Tags:






...



March 21, 2000
12:14 AM   Subscribe

Hepburn fans against Jennifer Love Hewitt. They're right -- Jen is no Audrey.
posted by veruca (6 comments total)

I agree.

Though Jennifer Love Hewitt possess a few physical qualities that are worth a second glance, I do not feel she can replicate the same statuesque beauty that Audrey held perfectly. While Jennifer is sweet enough to cause cavities, it seems highly unlikely that she could portray the same sophistication and elegance that Audrey was famous for.

We'll see how this works, out.
posted by Lasara at 1:19 AM on March 21, 2000


Shit like this makes me glad I don't have a TV.


Having said that -- oh gawd, Hepburn is the stuff of fantasy. Poise, sophistication and intelligence; can't fake it. Jennifer Love Hewitt makes me tsk-tsk out loud when I'm looking at magazine covers. She is so bland that I can't even modify "bland" with a more interesting adjective in this sentence.
posted by sylloge at 2:53 AM on March 21, 2000



What is it people's fascination with celebrities? Why will they argue stuff like this to their grave? Don't they know others things are more important?
posted by corpse at 4:49 AM on March 21, 2000


Corpse is right, there are more important things.

So who do you think has the best chance at winning the World Series this year.
posted by Mick at 7:43 AM on March 21, 2000


I originally felt that Natalie Portman would make an interesting Hepburn, but after her turn in the Phantom Menace, I don't know.
posted by Cavatica at 7:43 AM on March 21, 2000


Nobody could play Audrey Hepburn with any justice. Besides, it's a made for network TV movie so it's going to suck anyway, so it might as well be Jennifer Love Hewitt. At least they kind of look alike.
posted by jennyb at 10:41 AM on March 21, 2000


« Older Tired of The Media not getting your story right?...  |  Napster... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments