comment #1

cinefan says ...

I agree you with 100% in your disdain for this "journalistic piece". Kidman may make some bad choices when it comes to the projects she chooses (Bewitched or Stepford Wives, anyone) but, on the whole, I think she's a terrific actress and the film world would be much worse off without her in it - especially considering the dearth of good actresses over 40 now in Hollywood.

comment #2

alynch says ...

Agreed, it's a positively shitty article. By the way, The Human Stain is underrated.

comment #3

WinslowLeachtheComposer says ...

I usually appreciate the English for their vitriolic humor, but this guy should take his own advice and retire after this lame rant.

comment #4

berg says ...

read David Thompson's chapter on Nicole and acting in THE WHOLE EQUATION ... one of the best pieces on the craft that wasn't written by someone named Boleslovsky, Stanislovsky, Chekhov, Hagen, et al.

comment #5

D.Z. says ...

I don't think it's any worse than some of Jeff's comments about her hubby, which were probably more appropriate, but still...I've been making similar comments for a while. She'll always be Tom's ex, and she really should just leave it at that, while she still has her dignity.

comment #6

Aris P says ...

Yeah ok, what the writer said was mean-spirited but let's be honest about the SUBJECT -- she's done one bad movie after another. Time for a new agent and manager Nicole. Also, it doesn't help that her plastic surgery and botox injections make her face basically expressionless. She looks like a mannequin. How can anyone expect her to express a range of emotion when nothing on her face moves. Its a nasty article i give it that. But its time to make some serious choices about her career. I think she's still just in a depression after Tom. Sometimes people never become who they were after a break-up.

comment #7

Noah says ...

This guy seems to care more about the fact that her movies aren't doing well at the box office than whether or not she was delivering good performances. Even in her worst movies, she has never been a bad actress. She has picked a few stinkers for sure, but I don't think the blame is on her. In fact, I applaud her for taking risks like Fur and Birth, even if they are failures. I admire that more than someone like Julia Roberts who would never deign to appear in something so independent.

comment #8

jbf81 says ...

People will have to fill me in about this Nicole Kidman is a box office poison thing, cause I dont get it.
Her movies almost always cross the 100 mil (she is huge internationally) doesnt matter where the money comes, still is money.

Could Mountain made more than 170 mil (more than Blood Diamond)
Bewitched made more than 130mil
The Interpreter made 160mil (a lot of male actors cant get these numbers)
The Stepford Wife (horrible Film ) crossed the 100mil=======

If that overrated creature Jennifer Aniston had ANY of those numbers in her films she would had been crowned America new super star (you know the media wanted this badly)
How about Scarlet Johansson, has this woman has ANY successful film in her career?

comment #9

lazarus says ...

One bad film after another? Come on. Making a film with Steven Shainberg and Noah Baumbach, whatever the results, does not reflect someone making poor choices. The Invasion may have seemed like "one for the money" in retrospect because it was crap, but originally it probably seemed like a new take on classic material by a Hollywood outsider. And while Bewitched and Stepford Wives were missteps, look at the list of the last 10 films released in theatres: A Sydney Pollack thriller with Sean Penn. Anthony Minghella. Jonathan Glazer. Lars Von Trier. Hell, even Happy Feet was for fellow Aussie George Miller. The future holds another collaboration with Baz Luhrman and a still-possible role for Wong Kar-Wai.

Give me a fucking break. She's taking more chances and working with more interesting directors than any other actress in the business.

comment #10

MickTravis says ...

The caption beneath the photo uses "you're" when it really means "your."

Muy professionale.

comment #11

EDouglas says ...

Wow, if he feels that way about "The Invasion", wait until sees "Margot at the Wedding". I've never been at a New York Film Festival screening where the audience didn't clap after the end credits and the response was reserved at best. (I didn't see the whole movie again, just showed up at the end for the press conference.)

comment #12

JD says ...

