Wednesday, November 19, 2008

We Support You, Nicole...

You think that we have flipped our lids by giving Kidman a message of support…you would be wrong. What we support is her retirement from films. No more having to dread a film preview because Kidman might be in it. No more stupid interviews with stupid statements and dumb headlines generated by those interviews. No more God awful premieres with Kidman and her pale lifeless body with thinning hair and turkey neck showing up and crowding out the more talented people in the cast. Finally, no more Oscar red carpets. We will be free from her screwing up a nomination presentation. No more ruining the magazines with her dumb choices for clothing. Yes, yes, yes! Nicole retire and the sooner the better! It does look like she may be in another flop. They have taken her almost completely out of the current crop of previews on television. She was on Oprah, but Hugh stole that from her and she is now an afterthought as we have the Aniston/Pitt tales. Yes, the epic may be a good time to quit.

With every clear sky there comes into it a little cloud. In this case, what the hell is that narcissistic bitch going to do if she isn't on a movie set or shilling another film? Stay in Tennessee and raise the little girl? Worse - go on the road with Keith? No, no and no on all counts. First, what the hell kind of parent is she that she leaves a four month old by herself in another country on another continent? And don't throw Angelina at us either, because we know if Angie is gone Bradley is there. Also, can you imagine Kidman on the road with her entourage? She hates his music and perhaps even Keith right now so what is she going to do? Be a road wife?

And, of course she wants more babies. Why? Hasn’t she already hurt three children by claiming motherhood on them? But it’s the in thing now to have more kids, so Kidman will. Or someone will.

And speaking of the baby daddy, we love the new video with Brad Paisley. They are having fun and he is enjoying himself. We can't say that about the pictures recently from both Nashville and Sydney. Keith looks dour, pensive and sad. Why did he go to Sydney? To see his family? He was only seen getting off the plane, on the red carpet at the premiere, and getting back on the plane. Why did he leave that little girl and fly with Kidman over there? Why is Kidman going on and on about how they work so hard on their marriage? Why is she talking about not being apart for a shorter period of time? Does this sound like a safe and secure wife? Or perhaps this is the painting by an artist who doesn't want people to look too close at the canvas? Are there cracks in the foundation that are leading Kidman to keep Keith on a very short leash?

68 comments:

notachance said...

So now you want her to continue working? I mean really, make up your frikkin' mind UM. You can't have it both ways. You have blamed her & her career for his failing, now she may have considered not working and just being his wife and a mother and you find that less appealing than the other?

I, for one, would welcome her to retire and allow Keith to be the one on top. Maybe it would be the best acting job she ever took on and one she could do forever.

maclen said...

Yeah, I had the same reaction to the 24 hr jump to Oz, simply for the premiere. Why did the orb have to go with kidman? Kidman claims to have been mortified at leaving her baby "alone" for the day...so why not at least let the orb stay with the baby? It seems pretty obvious...kidman is less and less comfortable leaving the orb alone...let alone, even to have him watch the baby...that is some trust!
So, on the movie front...again over at Hollywood Elsewhere, (my current source of movie info lately...he seems to be keeping up to date on developments)...he gushes over a viewing over Twilight, and seems to believe, as well as did nikki finke a few days ago on her blog...

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/twilight-fans-line-up-day-before-premiere/

'TWILIGHT' ZONE: Fans Camp Out Day Before Premiere; Is $60M Wkd Possible?

...that Twilight looks to be a breakout success. Welles at HE seems to believe that Twilight is..." Within the swoony romantic teen-girl ethos it's an absolute bulls-eye. I suspect it'll be the biggest power-hitting, repeat-viewing grand-slammer since Titanic."

http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2008/11/turnaround.php

...yeah, all just speculation right now, but my sense that this, along with Australia's soft awareness here, again if Twilight does hit big this weekend, and with Australia coming out just a few days later on Wednesday...all indications point to Australia falling short... once again, for kidman...

Choice said...

Urban Myths you are spot on again, as usual. I am really surprised that Keith didn't insist on staying back home to look after his daughter. Just goes to show that once again, Granny Freeze's PR machine is much more important. I would even consider that she is keeping him close at bay so he doesn't cuddle up to anyone or a drink in her absenc.

Trust me, Granny will never retire. She needs the attention. Her comments at retiring were simply designed to make the media focus on other things rather than the flop movie. Similar to her standing there holding her belly at the press conference: designed to shift the focus.

As one person commented on my Blog, if they had gone with my idea of the botox delivery van exploding leaving a 'wrinkled, pruned Lady Sarah Ashley' at the side of the road then AUSTRALIA would be a winnerinternationally. Baz failed to see the value in my script. CRIKEY!

Have a look at this view on her rumoured pregnancy:

http://celebrities.ninemsn.com.au/blog.aspx?blogentryid=252981&showcomments=true&rss=yes

realitycheck said...

Just like all the media outlets Umyths, you misinterpreted Nicole's comments. She never said she was definitely retiring from acting. Wishful thinking is just that...wishful thinking.

As for Nicole retiring so Keith can be on top? That's really irrelevant. Keith could be the darling of Nashville and take over where Kenny is now. It still won't overshadow Nicole, her career, and her celebrity status. The top of the heap in Nashville is not the top of the heap in Hollywood.

Here's the reality of the situation. If you TRULY want to not hear, read, or see anything about her stop coming here. Don't comment on other sites that discuss her. And stop following Keith. She's is wife and the mother of his child. She's not going away.

realitycheck said...

I forgot to add, UMyths you complain that Keith went to Sydney? I bet you wouldn't complain if he was leaving to tour. You couldn't care less about Sunday as long as Keith is away from her and Nicole both. It's obvious the skeptics are unbelievably selfish. You want Keith on your terms, on your timetable, and his wife and baby be damned. Guess what...You people have no say. Nicole and Keith decide what they will do with their lives, their careers, and their baby. The sooner you learn that (and I doubt you ever will) the better off you'll be.

Jane said...

It’s a 20+ hour flight each way with high cabin pressure. One way is fine for an infant under 6 mths of age. But a return to normal altitude and then back on a jet for another 20+ hour flight is insane and completely illogical.

Nicole will be giving interviews and attending a premier. There would be no time for the baby.

No one with knowledge of international air travel, temperature and/or time zone changes would put a baby through such an ordeal only to leave the baby with a sitter at a hotel for one day.

BTW, It’s freezing in Nashville now and the middle of Summer in Sydney.

Ever fly to another climate and back without catching the worst flu ever? I haven’t.

Any good parent would leave the baby safely home in it's crib and not disrupt the feeding and sleep schedule.

Tara said...

Any good parent... well we know where Kidman fit into that. So why did Keith go? Why not stay with the baby? He will be attending the US premieres so why go all the way with her to there. He didn't even hang out with her.
So its okay to leave a five month old all alone with a nanny and they flew together- what if the plane crashed? Cruise and Kidman often would fly apart after they had children.
Skeptics hate the baby- thats low even for you RC. Who can hate a baby? But you are getting obvious in your disgusts towards Keith
Nicole married beneath herself didn't she? Well is it self retirement when you take yourself out of action and is it forced retirement when no one will hire you because you are box office poison?

TexasCourtJester said...

My best guess is Keith went to see his family. Nic said they were spending Thanksgiving in New York though Keith didn't seem to know anything about it. Keith used to fly his family to the states but hasn't since joining up with Nic (that we know of). Having been out of Australia for awhile either in the states working or in London with Nic preparing for Nine this might be his last chance to go home and see his family for awhile between her movie PR, premiers, and return to London to film Nine and him working on a new album, hopefully filming a video, and hopefully putting together a new tour for next year.

banbotox said...

They should have taken the baby and then let kidman fly back to the states on her own. Keith and the baby could have stayed in Oz to visit HIS family for a few days and then joined kidman back here. I'm sure that Marienne & Bob would have enjoyed seeing their grandaughter as well as kidman's parents.

Imahick said...

Are you serious? This is ABOUT NICOLE KIDMAN. Not about Sunday or Keith or Keith's family or even Kidman's family. This is HER event and nothing is going to stand in her way. Do you honestly think she'd let Keith stay behind and take care of this baby, when she needed a man on her arm once or twice? She's too self absorbed and self centered to allow that.

I don't think Keith has that type of control over his own life, either. If he wanted to stay with the baby, and NK wanted him to go, there is no doubt what is going to happen.

Choice said...

You can see just by Nic and Keith's body language when they are together that she rules the roost. "Australia's Princess" can't attend events without a Prince on her arm. While I agree with the post that it's not advisable to take a baby on a plane for such a trip, it would have been nice for at least Keith to stay home. Perhaps he couldnt be trusted to look after her properly. Some men haven't a clue in that department.

As for Nic retiring, it looks like there will be another reason shortly as a certain Poll closes. We may very well have a new Princess over here in Oz:

http://nicole-kidman-journey.blogspot.com/

not anon said...

They had plenty of time between the CMA's and the premiere to have flow over with the baby and visited family before traveling back for the events scheduled in the US. So either they didn't want to go to OZ for an extended stay or Keith's work kept them in the States.
Why would he go and not stay with the baby - free PR.

not anon said...

Anyone know what's up with Anna? Hope all is well with her and her family.

rememberwhen said...

You all are assuming that there is a baby to be taken care of. I have only seen pictures of a baby with its eyes closed. I want to see a live breathing baby with her eyes open with both Keith and Nicole. Until then I don't think there is a real baby. Go check out the fake babies. They are true to life and it is rally freaky!!!!!

Choice said...

That is a fair call REMEMBERWHEN. That could definitely be the reason why she won't show it to the world sitting on her knee smiling or burping. I always felt there was something completely fishy about this whole baby thing. This story just doesn't go away though, does it.

Berry Hill said...

Review from the UK Times:
(anticipating some declaring the writer an official skeptic)

-----------------------------------
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/melanie_reid/article5191828.ece



The Times
November 20, 2008
by:Melanie Reid


Nicole Kidman drifts about like a lost porcelain doll

There is a fatal error in the casting of Australia's epic of self-promotion


Oh dear, oh dear. The Australians are investing a huge amount of expectation, and many millions of promotional dollars, in an epic movie intended to reinvigorate tourism and a sense of national pride.

You know the kind of thing. Great raw, soaring landscapes, wild brumbies, rough blokes, mystical Aborigines, a gorgeous sheila, fair bit of Foster's. Sort of Crocodile Dundee with gravitas, or Picnic at Hanging Rock with sex - and therefore, in most people's eyes, a potential hit.

Australia the movie, however, has one huge problem. It stars Nicole Kidman. Big mistake. Big, big mistake. At a stroke, the world's female cinemagoers will say as one: “I'm not going to see it if she's in it.”

Kidman is one of those women who turns other women off. And no, not just because she's pretty and we're jealous. It is because we perceive, and men don't, that she's one of the most overrated actors in the world, a woman who has been the kiss of death in practically every movie she has starred in.

Kidman is exquisitely accomplished at being awful. Did anyone see Cold Mountain? The sweeping American epic (note: another epic) foundered on the rocks of her gormless mirror-gaze. She can't act. Instead, she drifts around films like a lost porcelain doll, looking frozen, brittle and vapid, staring at the camera with her oh-golly-look-how-I'm-looking-interesting blue eyes.

And today's (predominantly male) directors haven't quite woken up to the fact that it just isn't enough for female actors just to wander around like supermodels: they need another skill too. Like emotion.

Kidman was said to be superb in To Die For. She was merely cold and brittle in a part that demanded it. That doesn't make her a comic genius. She managed to make Eyes Wide Shut - that “odyssey of sexual and moral discovery” with Tom Cruise - without creating a single intellectual or sexual spark.

Swiftly, she specialised in not-very-good thrillers about obsessives and haunted women. She gave good red carpet. Kidman became a cipher for men's desires; she simpered, gasped and screamed just as any helpless Hitchcockian blonde victim should.

But Kidman is guilty of something else. Not only did she get away with it, but she has spawned a genre of similarly flawless female actors who pout and scream very beautifully, but cannot act to save their lives: Gwyneth Paltrow, Keira Knightley - with faces like atrophied dolls, capable of adjusting their emotions only on direction; the biggest screen turn-offs in decades.

Australia the country deserves redder blood than this.

----------------------------------

Melanie Reid reports and commentates for The Times from Scotland. Before joining the paper, she was an award-winning columnist and senior assistant editor at The Herald in Glasgow

maclen said...

Yeah, just read this review today, berryhill... and certainly it's a "skeptic" view very much on par for Urban myths... and I tend to describe this sort of critique to be "reality based. And again, not an "aussie reviewer", so there isnt an attempt to somehow find something...anything to praise the film..nothing in the way of... not a classic, BUT its passable...way too long, BUT endurable... too cliche ridden, BUT tolerable...

kristatla said...

Saw an interview from the red carpet, all of Kieth's extended family was waiting inside with front row seats, of course he attened the premiere!

There was also a party with tons of extended family and friends from both sides.

You people are so filled with hate. Never let fact get in the way with your ugly fantasies.

As for Anna, it's karma that she can't post this week.

Choice said...

That review from the "Scottish Times" is so mean, that even I felt sorry Nicole. Only for a moment though. DId anyone else notice that Melanie Reid did not say one positive thing - not even one. Surely there must be one positive? Well there is! The film does end.

realitycheck said...

kristatla, thank you for that information. I haven't heard anything about that but that is to be expected. The media does not care to cover Keith's family and that's just as well since I think Keith's family doesn't care to be focused on to begin with.

This Scottish reviewer is not a skeptic. You can think Nicole Kidman is one of the world's most overrated and untalented actresses ever to be onscreen but that does not make you a skeptic. What makes a skeptic? That Nicole is a pedophile, caused Keith to go to rehab, she's sucking the life out of Keith s career and spirit, faked a pregnancy and birth, if she didn't fake it she drank alcohol and smoked during the pregnancy, is anorexic, contracted a marriage for fame, abandoned her first 2 children, hates her baby, is a pathological liar, ordered an attack on a paparazzi, that Nashville hates her etc etc etc. Anyone see what all these things and more have in common? None of them have been proven to be true. Just hateful comments made over and over and over, said so much many of you may actually believe them.

choice that review isn't mean. Its simply overkill. I can't even take it seriously. How about going beyond Kidman, criticizing with actual points, the other actresses mentioned in the article. Or giving descriptive and specific examples of what she thinks a good actor/good acting is. Obviously her writing is lacking when all she can give us is hatchet job on one woman. And although she's not really a skeptic, her sweeping generalizations of female moviegoers fits right in with the wishful thinking of this blog.

Choice said...

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Cate on her latest honor:

http://nicole-kidman-journey.blogspot.com/2008/11/cate-blanchett-voted-best-australian.html

Tara said...

Yeah Keith and Nicole got out of the car together. Yep they got on the carpet together then they moved in different directions and Keith met up with his Mum, Brother and a few other family members who he sat with.
As for the big wonderful party, Kidman blamed jet lag and an early flight to Nashville and didn't stay. Although Hugh stayed most of the night and still looked sharp flying in to LAX.

don't believe the lies said...

Hugh DID look good flying into LAX. Also wanted to add that he isn't a pre-madonna and took a regular flight. Didn't need that private jet that is bad for the environment that The Kidmans pretend to care so much about!

Loved, loved, loved the review from the UK Times. Saying she's "Box Office Poison" isn't an opinion it's a fact. This movie will not do good. She's got to much competition out there right now. This Twilight movie will probably be the big thing for the next few weeks ahead and then you add in the Christmas movies. She doesn't really stand a chance...well that and it just looks awful!

notachance said...

