Posted on 06/02/2009 5:04:24 AM PDT by Diana in Wisconsin
Hollywood, CA (BANG) - Catherine Zeta-Jones was paid a staggering $5,700 a second to star in a shampoo commercial. The Oscar-winning actress earned $2.5 million for the seven-minute TV advertisement for haircare product Lux, which will only be broadcast in China and Japan.
An executive at Unilever, the firm behind the commercial, told Britain's The Sunday Times newspaper: "We wanted Catherine as we remember her in 'Entrapment, all slinky and mysterious."
"That's why the advert was written as a mini spy movie. Pity you won't see it on British television. She looks pretty good in it, but that's the deal."
In the advert 39-year-old Catherine steals a youth-enhancing elixir from a high-security laboratory, which turns out to be Lux shampoo and is later seen shimmering down the red carpet with fabulous looking hair.
The British beauty - who has previously appeared as the face of Elizabeth Arden cosmetics and an American telephone company - is not the first Hollywood star to appear in a commercial which will only be shown outside their home countries.
Catherine's "Chicago" co-star Richard Gere filmed Ferrero Rocher adverts for Italy while Arnold Schwarzenegger appeared in many commercials for Japanese TV.
I wonder if the left goes after her for making more money than most CEO’s. Just pointing out another hypocrisy of the left.
Volvo P1800 ala "The Saint" is a nice touch.
Ive seen the commercial and nearly everyone of her films. The enhancements made no difference one way or another. She is still what I call a naturally beautiful woman. Using your criteria for natural beauty, we can take allot of Hollywood starlets off the list. Lana Turner, for one, who -changed her hair color from auburn to platinum blond. And the many other golden age of Hollywood starlets and starlet wanna-be’s who changed their hair color to something that would get them noticed.
I’m glad you find her attractive. Now all you need to do is to find another word besides “natural”. Because she is not a “natural” beauty if she has had breast enhancement, under any normal definition of the word “natural”.
I agree with you totally, let’s do take Lana Turner and the like off of the list....
And who would you put on your list of 100% “natural beauties”?
Well, let’s start with Lynda Carter (I don’t like her politics). She has the same hair/breasts that she started out with. Seems to use very little make-up.
Lordy. If she could keep that going, she could just about pay for the interest on the interest on the interest of the National Debt.
Lynda dyes her hair. And has either had a face lift or never gets near a camera more than 2 weeks after botox. In the looks oriented business of Hollywood nobody is truly “natural”, everybody is going to at least dye their hair and whiten their teeth.
OK, that was weak.
Since you’ve just invalidated all celebrities from being natural beauties, why have a discussion. In fact, you are now off-thread...
Or maybe I just invalidated the addiction to the concept of “natural” beauties. Maybe “natural” beauties are the ones that look natural, rather than the over surguried plastic women like Pam Anderson.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.