PFILMOGRAPHY

I’m such a big fan, than I have 26 movies of Michelle.

Waw!! I buy to day Scarface, now I have 27 movies. ^^
My favorite movie of Michelle is Batman Return.

27 movies? Wow.
I love Frankie and Johnny 😉

I love Frankie and Johnny to!

Hi…
I really curious … and want to watch Deep End of the Ocean. Coz it’s hard to find that movie in my place. Could you borrow it for me…? 😀

Last night I saw a streaming video of “Power, Passion and Murder” (1987) a made for public TV movie. Michelle’s character of a 30’s rising movie star, Natica Jackson, is compelling. She shines through in a movie that has not been well preserved and is not easily watched. Furthermore the movie contains an unrelated second story line of the downfall of a movie mogul and his hangers-on played by Darren McGavin. In spite of all of this, the movie reveals Michelle’s rightful place among the great and classic beauties of Hollywood. It is also an example, early in her career, of her remarkable emotional range. This may be the earliest movie that shows her gorgeous eyes as her most powerful acting instrument.

I wonder if Michelle Pfeiffer is one of the biggest stars who really ever only succeeded with supporting roles or as parts of ensembles.
I do think the big weakness in her star power resume is having no demonstrated ability to open a picture as the sole star. One could argue that Dangerous Minds which she starred in was no small success, but it still was an ensemble cast in its own way. She never really had that one breakout starring role like Julia Roberts or Sandra Bullock where both critics, audiences and the awards circuit loved her all at the same time. Pfeiffer’s resume still looks less like a movie star’s resume and more like a “serious actress’s” resume. What I think she lacks is magnetism on a personality level. She’s got the looks and she’s got the talent, but she doesn’t have the infectious likability of a Meg Ryan, Julia Roberts, Sandra Bullock, etc. She is somehow colder and less emotionally accessible. One could say the same about Charlize Theron, which I think is why both her and Pfeiffer have had success at playing villains, something that those warm, cuddly, likable actresses would never be able to pull off.
http://lebeauleblog.wordpress.com/2011/10/07/what-the-hell-happened-to-michelle-pfeiffer/

I find JediJones’s comments interesting. Trying to sort out Michelle Pfeiffer’s personality is fascinating and I find the last post to be interesting. I am going to address some of the issues that were raised in the post from my point of view. Michelle Pfeiffer has said that she has never been comfortable with her fame. In interviews she stresses family values ,she suspended acting for four years to give concentrated parental time to her children, and, from all appearances she has a good marriage that has sustained for almost 20 years. From the stories of her youth that she recounts she had a fine upbringing and is close to her mother, siblings and she misses her deceased father. She now appreciates the work ethic that her father gave her, and although she bridled under the structure she now appreciates the need for discipline and structure and mentions that she has incorporated it into her own parenting techniques .
The things that I have mentioned don’t promote celebrity. She eludes the paparazzi. She works hard to promote movies and runs through the talk show circuit; but she disappears between movies. She and her family moved north to get away from LA, and LA is, of course, the locus of star promotion. She shields her children from those seeking to invade their privacy. During her A-list years she predicted that she would not last on the A-list. She is extremely smart and endlessly talented. Watch Barbara Walter’s early career interview of Michelle on YouTube to get a sense of her smarts, classic beauty and her unease with her celebrity. Her agents have complained to her that she is not sufficiently self-promoting. She doesn’t pander to anyone.
Nonetheless, she has been true to herself. She rejected many roles that have boosted the careers of other actresses. Had she starred in some of them I would be telling a different story. Sharon Stone showed it all in “Basic Instinct.” Pfeiffer refused the part and cited the inequities of Hollywood in the use of nudity in females versus males. Her movie choices have reflected her interests not commercial value. Anthony Lane, the “New Yorker” critic, complained that she appeared in the extremely dark “White Oleander.” He wondered what happened to the star of “Married to the Mob.”
Directors respect her. Burton has heaped praise on her complex portrayal of Catwoman. Scorsese’s praise of Pfeiffer’s emotional range in an interview promoting “The Age of Innocence” focuses on the range of emotions that she conveys in her gorgeous eyes. I fell in love with her while watching “The Fabulous Baker Boys.” One critic mentioned that most guys would have that reaction. She showed what a great actress she was becoming and her emotions jumped from the screen. She absolutely nailed the part. Not a box office hit but a Rotten Tomato 96%. She is anything but cold and detached on the screen unless the part demands it. Her public persona is more guarded than unemotional.
She says that she doesn’t regret her choices. I believe her. She has learned to direct her own career and her own life. . She doesn’t pander to the tabloids. She lives a good admirable life. No overdoses, no wild flings, no salacious actions. Sadly these are the kind of actions that have promoted the careers of many actresses. She just gives her all when she stars in a movie. I am sure that she would love to have a well written part that she could sink her teeth into. I would love to see that movie. She recently made the statement that she has not yet delivered her best performance. I would love to see it when she does.
I hope that her current project,” Malavita,” gives her that chance