All the people I've ever met who are teachers and/or students of acting seem to revere Kidman the way some of us revere Brando or De Niro. She's certainly above the kind of stupidity found in this article. Plus, she just delivered the best performance of her career in Margot at the Wedding.

comment #13

erniesouchak says ...

It's a mean-spirited piece, but I can't help it, I agree with him wholeheartedly. She's a mediocrity who photographs well -- or at least used to, before Botox and anorexia sharpened her face into such a scary pointed thing.

comment #14

dobois says ...

Kidman is a one note performer movie after movie, and at 17 million a pop, that's one expensive note. Studios and directors would be better served to retain that 17 mill and throw it into story and script development.

comment #15

Zimmergirl says ...

I am bothered by her refusal to grow old and botox herself into oblivion. I can't help but wanting to see the cork screw curled beauty from Dead calm and I keep seeing this weird waxy-skinned plastic surgery person instead. There was a time when she was great but she needs to evolve as a human being and as an actress. Loved her in To Die For, Eyes Wide Shut and she was okay in the Human Stain but lately, yikes.

comment #16

Jay T. says ...

I've read several other things written by John Patterson and my response is often, "What a douchebag." This only reinforces my opinion.

comment #17

dixiedugan says ...

I don't care for her, and I thought that was an awful article. It's not even an article, it's a self indulgent rant.

Seriously...there's a remake of The Lady from Shanghai?

comment #18

D.Z. says ...

juligen: "Her movies almost always cross the 100 mil (she is huge internationally)"

Yes, but she's not huge here, and having to make money there does not help.

"Could Mountain made more than 170 mil (more than Blood Diamond)"

It also cost almost half of that, if you don't count P+A....

"Bewitched made more than 130mil"

It also cost $85 million.

"The Interpreter made 160mil (a lot of male actors cant get these numbers)"

That was her only hit, and she was co-starring with Sean Penn, who had already achieved success and acclaim through Mystic River.

"The Stepford Wife (horrible Film ) crossed the 100mil======="

That was an ensemble film.

"If that overrated creature Jennifer Aniston had ANY of those numbers in her films she would had been crowned America new super star (you know the media wanted this badly)"

She did with Along Came Polly and The Break-Up. And she's just gotten mentioned in Forbes.

"How about Scarlet Johansson, has this woman has ANY successful film in her career?"

Lost in Translation and, to a minor extent, Match Point.

comment #19

nemo says ...

"Seriously...there's a remake of The Lady from Shanghai?"

IMDB marks it as "rumored". But get this -- it's rumored to be written and directed by none other than Wong Kar Wai.

comment #20

jbf81 says ...

Yes, but she is not huge here, and having to make money there does not help.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Well, honey than I will have to informe you that both Aniston AND Johansson are not huge ANYWHERE.

comment #21

Gaydos says ...

The "smart money" figures she's not for real, just Tom's arm candy and then she does THE HOURS and wins the Oscar, fair and square. Score one for Nic.

She makes a couple of bad moves, gets caught in the Joel/Oliver crossfire on "Invasion" and suddenly she kidnapped the Lindbergh baby. Score one for the angry mob.

I want to see GOLDEN COMPASS. I suspect many people will want to see it. If this proves true, then what will my fellow hacks write? The ball is in play.

FYI: the writing off of Russell Crowe was underway in earnest until YUMA and GANGSTER confirmed the stupidity of the "dead meat" thesis. Find another angle, fellow hacks, another victim of your facile, bored, poison pens. Or maybe pick on thesps who don't have the real chops of these two.

comment #22

jbf81 says ...

She did with Along Came Polly and The Break-Up. And she's just gotten mentioned in Forbes.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
YOU GOT TO BE KIDDING ME !!!!! A Ben Stiller and a Vince Vaughn film? Please replace Aniston with ANY actress in Hollywood and the result would be the same. Also, what the hell is this; she was mention in the Forbers Magaize? I dont care with The Pope talk about her in one of his encyclicals, SHE IS NOTA MOVIE STAR, she is not a audience draw, she is no even a great actress, she has no range, you know it, and Hollywood know it, thats why she is overlooked in drama material and she also cant play the girl who wants the boy until she is 50, and thats why she has no future.

