This Week's Cover: Sandra Bullock soars

As the Blind Side crosses the $130 million mark (and counting), studio executives throughout Hollywood are ordering their assistants to send their congratulations to Bullock’s doorstep — often in bubbly, liquid form. “No one really drinks in our house, so we don’t really do anything with that,” the actress says, pulling her long hair into a loose pony tail. “But we get a lot of champagne!” The Blind Side comes just five months after Bullock made her long-anticipated return to her romantic comedy roots in The Proposal, which surpassed everyone’s expectations by going on to rake in $314 million worldwide. The 45-year-old is enjoying the best year of her acting career, which may bode well for everyone who wants to see more well-told stories about grown women up on the big screen. “Sexism is everywhere. Ageism is everywhere. But you know know what? It’s about making money. Look at what Sarah Jessica Parker did with Sex and the City. Look at what Meryl Streep is doing” — she pauses to laugh — “every other week! The proof is in the pudding. I didn’t have the ‘Oh my God, I’m not working because I’m 40.’ I was working when I was 40. I’ve never had this many opportunities in my lifetime.”

For more on Sandra Bullock, plus an inside peek at how the real-life woman she portrays in The Blind Side feels about the film’s runaway success, pick up the new issue of Entertainment Weekly, on stands 12/11.


Comments (203 total) Add your comment
Page: 1 2 3 4
  • crispy

    LOL. Remember when Entertainment Weekly used to write for women… and men. Let’s be honest, it’s just a women’s magazine at this point. Still no regrets about canceling.

    • Anne

      I find this comment a little strange considering the huge Avatar picture up top. Love the cover.

      • crispy

        Huge? Give me a break. Regardless of how you feel about Avatar, it is one of the most anticipated movies of the year. And it gets a thumbprint in the corner instead of the full cover… which goes to a movie that’s already come out? What a joke.

      • OMG

        While I usually agree with you Crispy I have to say I am THRILLED that they gave to cover to her. That movie is doing something that most movies don’t – it’s actually growing it’s audience week over week rather than losing it. I think it’s a cover-worthy thing and trust me – Avatar will do just fine without the EW cover.

      • Frank Anderson

        I am going to agree and disagree with you. I think it is undeniable at this point that EW has decided to pursue the Cosmo/Peopl crowd, rather than focus on as much variety as they used to.

        I do, however, think that The Blind Side is a story worth covering.

        My problem with the cover is that it is yet another boring picture of a star standing in front of a white or colored screen. Why is EW choosing these boring shots? At least Bullock is doing something interesting, rather than just standing there smiling like most covers have been.

        Crispy- I have to say that the last few issues of EW have been better, even if many of the problems you and I have with the magazine right now were still evident.

        The last few issues have at least covered a bit more variety. I am still keeping my subscription, but I am close to canceling… I am just waiting for some tipping point one way or the other.

        I love EW, but it really seems like the current stewards of the publication have their heads stuck firmly up their asses, and the current crop or writers seem oh too happy to oblige them with puff pieces and as many stories as possible on Twilight, Gossip Girl, 90210 and Melrose Place.

      • Frank Anderson

        Crispy- I really wish you would be more clear that you want variety, not for EW to solely focus on men.
        I see where you are coming from, but other posters may not.
        I think if we drill in the idea that EW should cover a variety of topics, then people will see we are not asking from articles on “women’s” products to go away.
        I happen to love a good romantic comedy or main female character in my films… I just don’t want any one thing drilled to the point of boredom like EW is doing right now.

      • crispy

        Yes, you are definitely right. I certainly think it should be balanced, it just seems a little one-sided lately.

      • crispy

        More to the point, I think their covers seem market driven lately… instead of editorial driven.

      • OMG

        Well, as much as I hate to say this the truth is that magazines can’t always afford to be editorial driven these days. If you haven’t noticed the printed magazine market is facing all sorts of issues – including people not actually buying them – I mean, why should they when they can log into the EW website and pretty much read all of the content for free? So I can logically understand why they keep putting Twilight on the cover – it sells. However, as a subscriber it irks me to no end to keep getting the same thing delivered to my mailbox every week (I was SO GLAD to see actual dead people on my cover a few weeks pack instead of the “Team Whoever” covers they were selling at Barnes & Nobel). And sorry crispy – if you aren’t buying the magazine and supporting EW financially I don’t take your complaints very seriously – you have the option to visit other “entertainment” sites on your computer for free.

