What's going on?

This message has been deleted by the poster

She has four films in 2017, dear.

Her first movie roles in 4 years....

Cant wait to see all her red carpet appearance next year. We are going to be spoiled. 4 Premieres for her own projects, Sundance and I'm sure there will be a few more festivals for Kyra and Aronofsky's project. Hopefully we'll also get to see her mingle on the red carpet with Kidman, Witherspoon for Big Little Lies supporting David in Feb unless she's still busy shooting Orient Express.

https://lebeauleblog.com/2011/10/07/what-the-hell-happened-to-michelle-pfeiffer/13/

So what the hell happened?

Pfeiffer was one of Hollywood’s biggest stars in the late 80’s through the 90’s. But even at the peak of her stardom, it is debatable that she was ever a box office draw on her own. The only hit she ever starred in that couldn’t be attributed to a co-star or a franchise was Dangerous Minds. And it’s pretty likely that movie’s success was powered by its hit soundtrack.

Later in her career, Pfeiffer started making more female-driven pictures. She tended to take more central roles and was called upon to carry more weight at the box office. She picked several adaptations of popular novels that did not translate well to the big screen. Eventually, her movie career started to cool off.

At a certain point, Pfeiffer decided to take some time off to concentrate on her family. She certainly didn’t need to work if she didn’t want to. In addition to her own success, she was married to a very successful TV producer. When she returned to work, it was on her own terms. Most of her projects in recent years have reunited her with previous collaborators or allowed her to work with actors she has always wanted to work with.

While Pfeiffer is no longer an A-list star, she has managed to step back into Hollywood in supporting roles in the projects she chooses. There are a lot of actresses in the WTHH series who would love to switch places with her.

Why isn’t Michelle more popular?

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000201/board/flat/233051304?p=1

Tue Aug 5 2014 11:07:01

It’s a good question, I think. She doesn’t have nearly the amount of fans that Bullock or Kidman or others have, yet her talent is above her peers mostly. Even during her career best years, she didn’t seem to get the same amount of respect as others. Is it her own fault? As in, she didn’t like the spotlight, and can come off as aloof and cold in interviews(she has gotten MUCH better at this over the years though). I’ve always just been dumbfounded at the lack of following and respect Michelle gets compared to other actresses.

Of course, it would help if she worked more. Bullock is still the highest paid actress in Hollywood, at the age of 50. If Michelle had made different career choices, such as doing Silence of The Lambs or Thelma and Louise, would it really be that much different for her today?

Tue Aug 5 2014 14:04:27

These days I think it is a mixture of Michelle’s film choices which have been pretty poor lately. I don’t think it helps when Michelle does take so long between projects either. Apart from attending a premiere we never really see Michelle attend any other events. In the last 20 years she has been at the Oscars once and always likes to sneak in the back door at these events.

Michelle has not been the main star of a box office hit since What Lies Beneath 14 years ago. Sandra has had big hits with The Proposal, The Blind Side, Gravity, The Heat. Meryl has had plenty. I find it annoying though that she shares the same agent with Bullock, Streep, Kidman, Aniston but seems to be left with the scraps.

Wed Aug 6 2014 06:09:05

It’s hard to say. Some of it has to do with her admitted ambivalence about self-promotion and pubic appearances. It often appeared that she was under duress anytime she showed up on a talk show to promote a new film. Only in recent years has she seemed relaxed and confident enough to be herself in televised interviews, whereas more extroverted actresses like Bullock or Aniston can’t wait to get out there and trade quips with Jimmy Fallon or David Letterman. This is partly how they have gathered huge fan followings. People relate to them more readily than someone like Michelle who comes off as out of her element and stiff when she isn’t playing a character. However, when comes down to acting talent, I think she is light years above Bullock and Aniston (among others) and it baffles why she doesn’t get better film offers. I don’t know whether her recent string of bad films reflects poor judgement on her part or if these were the best or only jobs she was offered. Either way, there is a huge disconnect between her capabilities and what she is achieving in films. Sad to see her film career reduced to crap like NYE and The Family while the clock keeps ticking.

Adding this comment to what I said above: fair or unfair, Bullock and Aniston, for example, get more attention because of their personal foibles: Bullock’s disastrous marriage to Jesse whats his name and the Aniston/ Pitt/ Jolie trifecta. In this celebrity crazed age, people eat that stuff up and it raises their personal profiles. Michelle, on the other hand, has been quietly married to the same man for 20 plus years with nary a trace of scandal or impropriety. This may make her a a more admirable human being, but it also contributes to the perception that she basically disappeared from public life. So in terms of popularity, her decision to live in relative obscurity in No Ca and put family first could have hurt her in the popularity sweepstakes. Personally, I respect her for making that decision and would hope it did not affect her film opportunities.

Mon Feb 23 2015 13:57:38

Perhaps Michelle doesn’t want to be known as a ‘high-profile’ actress. Some prefer to be ‘character’ actresses, not ‘always-in-the-limelight’ ones. I think that deserves a lot of respect because the ones who stay out of the limelight don’t seem to be stripped of their dignity.