Lancôme, Chanel, Estée Lauder ... sacrebleu! With so many French words floating around the makeup counters these days, aren’t you glad that we have the familiar faces of celebrities to help sort them out? Thanks to them, I can easily distinguish Trésor de Lancôme from Chanel's Coco Mademoiselle by simply asking myself, “Do I want to smell like Kate Winslet or Keira Knightley today?” Everyday it’s a toss up.

Lately it has become more chic for celebrities to promote their own brand of stink, rather than promote a designer perfume (e.g., Celine Dion, J. Lo, Britney). But now some new pitch women have been added to high-end fragrances’ ad campaigns and thank goodness for that — it’s reassuring to know that our old favorite smells still have star power.

Recently, it was announced that Nicole Kidman, who was the face of Chanel No. 5, had been replaced by the adorable French actress Audrey Tautou, who will always be Amélie to me despite her other successful films (Dirty Pretty Things, Happenstance, The Da Vinci Code). Tautou will become the Chanel spokesmodel in early 2009, with a debut commercial helmed by her Amélie director, Jean-Pierre Jeunet. Déjà vu! Chanel's tribute to great directors and their actors began with Nicole Kidman working on her ad campaign with Moulin Rouge director Baz Luhrmann. … continue reading

I swear I meant to see the Broadway revival of Maury Yeston's Nine in 2003.

It had one the best casts ever: Jane Krakowski, Mary Stuart Masterson, Laura Benati, Chita Rivera. But despite my best intentions, I was a big loser and I never got around to seeing it. Alas.

Now I know next to nothing about the show, just that it's based on Federico Fellini's 8½, which I've never seen. I also know that the show features only one man and the rest of the cast is women. (And the New York Times review made it clear that the heart of the show was the women.) Basically, I wish I had not passed up the chance to see another Chita Rivera show, and I'm sorry that I missed Mary Stuart Masterson and Jane Krakowski onstage. And, of course, Laura Benati has been fantastic every time I've seen her on Broadway.

But now I — and everyone else who missed it — will have an opportunity to see a different version with a cast full of amazing women. Rob Marshall (Chicago) is directing a film version, tentatively scheduled to begin production in the fall. … continue reading

The shine isn’t even off the 2008 Academy Awards yet, but I say on to 2009! What? No point dwelling in the past. While it’s still an entire year until the next set of statuettes gets handed out, it’s never too early to be totally wrong with your Academy Award predictions. Here’s a quick look at 10 upcoming projects that caught my eye and maybe, possibly, with any luck, might catch Oscar’s eye as well.

The Argentine/Guerilla: An ambitious two-film project by Steven Soderbergh about Latin American revolutionary Che Guevara, starring Benicio Del Toro, Franka Potente, Benjamin Bratt and Catalina Sandino Moreno. Viva la revolucion!

Australia: Moulin Rouge maestro Baz Luhrmann returns with an epic love story set during World War II, about an English aristocrat (Nicole Kidman) who teams with a ranch hand (Hugh Jackman) to herd cattle across the outback. Sounds like Far and Away meets City Slickers. I kid, I kid.

Burn After Reading: All you need to know is Brad Pitt, George Clooney, Tilda Swinton, Frances McDormand and John Malkovich in a political comedy-thriller about top-secret CIA information falling into the wrong hands — and it's directed by the Coen brothers. Yes, please.

The Changeling: Angelina Jolie may get her 2008 Oscar snub revenge with this Clint Eastwood–directed Prohibition-era thriller about a woman whose kidnapped son is returned, but he could be the wrong child. Clint has been money when it comes to Oscar nominations these past few years, so Angelina, start thinking up a snappy speech. … continue reading

Yesterday, two new wax figures were unveiled at Madame Tussauds in London. The next time they visit the U.K., Drew Barrymore and Cameron Diaz can look into the abyss that is themselves sculpted in wax:

Eeek! Waxworks have always creeped me out, even before I'd seen House of Wax (BTW, the 1953 version is sooo much better than the 2005 remake). But because I sort of like to be creeped out, I considered this an opportunity to peruse some other photos of waxy celebrities.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama:

Those could come in handy when you're just sick of campaigning. Also, doesn't that look like a winning ticket? … continue reading

There’s a half-funny, half-embarrassing story concerning me and women on the cover of magazines. It involves the year 1998, a newsagent, Denise Richards, a copy of FHM, and my firm insistence — to a male friend of mine who happened across me browsing — that I didn’t realize FHM was a men’s magazine. I think he believed me ... just about.