        Besides, the massive Panasonic and Avatar ad that keeps slowing down this website today is achieving more than a picture on the cover can.

      • K

        For a good, solid stretch in the summer, all we got were sci-fi and fantasy covers…superheroes, vampires, transformers. Would you have then complained that the covers were one-sided as well? I think EW is one of the best magazines in terms of delivering variety. Who cares what’s on the cover anyway? Avatar is getting a story inside the magazine, surely with plenty of pictures for you to hang up on your wall. What’s the problem? I think Sandra is incredibly deserving of a cover, I think Blind Side doing as well as it is is a huge story and the kind EW SHOULD cover, and Avatar may be a huge movie, or it might tank. And I’m sorry, but I would prefer to see an actual actress with Oscar buzz on the cover than a blue CGI character. And I’m a guy.

      • wac91

        Avatar will be on the next cover when it becomes a gigantic success–kinda like what happened with The Blind Side. I would also agree with the whole-one-sided thing, but honestly, the only real problem I have with the magazine lately is the constant crap about the twilight series. If they would just stop shoving that stupid series down our throats constantly, I think things would be a lot better.

      • Shell

        Why do some men find women’s success so threatening? While Sandra has never been a personal fave of mine, she does deserve a cover, just as Meryl certainly deserved a Vanity Fair cover, as for Avatar, I wouldn’t worry, it’s going to get plenty of ink and covers as it comes out.

    • Ambient Lite

      The Best of the Decade issue last week was pretty good actually.

      • Frank Anderson

        It was my favorite issue in months… but it was still no where as good as the rag used to be.

      • LOL

        I thought it was crap. Very disappointing.

      • Ambient Lite

        Really? What was disappointing about it? What were you missing?

      • Frank Anderson

        Well, I have seen so many ‘best of’ lists not that I try not to get too caught up in the ranking, and just like to see deserving products get mentioned.
        The issue had some strange choices, and they sure did manage to get Chealsey Hangler and the other dude who created the OC to plug Gossip Girl, but otherwise I was happy to see a variety of products, and not the Cosmo courting material they have been focusing on lately.

      • bill

        crispy, the movie business has for a century starred men, for men. sandra bullock and the references she makes to 40+ sarah jessica parker and 50+ meryl streep… is historical. you might be right that EW has been skewing female lately. and i certainly agree they’ve become more “People” or “Us weekly” esque in their gossipy tone, but singling out Sandra Bullock in light of her achievement is valuable. And yes, Avatar looks to be a monster hit, and yes, once it is, they will put it on the cover. Maybe delayed reaction, but there you have it.

    • TellyB

      U gotta be kidding me, crispy. Entertainment ALL around you is male-oriented,and caters to men, 24/7 so what if right now, there’s a surge in female-centric stuff, thanks to New Moon, Meryl Streep and Sandra? ABout time, I say.
      Jeezus

      • crispy

        WHAT?! Are you nuts? Twilight, Adam Lambert, Glee, Meryl Streep, Kate Gosslin, heartthrobs like Johnny Depp and Ryan Reynolds… all of their favorite topics have predominantly female audiences.

      • missy

        Crispy-

        And how long has it been since it was all about the Sopranos? Or Arrested Development? The Shield? The wire? Californication? Sons of Anarchy? John Gosselin?

        I think you suffer from the same selective memory that husband does. I hear its big in men of a certain age. (Wait, itsn’t that the new all-dude show on TNT?) Yep. You poor guys are sorely underrepresented.

      • crispy

        Other than The Sopranos, I don’t believe any of those topics you mentioned ever appeared on the EW cover. And The Sopranos certainly didn’t get The Twilight love. It’s not selective memory… it’s a recent trend of the last 18-ish months. EW is now designed for maximum sales at grocery market news stands.

