"My performance will never be as lovely as Elizabeth's," Jolie tells The Telegraph. "We are trying to get into a different truth about her as a pharaoh in history and not as a sex symbol, because she really wasn't."
Since Taylor played her circa-'60s Cleo as a total man-trap, isn't that kind of a back-handed compliment Jolie's paying the late movie legend?
And the Huffington Post takes the insult even further, talking all about how Jolie's going to play her version of Cleo with "brains over beauty," and how fitting it all is, as Jolie is (to many) "her generation's Liz Taylor."
Jolie is all about running from attention, hiding behind her family whenever she can—except when she's on one of her charitable missions or selling a movie. Taylor utterly thrived in the limelight. And she was hardly interested in being politically correct, she said "f--k" every chance she got, slept with whomever she chose, drank Jack Daniels like it was water and got a couple of Oscars in the process.
Just because Jolie stole Jen Aniston's husband does not make her today's Liz Taylor, who was about as interested in being Hollywood's Mother Teresa as Brad is in showering.
The point is twofold: this Cleopatra project, conceived by Scott Rudin and to be directed by David Fincher (two movie vets with spectacular taste) is clearly trying to smarten up the glitzy Cleo versions from days past.
But they're still trying to cash in on the glamour and mystique Taylor brought, and with the Telegraph article, even intimating that Jolie & Co. tried to get Taylor's blessing, to no avail.
Little wonder why it wasn't forthcoming: Blood vials and castles full of kiddies do not a Liz Taylor make.