She'll always be Tom's ex, and she really should just leave it at that, while she still has her dignity.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Guess what Aniston will ALWAYS BE? Thats right Brad Pitt dumped wife

comment #23

dixiedugan says ...

"it's rumored to be written and directed by none other than Wong Kar Wai."

That might actually be interesting.

comment #24

JBF says ...

DZ, you make no sense at all.AT ALL. First you critic Nicole for doing badly in the box office, this argument that she is not huge here is just ridiculous, then you defend ANISTON AND SCARLETT? Both are awful cases of overrated celebrities, both can not open a film even if their lives depended on to. Lost in Translation made 44mil HERE, and Match Point was even worse, it made 23mil HERE. Say what you want about Nicole, but at least she gave Oscar performances in To Die for, Moulin Rouge, The Hours and is a very good actress.

BTW Aniston next film is with Owen Wilson and a DOG who will teach their family an important lesson. Do I need say more?

comment #25

dobois says ...

Kidman was not nominated for an oscar for To Die For. All her oscar noms are post Cruise. Her pre Cruise oscar noms are zero. Cruise's oscar noms pre kidman, 3, after kidman, zero... them glitzy hollywood types loves them the underdog story line...

comment #26

erniesouchak says ...

Re: Wong Kar-wai's "Lady from Shanghai," Kidman was originally attached but she was replaced by Rachel Weisz some time ago.

comment #27

alero says ...

Kidman is a fine actress. She just picks the worst movies. She's not worth 17 million a movie but there a very few(male or female) who are.

Forbes.com has become a joke with these stupid entertainment studies. First Katie Holmes is the most powerful celeb now this with Aniston.

comment #28

lipranzer says ...

I certainly agree that writer crossed over the line from criticism to fucking asshole. Yes, BEWITCHED, STEPFORD WIVES, and FUR were bad movies. All three were Marley movies - dead to begin with the moment the Powers that Be decided on whatever fatal course of action was going to make the movie end up a stinker (deciding Samantha had to fall in love with a jerk, trying to make a black comedy and forgetting the funny, or how to end the damn thing, and totally missing the point about Diane Arbus), and her performances in said films is hardly the worst thing about them (it's possible her input had something to do with why the films turned out badly, given how much stars tinker with scripts, but I have no proof of that, and Patterson offers none). Also, I agree with alynch that THE HUMAN STAIN is underrated (and she triumphs over what should have been complete miscasting), and I would add if you can get past the fact that it's about reincarnation (which, admittedly, a lot of people have trouble with), BIRTH is a brilliant fucking movie, and she's brilliant in it. Anyone who says she can't act should watch the scene at the concert she goes to where the camera stays on her face for two whole minutes and she goes through a whole range of emotions without saying a word.

comment #29

Andrew says ...

Yeah the guy's a douche, but not totally off the mark. He's saying what we've been thinking (granted, in a completely inappropriate manner). He's probably as perplexed as some of us are in regards to her major moviestardom. I haven't seen all her movies, but she's generally better in the smaller ones and other than the paycheck I can't understand why someone would choose to star in those remakes. But hey, if she's looking to cash in and studios are dumb enough to pony up $17m for her, then good for her.

comment #30

Andrew says ...

Oh yeah - Wells, you're completely correct in your logic. Even though you didn't flat out suggest it, but she should "redefine, rethink, reinvent".

comment #31

D.Z. says ...

juligen: "A Ben Stiller and a Vince Vaughn film?"

Outside of romantic comedies, Stiller's films have rarely been a success. You can add Night at the Museum, but Jingle All the Way and Elf prove anyone could have been in that one. And other than Dodge Ball, Vaughn hasn't been proven to be much of a hit-maker, either.

"Please replace Aniston with ANY actress in Hollywood and the result would be the same."

So, by your logic, Swingers and Heartbreak Kid should have been box office hits.