comment: in today’s times, i can not believe how you hear news about michelle pfeiffer and how people like rihanna are competing with michelle pfeiffer for a role in a movie. that is like so interesting. i could never picture michelle pfeiffer and rihanna together. yes, i work currently in an area called Bay Shore, NY and I read once that a 1988 movie with Michelle Pfeiffer was done in Bay Shore, NY in part or something. Married to the Mob, i believe was Bay Shore in the community where i work in part. Besides that, what interesting news out there like Rihanna is now trying to compete with Michelle Pfeiffer for a role in something. Yes, that is so interesting. I could never expect to hear that Rihanna and Michelle Pfeiffer competing for a role. It is on Yahoo. Interesting.

With the benefit of hindsight, I wasn’t being fair to Michelle.
For all the appeal of the triumvirate of Julia, Meg and Jodie; if you’re talking about range it’s Pfeiffer in a walk, mainly because she could throw anything at you. Deadpan Pfeifer, Mobster Moll Pfeiffer, Quiet waitress Pfeiffer, Intense Pfeiffer, Crazy Catwoman Pfeiffer, Killer Pfeiffer, Sexy Pfeiffer and so on.
There was never really Funny Pfeiffer.
The closest she came was when Norah Ephron auditioned both Pfeiffer and Ryan for the part of Annie Reed when she was casting “Sleepless in Seattle”. Pfeiffer initially won out, but then got cold feet.
Having said all that, if I was trapped on a desert island, and had the chance to import all of Pfeiffer’s movies or all of Meg Ryan’s movies, I reckon I’d still choose Meg.
As much as I’d find it difficult to live without “Batman Returns” and “The Fabulous Baker Boys”, I’d find it impossible to live without that Meg Ryan smile!

