Still got it

Posted by · 10:26 am · June 15th, 2009

Sorry if there’s been a lot of star-gazing on the site lately, but while I was queuing in the supermarket this morning, I was struck by these magazine covers sitting appropriately side-by-side on a display rack. It’s interesting and heartening to see major face space given to two actresses on the wrong side of the industry’s favored age bracket — contrary to appearances, Uma Thurman is 39, while Julianne Moore is a full decade older.

Uma Thurman Julianne Moore

It goes without saying that they both look red-hot, while it’s just as redundant to note that they are both among the finest actresses of their respective generations. So where are the roles?

Oddly, neither actress seems to have been granted the cover to promote anything in particular. Thurman’s 2009 slate is empty, and unless you regard playing the nanny in the upcoming “Eloise” adaptation as a major get, there’s not much to look forward to either. Moore is a little busier, coming off a superb (if criminally underseen) performance in 2007’s “Savage Grace,” with supporting roles in the rather tepid-looking “The Private Lives of Pippa Lee” (which I’ll be seeing at Edinburgh” and Atom Egoyan’s latest on the horizon, but it’s still a far cry from the glory days of 2002.

If UK magazine editors have enough confidence in these ladies to place them front and center, why can’t more Hollywood casting directors?

On another note: Isn’t it curious that when Moore can “do sexy” as naturally as she does in the photo below (a shot from inside the magazine), she hasn’t been given more opportunities to glam up onscreen? Anyone else think she’d make a dandy femme fatale in something a little noir-flavored?

Julianne Moore

[Courtesy: Stylefrizz]

→ 5 Comments Tags: , , , | Filed in: Daily

5 responses so far

  • 1 6-15-2009 at 10:45 am

    JAB said...

    is it me, or is Uma looking a little more misshapen than usual? Moore looks great though.

  • 2 6-15-2009 at 11:54 am

    Brando said...

    Uma will be Medusa in the next Chris Columbus film, so…
    On the other side, this are great actress that didn’t have luck or opportunities . Juliane Moore is a better actress then Julia Roberts for example, and could easily have as much sucess as her. Uma is a goddess but a more limited. actress. And yes, Julianne would be a perfect femme fatale

  • 3 6-15-2009 at 1:00 pm

    jess said...

    Uma is in a small comedy, “Motherhood”, it opens in october. She’s filming “Percy Jackson” right now, which will her biggest film since KBV2. Then she’s shooting “Eloise in Paris”, which could be a solid hit with the family.

    JMoore has a lot on her plate : “The private lives of Pippa Lee” premiered at Berlin in february, Egoyan’s “Chloe” might premiere at Toronto, “A single man” can make Sundance’s deadlines, and she’s about to start filming “The special relationship” in which she portrays Hillary Clinton herself.

    So they’re working

  • 4 6-15-2009 at 3:12 pm

    Guy Lodge said...

    True, I forgot about “The Special Relationship” — not that I’m greatly looking forward to that.

  • 5 6-15-2009 at 4:44 pm

    MattyD. said...

    I love Julianne Moore, and if that shot that you posted isn’t stunning then I dont know what is. The girl needs more work. I thought between both “Savage Grace” and “Blindness” she had a great year. (I personally loved “Blindness”, I know that it polarized others)