kobechrome

Rachel McAdams is The Next – The Jay – Fresh and Funny Pop Culture Commentary

The link to the blog above is almost 5 years old but I found it a very interesting read. The author of the blog wrote this just after Rachel's 2 year run from 2004-2005 that saw her in the likes of Mean Girls, The Notebook, Wedding Crashers, Redeye and Family Stone. I personally thought she was primed for super-stardom, A-list, $20 million/per movie. But then she took a year off and then came back and did some character roles in Married Life and The Lucky Ones before starting mainstream again with Time Traveler's Wife and Sherlock Holmes.

I felt like she made a conscious decision to forego super stardom. I mean rumor has it that she turned down lead roles for Devil Wears Prada and the Bond Girl in Quatum of Solace. Everyone was ready to anoint her as the next Reese Witherspoon or Julia Roberts. I think she's actually better than all of them. She has more range as an actress than anyone else right now. She's done rom-coms, dramas, thrillers, comedies. She's played character supporting roles and she's also carried movies. If Rachel wanted to be, she could easily be a superstar but I think she's purposely choosing a road less traveled because that's who she is. She's famous for being very methodical and choosy for her roles and I respect her for that.

She easily lights up every movie she's in and she's often the most engaging, beautiful and charismatic and endearing character. Morning Glory was just a so-so movie, but Rachel stole every scene with her acting and carried the movie by herself. That there is even discussion about being nominated for a Golden Globe is a testament to her acting ability in an average movie.

I'm excited for her upcoming projects in The Vow, Midnight in Paris and there's some untitled Terrence Malick movie she's doing as well. Part me of wants her to just do the blockbuster roles and become superfamous and in the league of Jolie, Roberts, Witherspoon - but the other part of me knows she's already there.... So Rachel McAdams is the next what, you ask? Well, she's the next Rachel McAdams - there's noone else like her.

BTW - if you haven't seen The Lucky Ones, I suggest you go out and buy/rent it right now. It's a little known role, but my favorite role of hers. I don't know how she didn't win something for that movie. The scene where she finally meets "his" parents is some beautiful acting. And, obviously, the notebook audition which is easily found on YouTube. Another perfect piece of acting. I would almost say her audition is as good if not better than the actual scene in the movie.

Long time fan - 1st post - hope you enjoyed it.

water lilies

Welcome to FanForum! Great insight!

I agree. I don't feel like she'll be a big Hollywood star, mainly because she doesn't want to be one. She seems very level-headed and seems like a private person. If she really wanted that stardom, she probably wouldn't have taken her acting break, when everyone was calling her the next 'it girl'. I think had she chosen not to have such a long break and coming back with those smaller movies, her career probably would have been different by now...

She has so much talent, but I feel like she needs to find a really good role/script. She's been rumored to have turned down a lot of roles, some which I would have really liked to have seen her in, but I do appreciate that she'll only do roles she really wants. Past directors have always spoken highly of her work, so she must be doing something right. She seemed to have stayed from 'big' movies, but then she chose to do Sherlock - but I was kinda disappointed with the role of Irene. I really hope we get to see Rachel in more movies in the years the come, because I really believe she' so versatile and lights up the screen.


Well said.

kobechrome

Yes I totally agree as well. Like I said part of me wants her to become a big star but that's not who she is. Her role as Irene disappointed me as well! I thought she was miscast. Midnight in Paris sounds like another character role and although she has the female lead in the Vow, it seems like another Dear John or Notebook type role. Morning Glory was promising and i thought she did a great job but the movie itself was mediocre and will hurt her during awards season. I can believe she hasn't scored a nomination yet for any of her roles either! Lucky Ones, Redyeye, Mean Girls were all great roles. Anyway here's to Rachel realizin her potential because she sure has tons of it!

water lilies

Sherlock Holmes was an entertaining movie, but Irene's character was a bit of a waste. Maybe her role got cut down or something?