Sounds like Melanie Reed is one bitter person. If you're going to review a movie, then review the movie. She chose to give her personal feelings on Nicole Kidman and wrote basically nothing on the movie. I can't give that review any merit at all for that reason.

realitycheck said...

Tara, Keith went his separate way eventually because Nicole and Hugh did part of the red carpet together. Who was also not at Hugh's side at the time? His kids or his wife either.

don't believe the lies said...

Yes but he doesn't parade his family around for show. He doesn't use them when it's convenient for him and his PR.

realitycheck said...

Oh really. Hugh has told the story time and time again about his son being on set and loving the experience. And I saw multiple pictures of his kids on the beach and his son during filming. You don't hear or see Hugh saying to paps get away from my kids. He talks about his wife who is a star in Australia all the time.

So whats the difference? When Nicole does it its wrong.

don't believe the lies said...

I never saw picture of his kids on set. Yeah he goes to the beach with his kids I highly doubt he calls them (the paps) ahead of time to let them know when and where he'll be there. Unlike Nicole. I think it's great he talks so positive about his wife and that she has her own thing going on. He's not afraid to share the limelight with his signifigant other. Also unlike Nicole who has to be the main focus at all times.

realitycheck said...

dbtl, you really just don't get it do you?

And UMyths, posting a video about this "alleged" fake marriage from E! is hitting the jackpot! Its completely irrefutable proof that....oh wait it isn't even close.

Remember folks this is Ted C., the man that doesn't like Kidman to begin with. He supposedly has info about the pap beating that would implicate Kidman and yet he's not telling anyone, not even the authorities about the "crime" she committed. What a standup guy. And a faker. But I'm sure it makes you feel better Umyths to have a fellow manipulator of the facts release a video. It takes so little to please you.

cricket said...

Ted C doesn't like Kidman,Lainey doesn't like Kidman,Perez doesn't like Kidman,Melanie Reid doesn't like KIdman,Michael K doesn't like Kidman.RC doesn't it make you wonder just a little bit if maybe there isn't a reason that so many people dislike her. I don't think any of the above people were die hard Keith fans so you can't use the whole jealousy excuse for why she's not liked.

Lisa said...

Have you guys been watching General Hospital by any chance? Ya know Robin had her baby and just brought the baby home. Have you seen 'the baby'??? These babies are a step up from what actresses have had to do in the past. I urge you-PLEASE watch for that doll. It's so worth seeing.

Dont assume it's bad karma if someone hasnt posted in awhile. Your hypocrisy has lost you another facial feature. Your noses went first. Not many more left.

ecoaster70 said...

"Remember folks this is Ted C., the man that doesn't like Kidman to begin with."

Are you kidding? Ted C worshipped the ground she walked on. For him to make a complete turn around means something. Maybe he's just no longer fooled by her.

realitycheck said...

cricket, it's to their advantage not to like stars, or at least appear not to like them. It fuels the fire and keeps visitors coming back to their sites. Negative gossip is the most advantageous kind for these folks. Some of you seem to forget these people make a living off of rumor and innuendo. They aren't your best friend over for coffee and a good gossip session. They have an agenda and its well thought out. And they really don't give a damn what's true and what's not. Ever notice on these sites how more stars are hated on than liked? There's a reason for that!

abc said...

