Her elbows are too pointy.
Normally I would agree but this is a really, really bad picture of her face.
Actually I think it’s because her personality seems to be a cross between that of a 19th century English judge and a wet blanket.
They match her chin. She could use that thing to dig potatoes.
I’m embarrassed to know this, but wasn’t part of the reason that he wanted to have kids and she wasn’t ready?
I think she’s a very pretty woman who’s aged well. She takes really good care of herself and I can definitely see why men would be attracted to her.
However, she doesn’t seem to have much depth. She’s not particularly bright nor is she known as a great wit. I would have hoped that her divorce would have made her more introspective, less surfacey. Alas, that has not been the case. Compared to Jolie who is a freaking U.N. ambassador, Aniston seems like an attractive, safe, boring little girl.
As far as her career goes, I think she’s better than people give her credit for because she seems to just be playing herself. (Anyone who’s seen a bad actor can see that it takes real talent to appear natural.) However, I could never take her seriously as a cop or a lawyer or a doctor, so she’s rather limited in her scope as an actress.
I think it’s because Brad didn’t want to take the risk of having children so cute they would upstage him.
Me, I think those are some hot pics, and Aniston’s looking pretty good for her age. I bet the pictures have been touched up, as such things usually are.
Photoshop.
In “A Mighty Wind” there’s a scene where one of the characters confesses to having been a very successful porn star in the past, and attributes her success to “I was willing to do things other porn stars would not do.” This may also account for Angelina’s success with Brad.
AJ’s also hotter and younger, not to mention more intelligent and more talented.
Wow, that was mean.
And apparently really compassionate and involved in humanitarian work. Anyone who thinks about this on more than a superficial level should come to the obvious conclusion.
I dunno. Angelina doesn’t do it for me.
Catherine Zeta-Jones, on the other hand… mrowr!
I feel about Jennifer Aniston the way I feel about SJP. Cute, quirky, killer bod. Angelina, however, is timelessly gorgeous and sensual as all hell. Her sex appeal is noxious, and she’s a kind soul, an evolved person and a class act to boot.
On a typical Saturday I see a hundred people at least as hot as Jennifer Aniston. I don’t think there’s anything particularly distinctively attractive about her, but that GQ cover certainly does flatter her.
The new GQ is good but the March 7, 1996 Rolling Stone cover is still number one.
http: // i.rollingstone.com/assets/rs/11/3861/images/23153_lg.jpg (disabled for possible NSFWiness)
Anyone else remember her in Leprechaun before she had the Greek knocked off of her nose?
She was cuter back then.
Lovely photo. Too bad the interview that accompanies it is version 198 of *How Jennifer is Moving On And Promoting Her Newest Project At The Same Time! * :rolleyes:
I realize that the media will keep asking her questions about the end of her marriage - but she could stop answering them.
Big time. They barely attempted to attach her head to the “smoothed-over” body.
I ought to point out that “Photoshopped” and “it isn’t even her body!” aren’t necessarily one and the same. Even if it is 'shopped, it might still be Jennifer’s face and body — the face from photo #125 melded with the body from photo #133 because that was the best combination of expression/pose they had.
Looks a bit like Fred Astaire’s chin.