      • TellyB

        Crispy, if you truly think EW is a “women’s magazine” now, which I totally disagree with, there’s plenty of mags that cater to what I assume you want: bimbos in bikinis, Megan Fox saying dumb stuff, cars, guns and explosions. I am a straight male, 37 years old, and I don’t see what the problem or the “bad” thing is about a mag that talks about Meryl Streep, Adam Lambert or New Moon. They are just big parts of entertainment right now. Once Summer comes, the mag will most likely cover all the dumb, explosion-filled action movies, and raunchy comedies that appeal to men…

      • amj

        This is the silliest set of comments ever. So, based on the above comments was I not supposed to enjoy Arrested Development because I am a woman? That’s too bad because I loved it. I also like Californication and the new show on TNT. And, I also loved the first Transformers movie. Seems I might not understand that as a woman I am not supposed to like these things? Are you kidding me with this sexist narrow arguments here?

      • crispy

        Wow, you sure have me pegged! Bimbos? Megan Fox? First of all, that’s redundant. Second, I abhor those things. Finally, Avatar is the biggest thing in entertainment this month, yet it’s relegated to an also-ran on a Sandra Bullock cover? If you don’t see how that’s catering to women readers, you’re dumber than those action movies you mentioned.

      • TellyB

        Why does this bother you so much? That’s what I don’t get. So they are leaning towards female-centric entertainment as of late, so what? I never see women complaining about the relentless coverage of The Dark Knight, Transformers, Megan Fox, etc. Besides, Sandra is a beautiful woman…shouldn’t that on a cover atract men? Or should the only women on the covers be the young bimbos that you like?

        Oh, and BTW…get ready for a whole lot of disappointment, if you think that AVATAR will be the dumb, testosterone-in-the-brain thing you think it will be. Cameron has always be the rare action director that incorporates strong female characters and female-skewing storylines into his films, and the word is that AVATAR, in spite of all the action, dazzling effects and soldiers-and-explosions-filled previews, is a love story at its core!!!!! GASP!!! Run for cover!!! Damn Cameron and his girly instincts!!!

      • Ambient Lite

        Sorry, but the very idea of having a cover with that creepy Avatar face stetched across the thing…well, it’s not pretty.

      • crispy

        Hah! A close-up is probably not the best idea. But here’s the thing, they probably will put Avatar on the cover after it comes out when it makes $300 million at the box office. They’ve been doing that a lot lately. You’d think an entertainment magazine would be a better prognosticator of what’s hot, rather than reporting after the fact.

      • Ambient Lite

        Can’t argue with you there. They do seem a little…delayed.

      • Ed

        Who says Sandra Bullock is only interesting to women anyway. I have been a fan of hers since “The Vanishing.” In addition, she is still fine and I could look at her all day long.

    • Ambient Lite

      The hair moustache didn’t fool you, huh crispy?

    • Hershey

      you’re an idiot- you want to see men only in magazines then go buy a Playgirl

      • crispy

        Playgirl stopped publishing. But thanks for the tip.

      • Quidam

        There are actually plenty of men in EW magazines the only thing is they have their shirts off with articles such as, “Hollywood’s new Hunk.” I want to know about the entertainment industry not about “who are the new HOT stars of Sci-Fi”, which was an actual thing and they did and they didn’t mean hot as in going to be good they meant pure physical appearance.

    • Gregoire

      crispy, you are totally wrong. This is not a magazine for women.

      It is a magazine for teenage girls.

      • Frank Anderson

        Thats so true, Gregoire!

    • Quidam

      Crispy, I agree completely. Entertainment Weekly has turned into a sort of hybrid of teen-beat and cosmo.

      • Obvious

        Actually, EW never did a “Hot stars of Sci-Fi.” That was TV Guide.

    • jacqueline

      it’s people like you with your sexist attitude is why we can’t get DECENT women’s films to make money. What an ignorant thing to say and idiotic considering the dozen male catered mags that are out there. Anything about a woman is soooo offensive right.

