Even her director husband has to make a living at some point.
It’s easy to get parts when you produce the movie.
Unattractive? Huh? She looks fantastic.
Actually, there are a lot of people who inspire that same question- when’s the last time Sylvester Stallone made a hit movie? Note, I didn’t say GOOD movie, I said HIT movie. Fact is, Sly has made a lot more flops than hits in his career… and yet, he regularly gets $20 million a picture, and nobody seems to think twice about it.
(Yes, I KNOW he’s supposed to be huge overseas, but I strongly doubt whether “Stop Or My Mom Will Shoot” raked in big bucks ANYWHERE).
Back to Madonna- is she a good actress? No, but that’s neither here nor there. MANY bad actors get roles and big paychecks, simply because they’re perceived as having drawing power. Keanu Reeves isn’t a great actor, but “Speed” and “The Matrix” made a fortune, so he’ll keep getting parts.
As for Madonna, well, she’s famous. VERY famous. Not a good actress, but undeniably famous. Anything she does will get media attention, which is worth a lot all by itself. Making a movie is an expensive proposition to begin with. Making a musical is even MORE expensive. So, while I can’t imagine why anyone would have expected Madonna to give a good performance as Eva Peron, well, to whom would YOU have given the role, if you’d made a huge investment in bringing “Evita” to the screen?
There are a host of more talented Broadway stars who’d have been better in the role, but NONE of them would have brought the movie the publicity that Madonna did. Sure, the movie tanked at the box office anyway, but producers figured Madonna’s name and reputation gave the movie a shot at being a hit. Patti Lupone couldn’t have done that.
Exactly. How many of, say, the top 20 grossing films of all time are known primarily for their quality acting? Sure, it doesn’t necessarily make them good films, but popular is what you’re after if it’s paying your wages.
It’s also easy to get acting parts when you sleep with the Director (Guy Ritchie - Madonna’s husband). And if you do him really good, it doesn’t hurt your chances either.
Mike Ovitz knows: it’s the Hollywood gay mafia!
<my bold> You’re kidding, right?
My WAG about this film is that it was a vanity project for both Madonna and Ritchie. In fact they’ve hinted at that in remarks they’ve made; for instance he “jokingly” commented that his casting motivation was “the missus was available and cheap” or words to that effect, and further that they couldn’t care less what the critics think (in spite of cancelling the premiere showing).
It’s not fair of me to say whether its a good film or not since I’ve got no intention of watching it, but it strikes me that she has an unusual predeliction for self-publicity and he’s only too keen to indulge her.
Today’s cover of the NY Post pretty much sums up Madonna. 
Trust the Post. And there was me with my “vanity project” and “unusual predeliction” ;).
Definitely pure ego gratification on her part. From the previews, it seems like their target audience is people who will enjoy seeing Madonna on the beach in revealing clothing . That should yield worldwide sales of about four tickets, assuming she and Guy see it twice. Now if you were talking about the Madonna twenty years ago in the “Cherish” video, you might have a few more takers, but nowadays? She has not aged well at all, and she’s just not that big of a star anymore. The move might get more media publicity because of her involvement, but I don’t see that translating into profits. In the immortal works of Kenny McCormick; “Madonna is an old anorexic whore who wore out her welcome years ago, and now she suddenly speaks with a British accent and she thinks she can play guitar and she should go **** herself.”
The real question is why Guy Ritchie would go along with this piece of crap. He had a decent reputation after “Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels” and “Snatch”, but now he’s just Madonna’s pet director. She can’t be THAT great.
Please see my post in this thread.
Don’t doubt it for a second.
Reputation or not, Ritchie’s a one trick pony and we’ve all seen it twice now.
If I were hideously wealthy and egotistical I myself could enact this tawdry self promotion. Stay away from the theatre all who do not worship Baal. Madonna is a slut, has always been a slut and will always be a slut. The consolatiion is entirely rooted in the fact that she’s managed to become quite wealthy as a media whore. Kudos!
She is awesome and I can’t fucking wait to see the film!!
Thanks for letting us know your feelings on the matter, Mr. Ritchie. So I can take it that the ole marital bed’s still getting a good workout?
what?
No, flertbert, the use of the profanity “fucking” in Cafe Society as an attempt to shock would indicate we have the lady herself with us. Another indication would be, would even Richie call her “awesome”? We are so honored.
Regarding the OP: astroHow can you ask your question when Tom Green keeps getting movies. I mean, Madonna is Ethel Barrymore when compared to him.
Um… as a gay man, I must say… I am not enthused with her movie work.
I think the three movies she did well in were:
Desperately Seeking Susan
Dick Tracy
Evita
The rest of her film work goes from banal to tragic.
I like some of her music, and used to appreciate some of her tightly constructed personae.
Now I just find her a unique example of an ego-driven conglomerate.
Yeah, that’s fair comment Hastur. I don’t like Madonna’s singing generally, and hate Andrew Lloyd Webber musicals, but I was surprised by her performance in Evita.