Nicole Kidman is playing Grace Kelly in an upcoming film, and the first photos are out. I think a lot of people hated her dress at the Oscars but I thought it was gorgeous and that she is gorgeous and that even her laugh is gorgeous and I think I have a crush on her. Whether she resembles Ms. Kelly closely or not, I think we can all agree that she looks beautiful.
The film, directed by Olivier Dahan (La Vie en Rose), is said to be released sometime in 2014. This is going to be one of those roles that begs for an Oscar. As for the film itself…not sure. This is a Weinstein production, and Harvey Weinstein loves Nicole Kidman (I don’t mean “in love”) so they’re probably going to focus on the lead actress nomination angle on this one. Yeah, I know the Oscars just happened but this is what they do. It’s a machine. They never stop.
FirstShowing.net talks about how TWC is going balls-out on this one. They’ve secured, “a $5 million minimum guarantee and a P&A commitment around $10 million for a minimum 800 screen run.” The film also stars Tim Roth (as Prince Rainier III of Monaco), Frank Langella, Paz Vega, Parker Posey and Milo Ventimiglia. It will mostly focus on Kelly’s transition from movie star to princess.
February 25, 2013 at 5:30 pm by Catherine St. Ives
The 55th Annual Grammy Awards happened last night and all that means to me is that we get to “Ooh!” and “Ahh!” and “WTF?” over what everyone was wearing. There were guidelines this year for what attendees could and could not wear. I mean, really! Here are some highlights:
Please be sure that buttocks and female breasts are adequately covered. Thong type costumes are problematic. [...] Please be sure the genital region is adequately covered so that there is no visible ‘puffy’ bare skin exposure.
Hee hee, puffy! That’s some creative phrasing.
So let’s get to some standouts, for better or for worse.
Singer Carly Rae Jepsen may have finally redeemed herself in my eyes after that diabolical BCBG nightmare of an outfit she wore at the 2012 Billboard Music Awards. (Rumor has it someone was fired over that outfit. I hope so.)
February 11, 2013 at 4:30 am by Catherine St. Ives
Nicole Kidman and Naomi Watts have been best friends for donkeys, so it seems only natural that Nicky would be thrilled for Naomi’s recent Oscar nomination for her work in The Impossible, the film about the 2004 tsunami in Thailand that’s based on a true story. (Side note: it’s good – see it if you haven’t!) Unfortunately, Nicole – who has always seemed a bit too much like her character in The Golden Compass, to me – is not really into it because she’s used to being the one in the limelight. So instead of getting over herself like any normal, mature adult would do, she’s just refusing to take part in any Oscar promo involving Naomi.
Give it to us, New York Daily News:
Naomi Watts will appear in an upcoming CBS Oscar segment to help with her Oscar campaign for Best Actress in The Impossible — and her best frenemy, Nicole Kidman, is refusing to participate.
Producers wanted Kidman to speak in a quick “five-minute” segment set to air on the network before the Academy Awards on Feb. 24. It was in discussion to be filmed with 60 Minutes correspondent Lara Logan and focuses on Watts’ dramatic turn in The Impossible.
“She declined,” snipes our insider. “Clearly she’s not inclined to help her friend because she’s jealous she’s not in this year’s Oscar’s spotlight.”
While an insider close to Kidman insists that the reason she couldn’t plug her pal on 60 Minutes had nothing to do with a case of sour grapes, producers aren’t buying it. “She couldn’t do it because of her schedule,” says the source. “It was a last-minute thing. Nicole and Naomi are best friends.”
But the source also took a swipe at Watts, saying that without Kidman, the segment is no longer important: “Not sure of the length or importance of it now without Nicole agreeing to it.”
Our original insider with knowledge of the segment isn’t backing down, however. “It was a ‘no’ right off the bat [for Nicole.] She could have made time if it was a priority,” says the source.
This bitch! Like, sorry The Paperboy was an absolute disaster and you haven’t been in a financially viable film since Australia – which was 2008, might I add – but you need to give your homegirl some support. Nothing reeks worse than a jealous shrew.
February 7, 2013 at 3:30 pm by Jennifer
The dress is fabulous, her figure is cute, if a little on the frail side, and her hair … um, color is really, really pretty.
The rest of the things that make this picture a picture? Like her Botoxy face and unfortunate hairline (what is that, anyway? Is that years of clip-in extensions and weaves gone bad? Is Nicole Kidman going to be the next Naomi Campbell, without the phone-throwing and Jazzy-riding?)
That dress, though. That is one heck of a dress, if I do say so myself.
Nicole Kidman’s whole getup—everything included—love it or leave it?
January 13, 2013 at 5:00 am by Sarah
I thought our life together was perfect. It took me a very long time to heal. It was a shock to my system. We were in a bubble, just the two of us. We became very dependent on one another. I was reeling with Tom. I would have gone to the ends of the earth for him…. I was totally smitten – I fell madly, passionately in love. I was so impulsive and naive.
—Nicole Kidman on what it was like when Tom Cruise decided that their eleven year marriage was over, which actually surprises me, because it makes me think something along the lines that Tom Cruise wasn’t always the crazy, controlling freak that he is today. No, it makes me think that he must have been relatively normal at some point for someone to care about him enough to be all sad and stuff during and after a divorce, instead of running and skipping with joy, celebrating a new life free of tyranny and oppression. And isn’t it nice to know that Tom Cruise wasn’t always this nuts? Nice for, you know, him?
November 13, 2012 at 4:30 pm by Sarah
“… I got married really fast and really young. But I don’t regret that because it got me (my children) Bella and Connor and I did have a fantastic marriage for a long period. Then when it didn’t work out I had to really dig deep and find my way through depression. I have no regrets about all of it. It was all part of growing up.”
So I suppose it’s not quite accurate to say that Tom Cruise literally depressed Nicole Kidman, because she kind of alludes to the fact that her depression was as a result of her split with Tom, who she wed when she was a young twenty-three, and with whom she spent eleven years. But I have no doubts that Scientology and craziness definitely attributed to her depression, because seriously. When you’re married to the Savior of Scientology and he, duh, loves Scientology, how does one—even one as lovely as Nicole Kidman, pre-Botox face—compare with that? How does one compare with the cryogenically-frozen L. Ron Hubbard DNA that was apparently just too high class for the likes of Nicole?
God. I’d be depressed, too.