      • Quidam

        Well to me something like entertainment weekly shouldn’t have a gender base. Therefore I think they should talk about movies that are good: some female centered movies, Mean Girls, Juno and Titanic are worth talking about. Some male centered pieces of entertainment, The 40 Year Old Virgin, The Dark Knight, and The Lord of the Rings are worth talking about as well but the fact remains is that they are pandering towards women with their billionth Twilight cover (1 was enough EW) and constant articles such as “The hottest actors in sci-fi” with pictures of about a dozen men without their shirts off. WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH ENTERTAINMENT!?! I think they are just running out of ideas. What I want to know is who is that girl and Precious and how did she get the part? Avatar and what this could do to the reputation of James Cameron and articles on the animation industry such as “Who is the best animator, is Miyazaki better than Disney, Should Pixar break off.” I would also like more information regarding live theatre.

    • Fatima

      Normally I can see some points in your constant griping, but Sandra really has had a banner year. It’s even more noteworthy because it’s coming at a very odd point in her career. To me, this is the type of cover feature they USED to have.

      • crispy

        Well, sure, you’re right. But do you not see me point… that a movie like Avatar deserves a cover story? Just the technology that was invented to make this movie is revolutionary… that’s the type of cover story they used to do.

      • Fatima

        Yes. Avatar deserves a cover in a big way. This story did depend on knowing The Blind Side’s grosses, but it does feel delayed like you mentioned. They haven’t been on it like they used to. Still, I like this as a cover subject and I think it recalls older covers. I enjoy our banter.

      • crispy

        It beats working! :)

    • Lauren

      …I agree. This magazine has switched over to being more female-oriented as of late. That’s because women tend to buy and subscribe to more entertainment-related magazines.
      Yes, guys, it’s unpleasant to realize you’re no longer the demographic everyone wants, but there are plenty of magazines out there that are dedicated to appealing to you. EW is probably just no longer one of them.
      Yes, ladies, magazines, along with most of the ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY this magazine writes about, all pay attention to key demographics and what appeals to the groups of people they want to attract. Groups being divided by sex, race, age, sexual orientation, etc. If that makes them stereotyping jerkfaces, well. They make tons of money by being right.

      • crispy

        Why must you be so reasonable? Hmph! I still get to kick and scream about it though.

    • kaloalo

      you are quite right – it’s probably because the trend in the entertainment industry has been women teenage girls and women
      it’s just been a huge female movie year and maybe EW is just reporting on how it is (well of course with a more focus on the female audience)

      what it all boils down to is that EW is in it to make money – it’s a business, so they’re gonna focus on how to make more money – and frankly, if they have to cut off part of their consumer to target a new one and make even more money, they’ll do it (like their ridiculously extensive coverage over new moon)

    • JP

      If EW had put Sam Worthington on the cover for Avatar, couldn’t that have been considered pandering to females since he’s an attractive guy? Seems like a no-win situation.

      • crispy

        Not if the cover story was about the movie. Of course, this is EW we’re talking about so it probably would have been a listicle of the hardest abs in Hollywood.

    • Tim

      The Avatar ad is most definitely huge and scrolls down half my screen. It’s annoying as fvck.

  • Ambient Lite

    Not to ignite the haters, but a couple of weeks ago it was well publicized that there would be an issue of EW coming out with 3 different covers of the New Moon stars. What happened to that???

    • swthompson

      I saw that in a Barnes & Noble in Nashville… I’m guessing it was a catch-this-if-you-can appraoch.

      • Ambient Lite

        I was afraid of that. Why am I paying for a subscription???

      • Lynn

        I was afraid of that. Why am I paying for a subscription???
        ——
        Well, unless you’re using it to, what was it, “decorate your coffee table,” why does it matter that you didn’t get the Twilight cover? I got the subscription copy of that issue, and the Twi-story was still inside. Surely that’s all that really matters, right?

      • Frank Anderson

        It was just the “best of the decade” issue with three different Twilight covers I think… that issue or the one with the dead stars.

      • @Frank

        It was the one with the memorial cover story. It had a Twilight spread inside. Subscribers got the memorial issue, and if Twihards wanted to get their covers, they could get them on the newsstand.
        I think EW probably knew better than to give Twilight three subscription covers in a two-month span. Plenty of people were complaining about the second one (as evidenced by EW’s reader mail). Three would have been ridiculous.

      • crispy

        Wow, I didn’t know they did that. I think it’s a great idea!