"I dont care with The Pope talk about her in one of his encyclicals, SHE IS NOTA MOVIE STAR, she is not a audience draw,"

If she's not, then why is she able to sell more magazines than Kidman?

"she is no even a great actress, she has no range, you know it, and Hollywood know it, thats why she is overlooked in drama material"

I guess that's why "The Good Girl" has an 81% Fresh score...

"thats why she is overlooked in drama material and she also cant play the girl who wants the boy until she is 50, and thats why she has no future."

Way to insult middle-aged actresses! But anyway, you're confusing her for Julia Roberts.

"Guess what Aniston will ALWAYS BE? Thats right Brad Pitt dumped wife"

Not really, because people knew who Aniston was before she met Pitt.

JBF: "First you critic Nicole for doing badly in the box office, this argument that she is not huge here is just ridiculous,"

But it speaks for itself at the box office.

"then you defend ANISTON AND SCARLETT?"

I didn't defend them. I just indicated that they're more successful than Kidman. I could care less either way, though.

"Both are awful cases of overrated celebrities, both can not open a film even if their lives depended on to."

Um, they opened at least two films each. Whether or not they're overrated has nothing to with it.

"Lost in Translation made 44mil HERE,"

And that's 11 times its budget. Can Nicole do that?

"and Match Point was even worse, it made 23mil HERE. "

That's still the highest-grossing Allen movie in 20 years.

"Say what you want about Nicole, but at least she gave Oscar performances in To Die for, Moulin Rouge, The Hours and is a very good actress."

That's great, but no one cares about Oscars.

comment #32

BurmaShave says ...

Yeah that's why everyone's asking price goes up after getting one, that's why everyone wants to get one, that's why there's an entire fucking network of media, including this site, devoted to the coverage of and campaign for one. You fucking nimrod. Please leave us all the fuck alone.

comment #33

D.Z. says ...

"Yeah that's why everyone's asking price goes up after getting one, that's why everyone wants to get one, that's why there's an entire fucking network of media, including this site, devoted to the coverage of and campaign for one."

And that's why we get crap like Aeon Flux and Catwoman.

comment #34

christian says ...

in THE HUMAN STAIN nicole kidman is the hottest janitor on planet hollywood.

comment #35

jeffmcm says ...

Shut up, DZ.

comment #36

bacio says ...

"In fact, I applaud her for taking risks like Fur and Birth, even if they are failures. I admire that more than someone like Julia Roberts who would never deign to appear in something so independent."

Actually, Julia Roberts not only did co-star in a couple of indie films (Confessions of a dangerous mind, Full Frontal) but she had the balls to disappear for a couple of years to take care of her family. and that at a time when her career is a critical juncture. I wonder if the young crowds who fill the cinemas today even remember her.

Nicole, on the other hand, seems to be career obsessed, doing film after film, she must do 3 a year? Right now, she is filming "The reader" in Berlin, coming straight from Australia. And Margot and Golden Compass are still coming out this year. i guess she is also a critical age now, but she should just choose her projects a bit more carefully

comment #37

Terry McCarty says ...

I would have rather seen, say, Juliette Lewis in THE HUMAN STAIN.

comment #38

Noah says ...

You make a good point Bacio, but Nicole was working with Clooney and Drew Barrymore in Confessions and was working with Sodebergh, Brad Pitt and a host of other famous actors in Full Frontal. They were smaller films and smaller parts, but without Nicole Kidman Fur and Birth don't get made. She was the star attraction in both of those films by up and coming directors. I don't think there is a problem with Nicole being career-obsessed; if she feels the need to make more films, then more power to her. I don't really care what either of them does in their private life as long as they are delivering on screen.

comment #39

bachelorcool says ...

LEAVE NICOLE ALONE!!!

comment #40

houmas says ...

This totally reminds me of Brando's situation in the 1960's (and yes, I am comparing Kidman to Brando, because at her very best, I find she's that level of talent. And she had his often poor judgement in projects. To those that think she's overrated, or whatever....I don't care. Even with all the stinkers on her resume, her name on a project always makes me curious).