The recent posts from JediJones are adding opportunities for debate which add a fun element to the Pfansite. Comparing Meg Ryan and others to Pfeiffer is a fascinating exercise. As Jedi points out, among Pfeiffer’s contemporaries Ryan and Julia Roberts have seemingly proven to be more endearing to audiences than is Pfeiffer. I maintain that endearment is a key contributor to economic success. One indication of the endearment factor is the box office economic value of each. A February 2009 article in Forbes Magazine entitled “Star Currency” compares the economic value of actors(box office, etc.) during the course of their careers. Pfeiffer falls in the middle (Roberts is first, of course) and Ryan is last. Nonetheless, I regard Ryan as the cutest and most endearing of all.
Another contemporary , Jody Foster, was mentioned in in one of Jedi’s posts. I believe that he found Foster to be overly serious. I think that Pfeiffer and Foster bear a comparison on this point. Foster (an Ivy Leaguer) and Pfeiffer both seem to be control freaks. Pfeiffer may appear to be very serious at times. As evidence of that, Pfeiffer obviously prepares for her public appearances and interviews, and they are carefully thought out and orchestrated by Michelle. Michelle’s early career interview with Barbara Walters was tense since Pfeiffer wasn’t used to interviews at that time. Nonetheless, she came off as very smart, something that Walters emphasized when Walters subsequently referred to the interview. Michelle would never have caused the famously bad interview as it occurred between Ryan and the very adept British interviewer, Michael Parkinson. Ironically, Ryan did the interview to promote the film “In the Cut.” Ryan did a respectable job in a movie with poor reviews. She played in a non-comedic role and stretched her acting range.
Lastly, I agree totally with JediJones that Michelle’s acting range and versatility trumps that of Roberts and Ryan. I think that versatility gets to the heart of the craft of acting. The following definitions of “actor” and “movie star” frame my argument (these definitions are certainly debatable and the debate points are unlimited). My source is one blog or another :
Actor: talent and range to play varied characters and roles, etc. (versatility)
Movie star: charismatic and loved by fans, great onscreen presence and the persona to carry a movie, can have a successful and award-winning career just by being himself or herself on screen. (endearment).
I suggest that Pfeiffer (and Foster) is the actor and that Ryan and Roberts are the movie stars. Being a movie star often pays much better and raises one’s status in the eyes of the movie going public. Acting is the higher art, however.
I also refer to an article written by the outstanding reviewer Charles Taylor in the online magazine, Salon
Tuesday, May 25, 1999, 4:00 PM UTC, “The Dazzling Versatility of Michelle Pfeiffer. ”
Jedi, I understand your desire to be on a desert island with CDs of Meg Ryan’s movies . She is killer cute. However, I would much prefer being stranded on the island with Michelle, herself. Aside from experiencing her overwhelming sculpted and classic beauty, I would at least be with someone with whom I could talk!
By the way, doesn’t Michelle look great on the runway at the Cite du Cinema in Paris ?

Jedi:
Re: Thelma and Louise
The actresses named as considered or offered the roles is dependent on the article referenced. Michelle was offerd a role according to most articles. Jodi and Meg Ryan (and Melanie Griffith and others) are mentioned in some articles and not others.
Sorry – this is starting to bore me. I may drop out.

Pfeiffer fans rejoice! All those hours spent watching films were not wasted. Read these movie mash ups and submit your own using the mass of plots, characters and movie cliches filling up your beautiful mind.
It’s easy to play. Just follow these 3 simple steps and soon you’ll be brimming with ideas.
1.Take two unrelated movies which have something in common in their titles.
2.Mash the titles up to make a new imaginary film
3.Write the advertising blurb for the resulting cinematic monstrosity, and add it in the comments below.
Looking at the titles in Michelle’s filmography I came up with these:
The Fabulous Baker Boyz N’ The Hood
Lounge bar trio Jack, Frank and Susie travel from Seattle to play a stint at a hotel in Los Angeles.
When they accidentally witness a gangland murder, the trio become the unwilling prey in a savage game of cat and mouse as they are mercilessly stalked through the urban jungle of South Central in this taut suspense drama.
When Harry Met Sally, Frankie, and Johnny.
Director Garry Marshall and Writer Norah Ephron team up for this romantic tale of four single people in New York and their intertwing love lives.
Featuring dazzling performances from Michelle Pfeiffer, Al Pacino, Billy Crystal and Meg Ryan, exceptional music from Harry Connick JR., and an Oscar nominated screenplay. This film is an explosively funny commentary on friendships, courtships-and other hardships-of the modern age.
Sadly I didn’t have time to write a synopsis for these?
Up Close and Personal Effects
When Peggy Sue Got Married to the Mob
The Neverending Story of Us
When a Man Loves a Wolf!
What Lies Beneath the Planet of the Apes
Addicted to Love Field
Ladyhawke the Slayer.
Does anybody want to join in the fun?

Jedi:
Fascinating comments: I admire the intense sad passion but not the drivel. Decompensation requires help from a profession other than mine. I hope that you seek help before it is too late. This is all that I can offer but I wish you the best nonetheless,
Alan

All other good qualities aside, Michelle Pfeiffer is so beautiful that we almost have to look indirectly, as in certain eclipses. Seriously, she looked almost beyond a regular human being in both The Fabulous Baker Boys, [Piano?], and the Age of Innocence.! You go Girl.