      • Kelsey

        I think it makes perfect sense. Subscribers to EW like the magazine and buy it regardless of who’s on the cover. Most of them probably don’t care one way or the other if Twilight is on the cover, unless it’s on the cover too often.
        Meanwhile, most people who do care about Twilight on the cover are the type to only buy the issue on the newsstand if it has Pattinson or Stewart or whoever on it.
        EW is actually being smart, catering to their two demographics. Give the loyal subscribers some variety on the cover, and let the fangirls (and fanwomen) buy their Team Edward mags on the newsstand. I think everyone comes out on top.

      • Ambient Lite

        Actually, when I saw the 3 covers, I thought there would be an issue with additional New Moon coverage, and I felt like that evaporated.
        And then I felt sad. ;)

    • Ang

      Those 3 already came out – two weeks ago I believe. I got the Team Edward cover.

      • Ambient Lite

        Now you’re just rubbing it in! ;)
        Did you buy at the newsstand or get it in the mail as a subscriber??

    • M

      It was the same issue as the “remembering the entertainers who passed away” issue. The cover with those who passed away this year was for subscribers, you could buy the collectibles (3 of them) on newstands.

      • Ambient Lite

        Oh, bummer.

    • Kelsey

      Those Twilight covers were newsstand only. Subscribers (who are less likely to care about Twilight on the cover) got the issue with the “In Memory Of…” cover story and the Twilight stuff inside. People who only buy EW if it has Twilight on the cover would buy those cover issues on newsstand a la carte. Seems win-win to me.

      • Ambient Lite

        That’s the thing. I’m a subscriber and NOT less likely to care about Twilight, and felt like I shouldn’t have to buy it a la carte. I’ve been robbed!

      • Lynn

        And again, unless you’re using the covers to “decorate the coffee table,” why do you care what’s on the cover, especially if the story itself is still inside?
        I don’t understand why you tell people it doesn’t matter what’s on the cover, and then turn around and complain that you didn’t get your precious Twihard cover. Double standard much?

      • Ambient Lite

        I’ll speak slowly so you understand, Lynn…in hoping for the issue with the 3 stars on the covers, I assumed that along with it would come some new article about the movie. That didn’t happen for subscribers. THAT’S my problem with it.

      • Ambient Lite

        Oh, and the story itself WASN’T inside anything without a Twilight-related cover in the past couple weeks.

      • @Ambient

        I’ll speak slowly so you can understand, Ambient. There was a story inside the memorial issue about Twilight and its fans. This was the case even in the subscription issues without the Twilight covers. So I’m not sure what you’re talking about.
        The Twihard covers and the memorial cover had the EXACT SAME inside content. There was absolutely nothing different about them. The difference is, EW knows the Twihard crap sells best off the newsstand, so that’s where they put it.

  • BG 17

    So nice to see Sandra bullock out of that horrible ‘Blind Side’ getup…

  • Sarah T.

    I thought they had said there was an issue coming out with three different covers of New Moon! I have a subscription but thought maybe it was a special thing they did for Newstands.
    Anyway though, Congrats to Sandra! She’s totally earned it and she’s definitely one of the best actresses in the biz. Plus, she looks amazing!!

  • Shaun

    Yay! So happy for Sandra, one of my favorite actresses still going strong from the mid-90’s. Rock on!

    • EWsMom

      Agreed! I’d SO much rather EW be devoting time/articles to well-known, smart, well-versed and established actors instead of those flash-in-the-pan twits like Twilight, Adam Lambert and so forth — all of whom which will be forgotten in a year or two.

  • graeme

    So does this mean Sandra isn’t Entertainer Of The Year? That sucks.

    • Ambient Lite

      I like her and all…but are you serious???

      • graeme

        2 $160+ million films in one year. Never been done by a woman over 40 before. And only the 2nd actress do it other than Julia. One comedic, one dramatic. Both critically acclaimed.
        Definitely deserved EOTY.

      • TellyB

        Not to nitpick, but The Blind Side has not reached 160 million yet. And by the time it does, it will probably And THE PROPOSAL was not critically acclaimed, it actually garnered pretty mediocre notices.