Brando was the golden boy of Hollywood with a couple of critically acclaimed hits in the space of a few years. Ditto for Kidman (except she was the golden girl, with The Others, Moulin Rouge, The Hours ect). Then Brando, while never giving any really bad performances, found himself in a series of box office and critical failures (The Ugly American, Mutiny On The Bounty, Morituri, Reflections In A Golden Eye, The Nightcomers, Candy ect). The knives came out. The "critics" and journalists who once rated Brando as our finest actor, started blaming him for the weakness of his films, as well as their commercial failure.

You got all the monday morning quarterbacks writing "was Brando really that good in the first place. He was just an overrated, overweight mumbler really" and "he's finished and box office poison". "He should quit". You even get the reknowned Pauline Kael writing a whole thesis in the mid-60's, all about what a washed up has-been Brando has become. Brando baiting by media/critics in the 1960's practically became a sport. When these guys sniff blood, they go on the hunt. Kidman's woes at the moment put me in mind of this.

When Brando did finally have the termity to attach his brilliance to a great little film and ginourmous hit in 1972 called The Godfather, you could hear the journalistic backtracking and a$$-kissing across the atlantic. Suddenly, he's the greatest thing since sliced bread again according to these same clowns who had been writing him off and calling for him to quit acting, before completely ruining his legacy or whatever.

When Nicole Kidman once again has the temerity to give a great performance in a great film, that also makes wads of cash, it'll be interesting to see how her detractors cope. She's given many excellent performances, but usually in films that divide or outright cause loathing (Dogville and Birth come to mind). And also make no money. Because even those who whine about her acting, know that she's got the talent to surprise and pull some interesting shit out the bag. Like Brando, this chick can never be counted down or out.

But I think going through this shitstorm of bad movies and shark-circling "critics" waiting for her demise, will make her a stronger person, and a stronger actor.

It'll be an interesting few years for Ms Kidman. I suspect she'll be making a lot of people eat large helpings of Crow. And I'll also make a rather risky prediction of stating that she'll win a 2nd Oscar within the next 5 years.

comment #41

houmas says ...

And to put the author of this piece in the correct perspective;

He also wrote a piece about washed-up stars not long ago, and basically said Russell Crowe was finished as a star, and should also quit while he was behind. Patterson has form for this kind of garbage. The guy is vicious.

comment #42

houmas says ...

Sorry. Forgot to provide then link. Here's the piece (from August 24, 2007) where John Patterson pronounces the careers of Jim Carrey, Russell Crowe, Mel Gibson to be "dead".

http://filmguardian.co.uk/patterson/story/0,,2154685,00.html

comment #43

Rob says ...

I do not understand people's obsessions with whether or not Nicole Kidman and Jennifer Aniston can open a movie. I've seen and heard argument after argument about this.

The bottom line is Kidman gets accused of being in a lot more flops than she actually has. When people say things like "The Interpreter and Cold Mountain tanked" or "Birth is awful," you have to take them with a grain of salt.

Also, Aniston has found her way into quite a few decent-sized hits, yet people will go out of their way to convince you that her name brought no one into the theater. What the fuck are they basing that on?

I think what really irritates me about these arguments is the conflation of box office with perceived notions of quality, e.g. "I personally hated The Human Stain, and The Invasion tanked, so Nicole Kidman should retire!"

comment #44

jbf81 says ...

"then you defend ANISTON AND SCARLETT?"
I didn't defend them. I just indicated that they're more successful than Kidman. I could care less either way, though.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You are crazy; they are more successful than Kidman? Who carried Moulin Rouge, The Others, The Interpreter. Has two Oscar nominations and One Best Actress Oscar.?

Look I realize that you are an Aniston fan, I have nothing against her and I do find her a nice lady, but she IS very limited as an actress, the fact that she is almost 40 and gave ONE good dramatic performance in Good Girl speak for itself.

She really wanted the female role in Lovely Bones, that Peter Jackson is directing, but the part went to Rachel Weisz, and thats how it works, studios will always overlook her for this kind of roles. Because people like Rachel, Kate Winslet, Julian Moore, Laura Linney, Cate Blanchet, even Nicole has much more pedigree. And quite frankly I dont think she has the talent that those ladies have.

comment #45

madmaxine says ...

i don't know, i thought the article was quite funny at times. the ruritania bit was inspired.

i like nicole well enough but her breathy voice in every role grates on my nerves. i still love her work in "moulin rouge" and "portrait of a lady."

comment #46

madmaxine says ...

i don't know, i thought the article was quite funny at times. the ruritania bit was inspired.

i like nicole well enough but her breathy voice in every role grates on my nerves. i still love her work in "moulin rouge" and "portrait of a lady."

and aniston is more talented than people give her credit for...

comment #47

madmaxine says ...

ugggh. sorry for the double post...

comment #48

Silverscreenvideos says ...

How many leading roles are there for actresses today which are: (1) artistically sound and (2) pay the big bucks?

Not many.

Kidman has made far more than her share of arthouse projects in the last few years: Fur, Birth and Dogville (and arguably The Human Stain).

I'm always curious why it's some actress or character actor like William Hurt who gets bashed for taking the big bucks occasionally, as if they have a "duty" to limit their earnings in the name of art. Why doesn't anyone tell Eddie Murphy, Bruce Willis, Will Smith, Will Ferrell or any of a dozen other leading men who routinely sell out for big bucks that it's time to hang it up?

comment #49

George Prager says ...

Shut up D.Z.

Anyway...Laura Linney would've been a better choice for HUMAN STAIN. And John Patterson hates himself and I think he's right.

comment #50

houmas says ...

Silverscreenvideoes: Astute observations.

Kidman's major problem, is that she's fearless. Almost recklessly so. She doesn't want to stick with one thing, or one genre, or one director, or one style of film. So her career is basically a potpurri/smorgasbord of whatever she feels like doing when the mood strikes her. It makes her difficult to pigeonhole. One minute she's doing some weird arthouse picture, then a dumb commercial romantic comedy, then a sober oscarbait flick, then a Joel Silver movie about bodysnatchers, then a Noah Baumbach film. Her choices are all over the place, and I don't think she makes a distinction between arthouse and commercial films. And she's always trying to work with new directors. She takes chances, and if the project as whole doesn't work, she carries the can.

If she did what her male counterparts often did (work with the same directors repeatedly), the quality of her films might have been more steady. Leonardo Dicaprio is joined at the hip to Marty Scorsese for a reason. Same with Russell Crowe and Ridley Scott/Ron Howard. There's a safety in familiar director/star relationships. Kidman has mostly opted not to use that safety net, though the fact that her next 2 movies are from previous directors Stephen Daldry and Baz Lurhhmann suggests that she knows now would be a good time to work with directors that have delivered the goods for her in the past, movie wise.

comment #51

Chicago48 says ...

Ditto Aris. I've only paid for two kidman projects: Moulin Rouge and Eyes Wide Shut, and I left feeling that she's a good actress, but the movies didn't do it for me. She needs to step back from being a "lead" actress and be a supporting actress, like Cate Blanchett, take smaller roles with meat. But she lived with Tom Terrific for years and whatever he was drinking she inhaled, which is she thinks she's worth $9-10Mill a movie.No matter how bad the vehicle.
and I agree about the Botox. She has the least expressionless face of any actress out there.

comment #52

Gaydos says ...

In a fact-based discussion, one must give the Devil AKA Satine her due: Combined negative costs of "Interpreter" and "Cold Mountain" were $160 million, the pictures grossed a combined $336 million plus a rough estimate of $250 million in home entertainment.

When you look at those numbers, her take-home pay of the last few years starts to look a bit less wacky, though in these current days of underperforming Nic pics and the Robinov "Boys Rule" edict, there is certainly downward pressure on her upfront fees.