realitycheck, you have a really really annoying habit ... when anyone has an opinion of Nicole that is anything other than rose-tinted, you say they "hate on" Nicole. It is NOT about "hate", but about finally seeing through the smoke and mirrors that NK has had about her all this time. For instance, how many times will you have called people "haters" for saying NK reached her great heights in Hollywood because of her first marriage to the ICON [then] Tom Cruise? Finally she says so herself. People who are calling Nicole out for the outright lies - and misrepresentations - she spews are not "haters", but people who are finally tired of her manipulation of her audiences - US!! There is only one other person who I see gets so much negative press and that is Jennifer Aniston ... similarity??? reached great heights thru marriage to an icon. You need also to realise that the many many many people who just don't like Nicole [and probably those that DO 'hate' her] simply wouldn't waste a nanosecond on her ... i.e. going online to discuss her. However, there are many of us that are fascinated [myself from the sociological aspect] ... kindov like watching a train heading for a smash - can't not look! I have always said she is a good stills model - ['coathanger'] - [much like the Scottish critic has just said] ... tho that is debatable of late ... however, I am sick to death of her trying to pass herself off as a serious actor/thespian. I just hope she is not 'lying' now by saying she may be retiring! Please Nicole, go away .... I am so tired of you sticking your overworked self into everything and everywhere. I am tired of your Barbie image undoing all of the good that the serious feminists achieved. And I am tired of your few fans who call people who you don't fool; "haters". RC, I think you need to take a long hard objective look at yourself and your own attitude. People have a right to their opinions without being judged on a personal level. After all, the public persona get paid zillions for putting themselves up there to be adjudged. Clearly, they don't care about the public's opinion, given their manipulation.

abc said...

While I am at it, the comment of Nicole's that galls me the most is when she said "the woman is the heartbeat [of the family]". Simply self-centred and ego-centric. The way she is.

abc said...

well done Hugh for taking a regular flight to the USA. Obviously you and your family don't mind rubbing shoulders with normal human beings out there.

mefirst said...

realitycheck. Some people actually know it wasn't love at first sight. And all of Kidmans proclamations, saying so, won't change the truth. A lot of things said, since those two hooked up, are not the truth. Anything to make a "Love Story". Maybe realitycheck isn't the best name for you.

notachance said...

"While I am at it, the comment of Nicole's that galls me the most is when she said "the woman is the heartbeat [of the family]". Simply self-centred and ego-centric. The way she is."

Sorry abc - that statement is true. The woman is the center of the family. There are some instances of the man holding it together, but it's women who keep the family unit functioning as a rule.

Casse Role said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
realitycheck said...

The mothers and grandmothers keeping families together is a proven sociological phenomemon throughout all cultures and societies. Who bears the children to keep the family line going? Who maintains the home when the men go off to war? Who is often times the pillar of strength in a family crisis or illness. The woman. Its outrageous to me that skeptics will take something like this and turn it against Nicole to try and prove her alleged narcissism.


And to the poster that brought up Jen Aniston? Please. Her getting away from the Pittster can only be considered a good thing. She is a beautiful comedic actress and I look forward to seeing "Marley and Me". Pitt can have his Vampira bride and her films where all she does is glorify violence or scream like a mental patient.

oopsie said...

I agree mothers are most often the ones holding families together... but I think Nicole has alot of nerve putting that out there when she's abandoned her children with Tom. She's not a part of their lives, she's said that they don't even call here mom! She doesn't have a home for them to visit! The picture she "accidentally" *coughs* showed on the Oprah show was of HER and baby Rose....wouldn't a MOTHER have a picture of all 3 of her children together? By implying she's one of those "mothers" who hold a family together she's insulting all decent loving mothers who take care of their children, love them, and sacrifice for them.

don't believe the lies said...

First off Realitycheck thanks for letting me know that I just "don't get it." Can you explain the "it" your referring to? Is it the fact that I don't think Nicole walks on water as you seem to?

Just because you are "given" the title mother it doesn't make you one. It's no wonder "her kids" (and I use that term loosely) with Tom don't call her mom. Has she ever even been one to them? She's like a stranger. I agree with you OOPSIE. She's pathetic and an embarassment to all REAL mothers.

music said...

Ted didn't have to make anything up for his piece. It was Nicole herself who said it wasn't love at first sight. She obviously doesn't have a very good memory.

Last year in her Vanity Fair Oct 07 interview, on meeting Keith at the LA dinner: "It wasn't like the earth shook."

Keith said the same thing in his big People spread last year: not exactly love at first sight,... but a mystic familiarity... or some such BS

Now they want to revise the fairytale. Just because some aren't buying the new and improved version doesn't mean anyone "hates" them. Just that we have a better memory!

maclen said...

music said...
"Now they want to revise the fairytale. Just because some aren't buying the new and improved version doesn't mean anyone "hates" them. Just that we have a better memory!"