Nevertheless, for most of my teen years I didn’t dare to cast more than a furtive eye in the direction of the men’s magazine section. Fortunately, they’re not the only magazines to feature lots of glamorous women. In fact, one of my favorite magazine covers was from around the same period as the FHM fiasco, in 1997:

Now, I couldn’t care less about Cameron Diaz, but Kate Winslet and Claire Danes in the same frame? Be still, my beating teenage Titanic- and My So-Called Life–loving heart!

What I didn’t realize at the time was that this cover was part of what has become an annual series for Vanity Fair’s Hollywood Issue, by a rather well-known photographer named Annie Leibovitz. VanityFair.com is currently running a retrospective of these foldout covers (which typically entice you in with three beautiful women on the front, and then open out to reveal about seven more). That means you can time-travel all the way back to the first one in 1995:

Um. Yes. Normally I think that the expression “legs for days” is an exaggeration, but in the case of Uma Thurman (pictured second from left), it might actually be true. And I’m not even going to get started on that picture of Nicole Kidman.

Also online is the latest cover, for 2008: … continue reading

Sometime over the last decade or so, glasses became cool. And hot. And the world began to see what lesbians always have known: that women who wear glasses are both cool and hot. And downright sexy.

Personally, I'm glad views have changed. As a little tomboy, I resisted glasses as long as I could, to the point of memorizing the eye chart every year so I could pass the vision exam. When I finally was too blind to resist specs any longer, my family was about to move to Texas from Pittsburgh. One of my friends said, "Wow, glasses don't seem very Texan." At the time, I was devastated. Now I know better. Texans with glasses rock. … continue reading

Think you're underpaid? Think the guy three cubicles down from you is overpaid? Well, take heart. Your pay scale cannot be as wonky and egregious as that of the Hollywood elite. Forbes magazine did some complex calculations based on some superstars' last three films (don't ask me to explain the equation; I'm a writer and therefore allergic to math). They found that some were paid appropriately based on their rate of return, and others were vastly overpaid. Now, I may not be good at math, but duh.

The high and low ends of the scale belonged to male stars. Matt Damon had the best pay-to-profit ratio; for every $1 he earned, his films grossed $29. The worst? Russell Crowe — for each $1 he made, his films made $5. Talk about your fuzzy math. Of course, I'm most interested to see how the female A-listers fared. … continue reading

This week Lori and I are all about reviewing the new movies — new in theaters, and new on DVD. From Ellen Page's fantastic turn in Juno and Keri Russell's yummy pies in Waitress, to Nicole Kidman's wasted efforts in The Golden Compass and the Tom Cruise and Meryl Streep talkfest Lions for Lambs, we show you scenes from the movies and give you our take on whether they're worth watching (don't worry, nothing too spoilery!).

And then there's Megan Fox's mechanically gifted girl-with-an-attitude character in Transformers, an entertaining action movie with surprisingly good female roles. A woman who can fix our car, battle killing machines, and look effortlessly beautiful, all at the same time? We're in! … continue reading

For the past 20 years or so, I've given my brother grief for reviewing Dune on his cable-access show without actually having seen the movie. So it feels a little wrong for me to blog about The Golden Compass, given that I've neither read the book nor seen the movie. But I'm not claiming knowledge beyond the Entertainment Weekly article on the religion controversy swirling about the film, so I'm pretty sure I can still claim the moral high ground.

In case you haven't heard, there are two levels of controversy. First, the books (The Golden Compass and its trilogy mates) have angered a lot of religious folk — particularly Catholics — and have been pulled off bookshelves in some Catholic schools. Why? Because atheist author Philip Pullman has apparently created a world in which the authoritarian church is the enemy and the protagonists set out to destroy it and God. (Again, I'm paraphrasing without having read the books.) The Catholic League calls the stories “Atheism for Kids.”