What does any of that have to do with whether or not the lady can act?

And on the biz front, what will "Golden Compass" mean to her quote?

comment #53

Terry McCarty says ...

houmas said:
Kidman's major problem, is that she's fearless

Actually, her career seems to be easy to track--for commercial films, she tends to choose remakes of tried-and-true properties and for "art" films, she tends to gravitate to directors that in one way or another could be called Kubrickian.

comment #54

houmas says ...

Gaydos: Best case scenario for The Golden Compass is that is does blockbuster buisness and good critical notices. And Kidman gets good reviews for giving a strong performance.

If that happens, you'll see a lot of scrambling to avoid giving Kidman any credit at all for turning up and starring in a hit (it was fairly obvious that John Patterson was doing just that, by skipping any mention of The Golden Compass, and moving right onto Australia when mentiong her upcoming big budget films). Everyone else will get some credit, from the author (Philip Pullman) to Daniel Craig (the untested James Bond star who co-starred in The Invasion) to Chris Weitz to the New Line marketing department to the people who did the CGI. Though I'm not sure how that'll work out, since if it's a blockbuster, Kidman will be contracted to 2 sequels.

Worst case scenerio, it's a massive underperforming failure at the box-office, and everbody blames Kidman. That's pretty much how the game works If a film of hers makes money, she's not responsible. If it tanks, it's her fault.

comment #55

christian says ...

i think rex reed and john simon have been meaner. vicious they were.

comment #56

houmas says ...

Terry; Bit of a simplistic breakdown, imho. As far as commercial flicks go, The Peacemaker, Practical Magic, The Interpreter, Cold Mountain, Moulin Rouge (not a remake of the Jose Fererer film, despite the name)nor The Golden Compass (nor Australia, a 80 million dollar studio flick) fit into the realm of remakes for tried and true properties.

She's done a couple of remakes, but most of her commercial flicks aren't.

As for the "art" films, since when as Stephen Daldry (The Hours) Kubrickian? Before she signed onto work with him, all he'd done was Billy Elliot, one of the least Kubrickian films ever made. It was a slightly camp feelgood film about a boy dancer. I'll give you Jonathan Glazer (Birth) and Steven Shainberg (Fur), but Noah Baumbach (Margot At The Wedding) is more of a Woody Allen, by way of the Hamptons. I never realised Lars Von Trier, Robert Benton and Jane Campion were all specifically Kubrickian, but that's just me. I guess all vaguely intelligent, literate and serious directors can fall under the "Kubrick" umbrella these days, and if that's the case, you may have a point.

comment #57

D.Z. says ...

houmas: Brando didn't have to marry a Scientologist to get his roles.

juligen: "Look I realize that you are an Aniston fan,"

I'm not. I'm just a realist.

"I have nothing against her and I do find her a nice lady, but she IS very limited as an actress,"

If you actually read her IMDB roles, she has a lot more range than Kidman.

"She really wanted the female role in Lovely Bones, that Peter Jackson is directing, but the part went to Rachel Weisz,"

I don't think it says a thing, because no one knows who Weisz is, and because Jackson is stuck doing Tim Burtony-stuff again, because no one takes him seriously any more after Kong.

"Because people like Rachel, Kate Winslet, Julian Moore, Laura Linney, Cate Blanchet, even Nicole has much more pedigree."

And all it's accomplished for them is that no one can tell them apart, and that people confuse Blanchet for that other Kate who did that vampire fetish film.

comment #58

Alpha Base says ...

Patterson seems to follow the well known routine: if you don't have arguments, resort to misogyny.

On the other hand, I can't force myself to watch and enjoy Nicole Kidman's performances anymore. My last attempt was "The Interpreter" a.k.a. "The Upper Lip That Wouldn't Move." When I watch movies, I want to see actors/actresses, not wax dolls. Also, the constant media exposure some of these dolls have takes away any artistic credibility from their movie projects.

