Brad Pitt - GQ Italy October 2007

http://justjared.buzznet.com/gallery/photos.php?yr=2007&mon=10&evt=shiloh-puppies&pic=brad-pitt-burn-after-reading-11.jpg

oh but I think many would realize how ridiculous they are to fight over this fugly man.

okay I missed the important A in BAMPZS …sigh…yeah I guess head cold will do that to you…
cheers… :)

169 Rotflmao
—————–
We will love him no matter whatever you say and whatever you do.

Pistols are part of the American Wild West folklore.

lmao he has foundation on like usual but in this movie he’s supposed to play a hot dumb character. Not fugly and dumb. NO makeup!

186 Rotflmao : 10/04/2007 at 11:31 pm
#############
hey, you really waste your time here.

Brad is so delish, i could it eat him from head to toe and lick him all over y’all hihihi, aycaramba

176 DO IT : 10/04/2007
DO IT! he’s a dumbass who doesn’t deserve to get away with everything, angelina and jen get bashed and trashed..but him? nothing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Angelina and Jen get trashed because they are women, and the people who trash them are also women. Just look at the triangle Owen/Kate/Chris. There were no trashing.

no this is not a waste of time. laughter is not a waste of time. I am enjoying my time here.

:lol:

http://justjared.buzznet.com/gallery/photos.php?yr=2007&mon=10&evt=shiloh-puppies&pic=brad-pitt-burn-after-reading-13.jpg

there is nothing wrong with wrinkles. everybody gets them, but he is just ugly and can not carry the wrinkles well like say.. George Clooney or Daniel Craig can.

158 reality check : 10/04/2007 at 11:08 pm

“I am not a hypocrite. … Africa is an old country.”

Africa is an old country? ‘Nuff said.

“FINAL POINT: have you ever seen a person in trauma because of a gunshot wound ? ever met anybody disabled by a gun ? ever met a someone whose close relative died by a gun ?”

Yes to all questions. That is why I can understand the difference of a message against “guns” and advocating for “guns”.

“I dont have time for this ludicrous biased talkback any more.”

This is the best idea we read from you.

Brad and Angelina’s Miltonic moment
By Nigel Andrews

Published: September 22 2007 03:00 | Last updated: September 22 2007 03:00

This has been an amazing fortnight for followers of Brad and Ange. Two simple September weeks have given an extra polish to a screen-biz legend already buffed to a dazzle. Brad is the one who came up via commercials, minor TV shows and a bit part in Thelma and Louise to become the cinema’s most beautiful leading male. Angelina is the one who emerged from a stormy parental chrysalis (and still won’t pick up the phone to father Jon Voight), followed by humungous fanzine exposure, to become the screen’s most beautiful - or sexiest at any rate - female.

Now, in a synchronised coup, they have both been anointed as serious actors.

Last week Brad was named Best Male Performer at the Venice Film Festival, to gasps of respectful surprise. We who had seen The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford admired Pitt’s work as the first-named outlaw but thought the prize likelier to go to the second outlaw, showily played by Casey Affleck. (His brother Ben won Venice Best Actor last year.) Either that or the gong would be bestowed, as so often, on a non-Hollywood actor no one outside Europe had heard of.

Then yesterday, in the UK and other parts of the planet, Angelina opened in A Mighty Heart, playing the seriously serious role of Marianne Pearl. Pearl was the wife, then widow, of the Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel, famously slain in a jihadi execution. Jolie received praise at Cannes in Michael Winterbottom’s film for dowdying down and accenting up to impersonate an everyday-attractive French brunette with a high anguish quotient. The actress’s strong performance culminates in an ear-piercing primal scream on receiving confirmation of her husband’s murder. (I thought the scream the single false note, the one that said, “This is my Oscar bid”.)

For Mr and Mrs Pitt the moment is almost Miltonic. They are no longer babes in the Edenic backyard; they have joined the acting grown-ups. This is both good news and bad. There is something lapsarian - something a little cast-out-of-paradise - about beautiful people who risk martyring their beauty with talent. Not content with the elite status granted them by a deity who has placed them in the Garden of the Eternal Photo Opportunity, they risk all on raiding the Tree of the Knowledge of Passion, Emotion and Character Exploration.

(If you think invoking the Book of Genesis is overdoing it a bit, I would argue that Brad and Ange have already been acting out this scenario, wittingly or unwittingly. Both actors have spent an unseemly amount of recent screen time toying with snakes: Jolie in Alexander, as witchy-sexy Olympias, the hero’s mother;and Pitt, for no detectable plot reason but eye-catchingly and biblically, in Jesse James. He is even seen in one sequence wreathing his arms in a whole variety of serpents.)

The world feels ambivalent - both intrigued and apprehensive, or even a bit resentful - when beauty is joined on a single person’s mantelpiece by other trophies of accomplishment. “It isn’t fair” is part of our feeling. No one should be so blessed. In cinema the love-hate attitude to the beauty-talent linkup has been particularly keen. The paradigm is surely Marilyn Monroe. A tendency to reduce men to vaporous emanations of concupiscence, by a presence suggesting a pre-cognitive pulchritude, an unthinking animal perfection, cannot and must not, we feel, be sullied by conscious artistry. The need continues today, among many, to believe that Monroe had no intelligence, no discipline, no technique, no application. She just “was”.

In the same way, on screen, Gary Cooper, a male beauty, just “was”. So was Valentino. So, in her most iconic scenes, was Garbo (that impassive face blown by the sea breezes at the end of Queen Christina). And Marlene Dietrich so determinedly and near-totemically “was” - presenting to the glow of the production lights her impassive beauty with its sculpted cheekbones and elevated eyebrows - that she, for me, rather gave the game away. I always pictured Dietrich, at the end of a take, tearing off her air of elevated inanition and rowdying with the boys and girls behind the camera. (Pretty much true to reported fact.)

For the actuality is this. Beauty is not enough for stardom. It never has been. There has always been talent too, whether that extra gift is acting ability, charisma - and knowing how to use it - or an engaging richness of mannerism: all those things that are most simply summed up in the words, “the camera loves him/her”.

Pedants will have positioned themselves by now to point out that Pitt and Jolie have won acting acclaim before. Yes, I know. Each has been noticed by the Oscar voters. Brad won a Best Supporting Actor nomination for Twelve Monkeys, Jolie a Best Supporting Actress award for Girl, Interrupted. But I don’t count Oscars. Those handouts - especially for supporting roles - are given by the mad to the glad. Their yardsticks measure the yardage of shtick; their criterion is a showy quirkiness. Winning a performance prize at Venice and being good in the lead of a Michael Winterbottom movie are, in each case, a quite different thing.

So let’s salute Mr and Mrs Pitt. They have raised their game. At the same time let’s state once more: it is naive to be surprised. If an actor has reached the point of being a star, that actor has already made it clear that he or she is more, much more, than just a pretty face.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a856e836-68a5-11dc-b475-0000779fd2ac.html