I just think she's not very good looking, quite goofy. I don't think she's a very good actress as well. I've pretty much kept that to myself. This is like the first time I've ever said it or told anybody how I feel. Don't really care if it offends anyone seeing as how everybody is offended by something these days. It's at least nice she's way out lived her mom. Good for her for that.

This message has been deleted.

They make fun of her b/c she's a caricature of her former self.
When Cabaret came out in 72, she was IT. The first person to appear on the covers of Time & Newsweek the same week. She followed that Oscar-winning triumph with her brilliant, Emmy-winning Liza with a Z. When she replaced Gwen Verdon in Chicago for 3 weeks (2 years before she picked up the 2nd of 4 Tonys, for The Act), tickets sold out in an hour (I luckily already had mine). Her stage and film performances were both big and intimate; watching her in concert at Radio City (a 6000-seat house), I felt she was singing just to me.
But as time went by, the subtlety, the genuineness, seemed to give way to a push for the big effect. Pauline Kael observed that she treated every number as if it were the grand finale. Then came the chronic alcohol and drug battles, the weight gain, the constant health problems, the tabloid marriages along with the predictable career decline that come with age for most performers.
While the showmanship is still intact, the vessel containing it today is a ruin. Her last New York show noted her inability to move and described her voice as in tatters. And her behavior is loony, exaggerated she seems more like an outr female impersonator than an elder statesman of entertainment. The notorious Larry King interview was a low point and contributed to her being perceived as a camp joke.
Her decline does make me sad, remembering what a phenomenon she was when Cabaret made her, deservedly, the biggest star in show business at 25. The pathetic cartoon on Larry King is a poignant contrast to the poised, personable woman I recall being interview by David Frost in 72. Shes not a copy of her mother, but shes not as far removed from her as her fans had hoped.

Have you seen her? LOL.
She is hilarious looking and acting. She's very campy.

I am looking forward to that as well.

She was awesome as Lucille 2 in Arrested Development, can't wait for the movie.
Namaste

"Homely my ass - Liza is strikingly beautiful. Anyone who doesn't like her obviously has no right on the board; amirittte?"

Well said. I too think that she's gorgeous, I've always loved her face, and, at least for me, her prime regarding looks was the late '80s-early '90s. She was in amazing shape during the "Results" period.
Animal crackers in my soup
Monkeys and rabbits loop the loop

She was very beautiful in Cabaret she was very beautiful back in the day nothing to make fun about.

Homely my ass - Liza is strikingly beautiful. Anyone who doesn't like her obviously has no right on the board; amirittte?

You're clearly joking.

Homely my ass - Liza is strikingly beautiful. Anyone who doesn't like her obviously has no right on the board; amirittte?
I'll spread my wings and I'll learn how to fly
Though it's not easy to tell you goodbye

I am gay so of course I have the DNA strand that attracts me to Judy, Liza, Barbra, Bette and Kathy Griffin lol!
But even though I LOVE Liza with a Z, I think I know why some people make fun of her. She can - at times - become somewhat full of herself and annoying.
"the best that you can do is fall in love"

I agree that she had a streak going, but CABARET put her into the stratosphere.
I'd look twice: "Hey, that looks like Judy Garland's kid!"
Anyway, it sounds like you're bit of a fan of Liza's so it's all good. Charles Laughton sure wasn't pretty but he could knock your socks off, and he couldn't even sing!

'Best thing she ever did besides getting high right before Fosse started CABARET and getting her hair cut!'
Interesting,because I think if she grew her hair out,it would be more flattering; we all need a change in 40 years,as well.
However, Minnelli already had success before being associated with Fosse. There was 1969's THE STERILE CUCKOO,earning her an Oscar nomination.
Here's the thing: if people who claim she(and others) are 'beautiful,' saw her walking down the street and she was an unknown,nobody would look twice.
She seems in love with herself,so thats all that matters.

I'm trying to describe the way I feel about Liza's looks, and my being gay is part of the equation inasmuch as I'm fascinated but I don't want to, you know, sleep with her.
And no, she isn't pretty. I said I don't really care for just "pretty" in my actresses, I like a big dramatic canvas.
The critic Pauline Kael acknowle5b4dged that Liza had awkward features and it was only when she sang that they all fit together and she became beautiful. Not to get arty.
I guess I associate blondes with a fragile beauty, and I prefer study good looks like Maria Callas and Sophia Loren.
Her eyes saucer-shaped. And she was born to wear those mink eyelashes. Best thing she ever did besides getting high right before Fosse started CABARET and getting her hair cut!

'Not everybody like perfect, small features. There are many of us who like dramatic, strong features. Big eyes, big mouth, striking features. Blond is boring. '
Your sexuality doesn't reflect on your postI know, sexual-prefrence is a fixation with people today when it comes to everything.
I am simply stating that she,overall, is nob68t a pretty woman,and I think most of the world's population would concur. It's not really a question of "bland/boring",as such.
I said nothong about blonde hair. Hair color is not relevant.
There is a difference between LARGE features and homely-LARGE features. And of course, there are people will small-features who are not attractive.
But none of Liza'a features are pretty to me: not the nose,mouth,eyes.
Her eyes are large,but shaped like teardrops,like her father. The false eyelashes only make them look worse.

I know I should stay out of it, but I can't.
Not everybody like perfect, small features. There are many of us who lb68ike dramatic, strong features. Big eyes, big mouth, striking features. Blond is boring.
To say that we're trying to be "chic and arty" is kind of an insult. It's just a preference. I'd take one Liza Minnelli (not literally - I'm gay, but just to look at) over 10 Brittneys, AND day.
So if you prefer the looks of a mousey blonde, okay, but it doesn't make the rest of us posers.

So..why do you think people make fun of her?
"(BTW, I think she is gorgeous and hot. Have seen her in person 4 times in the last 8 months, once from the 3rd row. Her eyes are striking AND pretty. Lorna is boring, visually.)"
Uh-huh.
And people claim Barbra Streisand is beautiful. I know calling homely actresses beautiful is sort of the 'chic' arty thing to do,but why the need? To be different?
Nobody is "blaming" them for their looks,but to call these woman gorgeous is plain silly, I'm sorry.
Karl Malden has one striking nose,but nice-'striking?
BTW, everybody looks striking ON-STAGE with bright-lights sparkling in their eyes and sculpturing thier cheekbones.

So..why do you think people make fun of her?
(BTW, I think she is gorgeous and hot. Have seen her in person 4 times in the last 8 months, once from the 3rd row. Her eyes are striking AND pretty. Lorna is boring, visually.)

"Oh, where to start with this one? How bout this: a prostitute's "performance" has 5b4very little to do with arousal. It's a job; it's acting.
As for "Yes, but what type of magazine? A magazine of naked women." Not necessarily. Gays guys are just as welcome to donate at the bank. So if it takes a mag of naked men to do the job, so be it".
My point is that notjust ANY magazine will sufficeit depends on whose pictures are inside. In other words, not every straight man is going to be aroused by a magazine of naked women.
Men are very visual,you're right but I think we also downplay women's sense of visual.
Women are more inhibited to admit their carnal-desires because of our double-standard. Don't you think?

Oh, where to start with this one? How bout this: a prostitute's "performance" has very little to do with arousal. It's a job; it's acting.
As for "Yes, but what type of magazine? A magazine of naked women." Not necessarily. Gays guys are just as welcome to donate at the bank. So if it takes a mag of naked men to do the job, so be it.
Who am I? Dr. Ruth?!

'As for men.all they need (again, as a general rule) is a dirty mag in order to respond "sexually" at the sperm clinic.'

Yes, but what type of magazine? A magazine of naked women. AND do the particular dirty-pics turn him on(?) Men are not that animal-like.
I think the notion that women need more 'complex interplay' is very exaggerated; if that were true, prostitutes would not be able to perform as promtly as they do.
Seems to me it would depend on the individual woman.
And men don't just aroused because of physical stimuli..they need an emotional-compotent also,or they would be aroused any by ANY female.

Actually I do think it works that way. And I do believe arousal is brought about by different stimuli for men and woman. Not across the board, but as a general rule, I do believe arousal for woman involves a more complex interplay of physical, emotional, and psychological factors. As for men.all they need (again, as a general rule) is a dirty mag in order to respond "sexually" at the sperm clinic.
BTW, we all so off-track that I won't surprised if we get our wrists slapped any minute now for contributing "inappropriate" messages. This a Liza board afterall. And I know we did earnestly start with her; but my have we strayed! Hopefully it's all good or at least "they" b68give us some warning before banning us from this sphere.

N'ow, about 2 people of opposite sex having sex: I do think a gay man could have sex with a woman, specfically (and excuse me for graphically spelling it out) if it were anal sex. I don't think when you're comtemplating penetrating someone's butt (is this getting to be a bit too much?!)it matters a whole heckuva lot whether the butt belongs to a man or a woman'

But that would mean that the sexual-identity doesn't matter; it does.
Sex isn't just a physical act,but a cerebral one,since sex is just as much a psychological entity.
To be consi5b4tent with your comment would mean a man(or woman) would be interested in the same-sex for oral-sex as long as it feels gooddoesn't work that way.

Well, I don't know about "degrees of bisexual." Will have to think on that to see where I stand.
And yes, if Peter were to say that he and Liza had a great sex life and were to say this while being out of the closet (i.e., no need for keeping up hetero appearances), then yeah, that'd sound pretty darn bisexual. But I don't know that he ever claimed as much.
Now, about 2 people of opposite sex having sex: I do think a gay man could have sex with a woman, specfically (and excuse me for graphically spelling it out) if it were anal sex. I don't think when you're comtemplating penetrating someone's butt (is this getting to be a bit too much?!)it matters a whole heckuva lot whether the butt belongs to a man or a woman. Hell, I don't know. And I really will never know because, owing my particular combination of gender and sexual orientation, these experiences are out of my realm. I can only hypothesize. But it's a good conversation, no?
And what would Liza think were she to know she has inspired such dialogue? She'd probably laugh her ass off!