Bottom line: with the star power Kidman presumably has, she could have done something to try and change the way Hollowwood moronic system treats women. But the botox demon won, again.

comment #59

JBF says ...

Oi

comment #60

JBF says ...

DZ, from all the nonsense that you post here this must take the cake.

Jennifer Aniston has more range than Nicole Kidman? You mean the girl who ALWAYS plays the female role in crap romantic comedies and has ONE good dramatic performance in her entire career?

Audiences cant tell who is Kate Winslet and who is Julianne Moore?

Nobodies know who Rachel Weisz is? Well you may not know, and tabloids readers also dont know, but I assure you that producers, directors and fellow actors in Hollywood know who Rachel is and thats why she is getting so much work.

Lets just hope that for the good roles, and for the good films producers and directors continue to cast people with talent, not people that sells a lot of US weekly

comment #61

D.Z. says ...

JBF: "You mean the girl who ALWAYS plays the female role in crap romantic comedies and has ONE good dramatic performance in her entire career?"

And Kidman just plays roles of women-in-peril or mentors.

"Audiences cant tell who is Kate Winslet and who is Julianne Moore?"

Nope.

"Nobodies know who Rachel Weisz is?"

Does anyone remember Constant Gardener?

comment #62

OddDuck says ...

I sometimes wonder how empty D.Z.'s real life must be.

comment #63

houmas says ...

D.Z; Nah. Brando just had to flirt and pout in front of a lascivious Tennesse Williams to get his big break. Read up on Brando. He may have had all talent in the world, but he wasn't above using his looks and sex appeal to get a leg up in his profession.

As for Kidman, she wasn't just some stray waif Cruise picked up off the street and gave a career. Kidman was by a fair distance, Australia's most critically rated young actress before she hooked up with Cruise. She was nominated for the AFI (Australia's version of Emmy/Oscar) 3 years in a row, and won once. All before the age of 20. She was doing quality work as a serious actress, whether on TV productions (Bangkok Hilton, Vietnam) or film (Dead Calm). She won major critics awards for her acting in theatre (Steel Magnolias in Sydney).

So basically, Kidman was an award winning film, theatre and television actress, who was basically reduced to "Tom Cruises' girlfriend" when she got together with him and moved to America. Cruise actually hindered her progress as a serious actress, something that was going pretty well for her before they ever met. Instead of the interesting, meaty parts that she got in Australia, she was relegated to a lot of decorative "girlfriend" roles, in the early part of her Hollywood career. She had to fight to be taken seriously by casting agents and directors, because she was with Cruise. She didn't have that problem before him.

Cruise made her a much bigger celebrity than she would have been without him. But she had shown her talent and craft long before him, and he arguably held back her progress as an actress, which was coming on nicely without him. Going from Dead Calm and Bangkok Hilton to Days Of Thunder is a a bit of step down, in terms of the quality of the role.

comment #64

jbf81 says ...

Does anyone remember Constant Gardener?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

In 2005, The constant Gardener made the same money as Rumor has it (a big production with Kevin Costner, Mark Ruffalo and Shirley MacLaine to back up Aniston) and it also made more money than Derailed.
So maybe the tabloid target people has any idea who she is, but the movie goers (you know, the people that care for Hollywood Studios) knows who she is.

She managed to do that without whoring her private life to the media, without all that tabloid hoopla and without crying on Oprahs couch.

comment #65

D.Z. says ...

houmas: Fair enough, but now she's just coasting on being associated with Cruise, instead of doing

juligen:

"In 2005, The constant Gardener made the same money as Rumor has it (a big production with Kevin Costner, Mark Ruffalo and Shirley MacLaine to back up Aniston) and it also made more money than Derailed."

One was a sleazy thriller, and the other was a sequel to a movie too old for its target demographic to remember. Aniston wouldn't have made a difference either way.

comment #66

D.Z. says ...

Sorry, doing something low-key.

comment #67

Craig Kennedy says ...

Don't think those things OddDuck. That way lies madness.