And then there's the movie, starring Nicole Kidman and newcomer Dakota Blue Richards. (What's with “Dakota” being the new official name of precocious young actresses?) … continue reading

File this one under "Please don't let it be true": According to Nikki Finke of online rag Deadline Hollywood Daily, Warner Brothers president of production Jeff Robinov has made a new decree stating that the studio will no longer make movies with women in lead roles. After that, he successfully negotiated to trade his Ecto Cooler for a Capri Sun and received the Academy's golden hall pass for a trip to the little boys' room.

Oh, wait. I shouldn't insult second graders like that. After all, Jeffy isn't still growing, he's a man — and must've gotten tired of being mistaken for a man with a clue. Don't worry, Robinov, we know Hollywood's still an old boys' network; no need to post the sign.

According to Finke's sources (which she interprets as reliable), the decision is in response to the box office failure of The Brave One and Invasion. Apparently Jodie Foster and Nicole Kidman are everything that's wrong with movies these days. … continue reading

One of the things I enjoy most about the AfterEllen.com blog is that, while it may have the occasional variation on a hot 100 theme, the entries tend to focus on more than just pretty faces (or pretty arms, abs, instances of that other "a" word ... you get the point). Writers call out crap when they see it, lists are more fun than prurient, and the blog overall covers less Lindsay, more Lena and Leisha.

However, it's likely safe to say that few of us read absolutely, strictly for "the articles." The pictures are quite a nice bonus, and sometimes they're quite nice period, like these recent shots of indie darling Maggie Gyllenhaal.

Nice doesn't begin to cover it (or her — see the uncropped photos here). But is it really as simple as a sexy smile and some snark?

Of course not, most of us would say, as does Kira Cochrane of The Guardian. It must be body image week for me, because I can't resist posting about her interesting take on the oft-tread, never-resolved topic of sex and sales.

Cochrane starts by examining Nicole Kidman's recent Vanity Fair series ("passionless and perfunctory") alongside the Agent Provocateur Gyllenhaal campaign ("awkward and unhappy"), and then explains that she finds these pics particularly depressing because they involve not just "any" women as sex objects, but "talented" women as sex objects. Apparently it's all right — or at least not surprising — for sentence-winning Paris Hilton, but different for Oscar-winning Kidman. … continue reading

Don’t you just love it when magazines get all literal with their headlines? Vanity Fair’s upcoming October cover reads “Nicole Kidman Bares All” and is illustrated by a photo of Nicole Kidman baring all she can bare in a magazine that doesn’t come shipped in a brown paper sleeve. With skin so milky you feel like grabbing for the Cheerios, Nicole’s cover accompanies an article in which the 40-year-old actress talks candidly about her former husband Tom Cruise and her current husband Keith Urban.

Among the revelations are that she had a miscarriage early in her marriage to Cruise, was briefly engaged (to an unnamed suitor) after her divorce and “yearns” to have a baby with Urban. She also talks about her emptiness the night she won her 2003 Best Actress Oscar: “It felt big. It felt lonely and big. You’re in a hotel and you’re like, okay well, I’m sitting in this big suite with an Oscar, and I still don’t have a life. What is wrong with me? It hit home that I needed to get a life. Who do I jump on the bed with, and celebrate with, and order pancakes with?”

… continue reading

Not to quibble, but — uh — she just won an Oscar; clearly she had a life. And a very successful one at that. What she didn’t have was a love life. Those are two very different things. Must successful women reduce themselves to that old yarn about their lives not being complete without a man partner? Ugh.

I haven't read The Golden Compass or any of the other books in Phillip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy. I feel like I should be embarrassed about that.

I do know, however, that the posters and trailer for the new film, starring Nicole Kidman, Dakota Blue Richards and Eva Green, are pretty awesome:

A fantasy adventure about a girl, rather than boy wizards or dwarves or elves or whatever? Fantastic indeed. Where was this movie when I was a kid? … continue reading

I've seen the trailer for Margot at the Wedding a few times now, and I'm actually looking forward to seeing the film (I think we all know that repeated viewings of trailers usually have the opposite effect). Yeah, yeah, Nicole Kidman is in it (what isn't she in? Girlfriend needs to take a break.), but I'm more intrigued by the return of Jennifer Jason Leigh.

… continue reading