HA! My favorite quote in this discussion... boy if I had a dime for every time I pointed out how kidman or the orb described about their now... "mystical, profound, fairytale relationship"...that didnt match what they said about it only a few months ago in a different round of movie PR interviews... I could afford to buy my own private jet... (well... except kidman in fact just got hers from cruise in the divorce settlement)...or my being defined by Music's description...I'd be hitler!

maclen said...

So...Twilight premiered yesterday... the previous midnight showings grossed $7 mil... fridays gross was $35 mil for an estimate of about $70-75 mil for the weekend. And I just read, with twilights opening, that the past 3 opening weekends at the moives...each opening film grossed at least $60 mil...twilight this weekend...quantum last weekend...and madagascar 2 the week before that...and just to add insult to injury for Australia, according to box office mojo, it is only coming out on 2600 screens...while twilight just opened on 3419 screens...quantum on 3451 screens...and madagascar 2 on 4056 screens... Well, you get my point. But Fox, the baz et al only have themselves to blame for the, to put it mildly..."disappointment" that will befall their film...for it is one thing to attempt to be "bold"...to have confidence in your film...but it is quite another to place such unnessesary weight on your shoulders...to lay certain immovable objects in your path when it is not plainly logical to do so. Not only does this film have the added weight of having to be the "highest grossing movie" that will unseat titanic...or to be foolishly placed along side Gone with the Wind and Wizard of OZ as a "instant" classic... but also to be the so called "savior" of the struggling Oz movie industry, let alone, the savior of the financial downturn of the actual country. All these pre conditions were not placed on this film from arbitrary outside sources of unknown origin...but again by FOX.. the baz...kidman...jackman...etc. It's one thing to be bold...its quite another to proclaim you are going to make the biggest selling movie of all time and a "classic" with no equal and you're having kidman star in it!

maclen said...

...ps...

...just another point I forgot to mention... for the record... the intitial buzz and attention the movie naturally got from the aussie premiere seems to be dying down now. The bigger news buzz seems to be kidman denying again she's pregnant...(YAWN)... but with a midday week opening on Thanksgiving for the film... their doesnt seem to be a US premiere scheduled...so with the seeming lack of another shot of buzz building, the movie seems destined to get buried in the "event flick" twilight tsunami of overflowing publicity devastation...

Choice said...

This article, written way back in 2005, had sharks circling then around a certain person's career. That was the first time she hinted at retiring. Notice the retirement words always come out at the same time as a flop film?

http://www.smh.com.au/news/People/Readers-weigh-in-time-up-for-Nic/2005/04/08/1112815721565.html

maclen said...

That's an interesting article, choice. Now it's 3 years later and still...industry pundits are still wondering if she is finished. I got a kick out of this comment...

"In any case, I suggest we wait and see what Bewitched is like. Like Stepford, it's a sort-of remake of a classic from the 60s/70s, and it's a comedy (not her strong suit). If it tanks, I may -- may, mind you -- be willing to admit that a jump has occurred. Great column, very thoughtful stuff."

...sure, this person now believes kidman is now through..seeing as Bewitched bombed..yeah right and I got prime land for sale in the outback! Now this comment has it pretty much figured out...

"In a way I think Nicole Kidman jumped the shark when she won the Oscar: the other women in that film were equally dazzling, if not more so, and in retrospect the award seems a bit, er, hyperbolic. But she does keep making dreadful films, and her appearance itself is becomingworryingly bizarre."

..she is not a popular draw, and whether or not her fansies blame the director...the screenwriter...the studio for tweaking her films to oblivion...it's so obvious. But as I commented before, there are still industry insiders who will simply subsidized her career no matter what...like the murdoch owned Fox movie studio...and the question is this coming thanksgiving is will they learn their lesson?

music said...