        And if you are going by your own stat – 160 million plus movies in one year- Julia has never done it. She had two big fat 100 million plus films in one year, 1999’s Notting Hill and Runaway Bride, but neither film reached 160 million. In fact, Roberts have only had two films gross more than 160 million, PRETTY WOMAN, and Ocean’s 11. (and it could be argued that Ocean’s Eleven’s appeal had very little to do with her presence…it was all about Damon, Clooney and Pitt’s suave chemistry)

      • graeme

        You are correct that “The Blind Side” has not hit $160 million yet, but there’s absolutely no doubt that it will. It could even hit $200 million.
        And yes, I meant that Julia is the only other actress to headline 2 $100 million grossing films in one year. Sandra is only actress over 40 to ever do it.

  • crispy

    Sandra Bullock sucks. And Oscar buzz? Puh-leeze. Even Entertainment Weekly’s very own Oscar columnist, Dave Karger, says it’s a long shot.

    • warped

      Have you even seen the movie to be trashing it?

      • crispy

        What movie? I didn’t trash any movie. Just her in general. But mostly, I was trashing the editorial decision to put a 2-week old movie on the cover instead of a movie with enormous buzz (both good and bad).

  • Mike

    Grown-ups who like the tripe Bullock is trying to push off as films is more like it. Come one EW. Remember when you used to have some discernment?

  • Jim

    I’m sure that EW’s coverage of the new Star Trek movie appealed to the female masses.

    • crispy

      What coverage? They did like 1 cover story. And it barely gets a nod here on the website. Twilight coverage outranks Star Trek 200 to 1… and Star Trek was a far superior movie in every way.

      • Ambient Lite

        Oh, it was not superior in EVERY way…2 week box office gross for New Moon was TWICE what Star Trek brought in.

      • crispy

        Are you sure you want to start comparing overall revenue between the Star Trek and Twilight franchises?

      • Ambient Lite

        heh, against you? No, probably not.

      • TellyB

        Well, the guy said that ST was superior IN EVERY WAY, so the response from ambient was technically accurate. It wasn’t superior IN EVERY WAY…In only three weeks, NM just outgrossed ST’s entire domestic run, and it has grossed over half a billion dollars worldwide, versus ST’s 384 million. In fact, ST’s international run was crappy…only 127 million. That’s quite bad for a legendary franchise that got revitalized by this new film…

      • Fatima

        Ambient Life – To use grosses to sell a movie’s quality is as dumb as comments get. I weep for you.

      • Ambient Lite

        Okay, we’re going to do this.
        Fatima, as TellyB so aptly pointed out, I was just pointing out that box office results are one way that Star Trek is NOT superior to Twilight. Now, I’m sure crispy would want to dredge up the commercial success of the Star Trek franchise as a whole since the beginning of time. Not fair, the thing won’t die a graceful death! Everytime the Star Trek francise starts to choke, geeks come running in with paddles. Let it die with dignity, I say!

      • Fatima

        Let it die with dignity? Oh, so you’re just ignoring the critical and commercial smash that was the last movie. The same one that was on the short list for the NBR’s best films of the year? Do you hear yourself?

      • crispy

        To be fair, when I said “every way” I was of course talking about the movies themselves. Not box office, which I don’t think equates to quality.

      • KSB

        What I find completely entertaining, crispy, is that you apparently cancelled the magazine and said you have no regrets. But how much time have you spent here on the website?

      • crispy

        The website doesn’t cost me anything. I was paying for the magazine. You don’t see the enormous difference?

      • Ambient Lite

        Plus on the main page of the site, they have Avatar banners running down the sides, which makes crispy tingle.

    • kerri

      it did, as they are hot

      • Ambient Lite

        ha ha ha

  • Adriana

    Sandra Bullock is a wonderful actress. I’m very happy for the extra attention she has been getting lately- it’s well deserved :)

    • Sally in Chicago

      Hard work does that for you!

  • davidsask

    I see you made the right decision in the cover. With the fan vote on your front row site, what was the voting margin please over Avatar not winning?

  • Jane

    Let’s just pretend All About Steve never happened I guess…

    • crispy

      And Speed. And The Net. And Miss Congeniality. And Ya Ya Sisterhood. Should I just paste her entire IMDB list here?

