk90
28 replies | jump to latest

I get the feeling Jennifer Aniston was only hired because she's a household name.
She was cute in Friends, but she has mediocre abilities, no charm and her looks are average (especially compared to Melissa George). It just isn't believable that she is so seductive that a faithful husband would cheat on his wife with her, nonetheless sacrifice so much.
To me, she is just completely "meh". Not to mention her name among the cast instantly labels the film as second rate.

Anyone else feel the same?

[–] st-take 11 years ago

Agreed!

[–] eewebb66 11 years ago

Dare I say it? Angelina Jolie would have made a much better femme fatale. Jennifer Aniston is too perky and bubbly for that role. Totally mis-cast

[–] hmguk90 11 years ago

I agree.
Angelina would have been good, but it doesn't even have to be someone so 'obviously' sexy. I mean Natalie Portman has a 'good girl' image, but she was sexy and cheeky in Closer and she could have done that well in Derailed. She also has a good chemistry with Clive. Other options could have been Olivia Wilde or Scarlett Johansson.
I have never seen what's so great about Jen. I think she worked well in Friends and I imagine she contributed to creating the character. The cute, slightly spoiled and emotional girl who made a good fit in the group. I usually avoid movies she's starring in, but I've come across a few (Along Came Polly) and I always feel like she brings nothing to it.

[–] yazoostreet 11 years ago

I thought Jennifer did quite well here, cast against type. Vincent Cassel's wife Monica Belucci could have played an excellent femme fatale in this film though.

I think Johanssen, Portman and Wilde would have been too young for this role at the time the film was made to be considered for the part - filmed today, they'd be interesting choices.

[–] WhackJob 10 years ago

I would say yes, even though I don't think Angelina is all that beautiful, I think she's far more sexy.

You're offended by a post made by a guy named Whackjob?

[–] dolphinslayer2 11 years ago

I think the issue is Aniston's lack of experience in dramatic roles like this. Overall, I think she did fine.

[–] Princess_Ashmi 11 years ago

I don't know what it is but a lot of men seem to find her incredibly hot.
I mean her body is pretty amazing for her age but her face is just... yeah, 'meh'.

But yes, her character could have been played by pretty much anyone... but same thing can be said about all of them.

Ashmi any question

[–] GetWokeGoBroke (763) 4 years ago

I strongly disagree.

[–] asdf189756 11 years ago

i dont think its all about looks, they made a connection. she pretended to have a daughter too and to be in a loveless marriage, thats wh they connected. its not like he saw her from afar and fell for her

[–] dudes72 11 years ago

Well, I'm going to completely disagree. I thought she was excellent. There was none of the dizzy bubbly characters she normally plays, and I think her performace was under-stated. The darker hair helped possibly too.

[–] aloep 11 years ago

It just isn't believable that she is so seductive that a faithful husband would cheat on his wife with her, nonetheless sacrifice so much.

It's even less believable that Clive Owen could get beaten up by a scrawny weakling like Vincent Cassel!

[–] andypsv 11 years ago

Agreed, to the topic

[–] MrAwesome1022 11 years ago

Jennifer Aniston is much more talented to be simply typecast in every single Rom Com. She performed very well in this role and she played the innocent type well. If Angelina Jolie was that role everyone would had of immediately known there was some sort of twist.

Aniston was a brilliant casting and performed well.