Midnight in Paris sounds pretty promising. I'm having low expectations for The Vow though. It sounds like a weepy love story, but I'm not too thrilled about Channing Tatum. Rachel does romance dramas really well, but it's nice to see her try other roles. I still haven't seen Morning Glory. But I'm hoping for a Globe nomination! Most critics have been giving her some really good reviews, despite a lukewarm reception to the movie itself. The movie's only doing adequately at the box office, but here's hoping!

kobechrome

You should go see Morning Glory. you will be impressed with Rachel in that movie. She's kinda borderline right now about getting a nomination. It will depend on others in the same GG category. I agree with your assessment on Midnight and The Vow. Channing has never impressed me and weepy love stories while entertaining never do anything for her career. I heard in Midnight she may have a major role as Owen Wilsons "other" love interest. We will see.

Any info on the Terrence Malick project she is rumored to be in? Also wasn't she rumored to be in the running for one of the sisters in the We Live in a Castle movie?

Rukia

Welcome! Thanks for the link to that blog! It was definitely an interesting read!

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on Rachel! I have to say that I agree with a lot with what you had to say.

I don't like to call her the 'next anybody' either. I agree with you that she'd shown a lot of range in terms of roles, but everybody likes to throw her in the same category as Reese and Julia just because her romantic roles seem to garner more attention than her other roles... which really annoys me. Because those romantic roles aren't even her best ones in my opinion.

I'm excited for her upcoming roles as well! Especially the Terrence Malick one... even though we don't know much about it yet, it sounds really promising. I'm excited for the Woody Allen film because I'm a Woody fan as well, but at the same time I'm having doubts about it because his recent films have been duds unfortunately. But I'm totally having doubts about The Vow! I completely agree with you -- it sounds like just another Dear John or NB -- basically another Nicholas Sparks adaptation. The role sounds like another waste of Rachel's talent.

I have seen The Lucky Ones. I thought it was one of her best roles as well. She brought the optimism to Colee's character so well. The overall movie was just okay, but I thought the three main actors were fantastic together. I agree -- her role as Colee was so underrated.

Glad to hear that Rachel's good in MG! I haven't seen it yet, but I can't wait. I'm crossing my fingers for her to nab a GG nom for the role -- even though I haven't even seen the movie!

I agree with both of you guys about Channing... I'm really skeptical of him as well, but we'll have to see.

Not that I've heard recently. I could've sworn it had a title at least -- The Burial -- but now it's back to being untitled on IMDB.

Yes, she was rumored for that other movie, but I think it's still just a rumor for now. It sounded like a really interesting project though -- really dark and just what Rachel needs in my opinion. I'd love for her to be cast in a really dark and gritty role -- just for a change of pace.

kobechrome

BTW it's so nice to be around Rachel fans and to be able to discuss her career and talent intelligently. Anytime I comment on YouTube or other sites it turns into an immature obscene thread. I've been following Rachels career for a while and its nice to see a dedicated forum like this. I wish I had discovered it sooner. You all seem to have a lot of insight as well.

Now unto another rumor. I heard it's confirmed she's back in Sherlock 2. Any truth to that? I thought that was still in the works as well. She needs to get in front of the public again.

Rukia

Ditto! I'm glad to have great discussions with you guys about Rachel. I became a fan of Rachel because she's such an amazing actress, and I really enjoy her work. I didn't become a fan of hers because "OMG, The Notebook's the best movie eva!" or "McGosling's the perfect couple! Rachel + Ryan 4-eva!" or "Rachel's so hot!" I know what you mean about immature comments.

I don't know about SH2. If she is involved, it's probably just a cameo. I'm not a big fan of SH, and Irene was a pretty disastrous role (but not her worst role), and I'm not really looking forward to her reprising the role anytime soon.

Gabriela

I kind of wonder if after everything with Ryan and all the speculation and scrutiny, that kind of made her want to not be a mega superstar in Hollywood just due to the invasion of privacy? She seems to like her privacy and isn't one of those is who is always covered in the tabloids, and I think that's pretty deliberate.

I don't like the idea of naming her the "next _____" because I find that so difficult to do and not really fair to any of the actresses involved - they've all chosen different roles and the way Reese Witherspoon plays a role wouldn't necessarily be the same as the way Rachel would play that same role.

kobechrome

Yes - Rachel would play it better

All kidding aside, the point of the bloggers article was exactly that. Rachel isn't the next Julia Roberts, Reese, Jolie or Aniston - she's the next big thing.