      • Jackie

        To counter your mentions of “Speed,” “The Net,” and “Ya-Ya Sisterhood” (not mentioning “Miss Congeniality” because I actually liked it and thought she was very good in it), I submit for your consideration “A Time to Kill,” “28 Days,” and “Infamous.” So to answer your question, no, you shouldn’t paste her entire IMDb résumé here.

      • Fatima

        Speed is looked at by most as an action classic. Sure it’s silly, but most look back on it as a shining example of the genre.

      • crispy

        She still sucks. Even Nicolas Cage has been in a few good movies.

      • Jane

        THe difference being the film I mentioned actually came out this year, the year EW are celebrating of hers.

      • TellyB

        Exactly, Fatima. In fact, Speed was the rare action film that not only appealed to males but to females,mainly beacuse of Sandra’s appeal;She was a beautiful woman that men liked, and she didn’t turn off women, because unlike Megan Fox, she didn’t come off as a dumb sexpot bimbo- it got great reviews, and at the time put Jan De Bont on the map…It’s probably the one film in Bullock’s resume that she will never try to downplay.

      • Jackie

        Crispy, I am trying to think of good Nicolas Cage movies, and the only one that comes to mind is “Peggy Sue Got Married.” Where exactly are all these good movies that he’s been in? And don’t say “National Treasure” because that’s just a Disney-fied version of “The Da Vinci Code.”

      • crispy

        Fast Times, Raising Arizona, The Outsiders, Leaving Las Vegas.

      • crispy

        Oh, Adaptation. Wow, he even has better credits than Sandra Bullock. Who knew?

      • Nicholas Cage

        I knew.

  • amj

    Wow there sure is alot of hate here. I still see my beloved EW as great. And so is Sandra Bullock in my opinion. And, I don’t see how you can say that this cover only appeals to the women, my husband loves her and will tell anyone she is his favorite actress.

    • amj

      She makes the only romantic comedies he actually enjoys.

    • Fatima

      The hate comes from one very vocal person.

  • Ambient Lite

    I actually just started subscribing to EW this year and was pleasantly surprised with the content. I guess you COULD get all fired up about covers…but unless the sole purpose of the magazine is to decorate your coffee table, it doesn’t really matter. I’d have a tough time finding another entertainment mag that has a wider variety of content inside that cover.

    • Frank Anderson

      Awesome to know. I have been reading EW for ten years, and variety is what I want from this magazine, and it has been pushing more and more towards covering tween female and adult female interests over a variety of coverage.
      I always loved EW because it did such a good job of covering a wide range of topics.
      I hate to see the magazine go down the route it is going.

      • TellyB

        This is some BS. I don’t remember anybody complaining about “lack of variety” or “too much emphasis on the male audience” when week after week, EW covered male-skewing films like The Dark Knight, Transformers, Apatow comedies, and all the other testosterone-fueled crap that Summer always brings. This is about sexism-infused annoyance at not being catered to 24/7. The reality is that as of late, there has been many female-centric films that have become huge successes (Sex And The City, Mamma Mia!, Twilight 1 and Twilight 2, The Proposal, The Blind Side) and the fact that two actresses over 40 (one of them over SIXTY!!!) have recently become box office draws, IS newsworthy on an entertainment magazine. And why the disdain for “fluff pieces”? It’s a fricking ENTERTAINMENT MAGAZINE”…it should have fluff, nobody in Hollywood is looking to cure cancer. And sorry, but TWEEN AND TEEN entertainment is as valid as the stuff aimed at adult audiences. This is an entertainment mag, let them cover all demos of entertainment, from Kristen Stewart to Meryl Streep, from Zach Efron to Robert Deniro.

  • steve

    I really like her and some of her movies are really good. I am not surprised she has longevity and is becoming ‘America’s Sweetheart’…she’s the real deal.

Page: 1 2 3 4
Add your comment
The rules: Keep it clean, and stay on the subject - or we may delete your comment. If you see inappropriate language, e-mail us. An asterisk (*) indicates a required field.

When you click on the "Post Comment" button above to submit your comments, you are indicating your acceptance of and are agreeing to the Terms of Service. You can also read our Privacy Policy.

Latest Videos

Advertisement

From Our Partners

TV Recaps

Powered by WordPress.com VIP