When I think of big movie stars, I always go right to the grand dames with long careers, like Meryl Streep, Helen Mirren, Susan Sarandon, Sigourney Weaver, Diane Keaton and Glenn Close, or to the supernovas who seemed to change the entire industry, like Barbra Streisand and Katharine Hepburn. I sometimes wonder: Do they make 'em like they used to? So I've been pondering the current crop of starlets, and am pleased to say that several babyfaces remind me of their more weathered forebears. Here are six pairs of actresses who have a lot in common despite their generation gaps.

1. The rebels: Ellen Page and Debra Winger

Both Page and Winger have that twinkle in their eyes that makes you wonder, each time they open their mouths to speak, whether you're about to be charmed or affronted. It's an edge that will keep me tuning in, even if somewhat trepidatiously. And Page, like Winger, seems inclined to do exactly (and only) what she wants to do.

2. The students: Lauren Ambrose and Jodie Foster … continue reading

I like good headlines. It's one thing to convey information in a small space; it's quite another to do so in a way that makes me want to read the full story. I don't soon forget those headlines. For example, I fondly remember "Pumpkins are as confusing as they ever were," which was about the Smashing Pumpkins. Nothing says "music review" like the notion of a befuddling gourd.

A couple of days ago, I came across another headline that turned out to be better than the story: "'Play' Date for McAdams, Mirren." I'll admit it: I swooned a little.

… 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

Rachel McAdams has been tapped for the title role in The Time Traveler's Wife, the film adaptation of the bestselling novel by Audrey Niffenegger.

… continue reading

McAdams plays a young heiress who struggles with her man's strange genetic disorder: When he gets stressed out, he slips into a different time. Wow. Some coping mechanism.