There was one point in the article (which keep in mind was written back in 2006) that said Rachel's next 10 years should see some pretty lofty goals reached in her career. To quote him:

Those are some pretty high expectations - ones which I don't think she's reached yet but is certainly capable of reaching. She's graced many covers, worked with alot of talent and garnered the respect of her peers but the awards and recognition haven't come yet. And since it's still 2010, she still can reach some of those goals in the next 5-6 years. What the author did not know at the time was that Rachel was going to take time off and be very choosy with her roles and therefore in the eyes of mainstream critics, kind of "derail" her career. Since then, her movies have not grossed high despite acclaim for her acting (The Lucky Ones did less than $1 million at the box office, Married Life was out one week in the theaters, TTW did ok, SH did do almost $100 million, and MG is running about $30 million pace).

But to say anything less than those goals should be considered a squandering of her talent and promise is a bit harsh. I don't know if she'll ever command $15 million/film like Julia Roberts or Jodie Foster but that's not because she's not talented enough to do so but because she's not in it for the money.

I'll be tracking her career quite closely and will be interested to see what she picks next. For someone as mainstream as she is, she's still quite unpredictable as far as what she chooses to act in. There's good and bad in that, but as I've mentioned, I respect her for being bold enough to make those decisions.

Rukia

Wow, those are some high expectations! I don't really see her making that much money per film like Julia Roberts either, but I actually don't mind. You're right, Rob, Rachel's not in it for the money, and I like that about her. I'm crossing my fingers that she'll get some noms for the GG and the Academy in the near future because she so deserves it!

Good point, Gabriela. Maybe all the publicity with her and Ryan's relationship kinda made her shy away from the spotlight. But I think she's always been a pretty private person.

kobechrome

I'm going to give an honest viewpoint about Rachel - I think the next 3-4 years are critical for her as far as how she will be viewed from a career-perspective. Fans like us aside (because we appreciate Rachel for who she is and tend to give her the benefit of the doubt in movie choices since we know she is a talented and wonderful actress). Not everyone is like us, however, nor as forgiving.

Most would say that Rachel has had a mixed career. She's had some great commercial roles in movies like Mean Girls, Wedding Crashers, and Sherlock Holmes. She's played character roles that flopped at the box office like Married Life and The Lucky Ones and she's carried movies by herself like were middle of the road successes like Time Traveler's Wife, Morning Glory and RedEye.

She's now 32 years old and let's face it - in Hollywood years, that gives her a solid 3-5 years as a prime actress where she can get juicy roles. Once she hits her upper 30s, whether we want to admit it or not, the roles change and she won't be as coveted as she once was.

I feel like she needs to really make an awards-worthy movie where she has a lead role over the next 3-4 movie choices. 2011 and 2012 are important years for her. This year, she has Midnight in Paris coming out where she'll likely have more of a supporting role. In 2012, The Vow is a Valentine's Day commercial release but Terrence Malick's film holds some promise for her but again, sounds like she's part of an ensemble cast, so supporting role for her again is likely.

I commend her for taking on MG because that made her step out of her comfort zone and was a true "lead" in the movie. She needs to select more roles along the lines of MG, because that's what will get her noticed by awards voters.

Rachel may not care all that much about awards but she should be rewarded for all her talent and skill as an actress. As a fan, I love her - but as an outside critic, I might be a little frustrated with her not reaching her full potential.

Thoughts?

kobechrome

Now that we have more frequenters to this board .... bumping this thread for thoughts. I'd love to hear some in-depth commentary on Rachel's career....

water lilies

I have to say that I think SH was by far her weakest role, no matter how commercially successful the movie was. Don't get me wrong, I'm really glad she'll be in the sequel (even if it's only going to be 2 minutes) and that it do so well, but I feel like anyone could have played Irene. It wasn't that worthy of a role and she was the least favorite part of many moviegoers/critics.

I'm really excited to see what she'll do next. I mean she's worked with some quality directors with Allen and Malick, and I hope the movies will be good. She was lovely and amazing in Morning Glory. If only that movie was a commercial success, I think it would have opened so many more doors for Rachel.