Even though Murdoch's movie company produced the film, according to this article, his NYPost has been critical of it.
Rupert Murdoch press to Australia: Drop Dead
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/the_big_picture/2008/11/rupert-murdochs.html

One of their movie blogger's ran a review with this headline:)
Australia's Looking Dead as Road-Kill Wombat

Choice said...

I was reading an article on www.news.com.au and the amount of Aussies who are not fans of Granny Freeze just seems to be increasing. It will be interesting to see if many make the effort for general release this Tuesday night. Being a school night will be interesting!

All of this shark jumping talk made me wonder where Nic might have ended up if the cards were dealt differently. Working in a completely different field? Vote now:

http://nicole-kidman-journey.blogspot.com/2008/11/new-poll-where-would-nicole-be-today-if.html

Sonora_Melody said...

"maclen said ...
... over at Hollywood Elsewhere, (my current source of movie info lately...he seems to be keeping up to date on developments)..."

Really??

"I could afford to buy my own private jet... (well... except kidman in fact just got hers from cruise in the divorce settlement)..." Well, your Hollywood Elsewhere is obviously clueless. Kidman never got a private jet from TC. In fact, she does not even own one.

"their doesnt seem to be a US premiere scheduled"
Again, your "source" is clueless! There's a premiere in New York next week.

maclen said...

music said...
Even though Murdoch's movie company produced the film, according to this article, his NYPost has been critical of it."

Even government administrations have whistleblowers and malcontents...loosecanons, if you will, who do not always follow the company line. Take the maniacal fox news network...motley crew of rabid mad dogs who dont always choose to prey on the choosen target. But then I dont give an egomaniac such as murdoch any more competence or diligence to keep every tentacle of his repulsively tinkertoy empire of sleaze and bile of his own wretched largesse on message...all the time. I just expect him to offer kidman anything and everything no matter the result. Even a "producer" label despite the lack of anything ever "produced". For any film with the credit of kidman as producer... is a film that is never made.

Choice said...

The Sun Herald, one of Australia's popular Sunday newspapers gave Australia movie 5/10. Ouch! Unfortunately can't find the review online so will try to scan it here at some stage. In a nutshell it needed 30 minutes cut from it, too many slow motion shots, and reminded the viewer of the opening of the 2000 Olympics.

realitycheck said...

sonora, you are exactly right. Nicole Kidman, unlike what the skeptics want the public to believe, does not own a private jet. She like alot of other stars has a share in a company that owns private air transport for those who can afford it. The company had a catchy name, perhaps it was NetJets, but I remember it was brought up once over at NKU. Tom Cruise never gave her a plane. And, she did not get as much money her divorce settlement as the rumors made it out to be. This has been argued time and time again and of course its always the skeptics that say she's only in the money because of Tom. Those of us in the real world know that's not true.

Just for those that don't want to see it LOL I'm posting this anyway. Here's a list so far of the positive reviews from just the major publications.

HOLLYWOOD REPORTER
SCREEN DAILY
EMPIRE
VARIETY
LOS ANGELES TIMES
ROGER FRIEDMAN
NEW YORK OBSERVER
TOM O'NEIL
KATEY RICH

I thought I'd include a very insightful review from a professor of Indigenous Studies in Australia. (for those feigning outrage at the film's lack of Aboriginal focus!)

Faraway Downs fantasy resonates close to home
November 23, 2008

Baz Luhrmann's Australia offers a frank and fresh take on outback lore.

IN HIS fabulous hyperbolic film Australia, Baz Luhrmann has leaped over the ruins of the "history wars" and given Australians a new past - a myth of national origin that is disturbing, thrilling, heartbreaking, hilarious and touching. At its centre are two forbidden love stories: one a romance between the English Lady Sarah and the Drover; and the other, which carries the film and all its historical and social subtext, is the love of Lady Sarah for the mixed-race boy, Nullah.

The film sparkles and shines and, even at its most melodramatic, this eccentrically postmodern account of a recent frontier delivers a few gut punches. The predicament of Nullah's character is a credible rendition of the plight of thousands of Aboriginal children of mixed-race descent in the Northern Territory who were hounded and chased by police officers whose duty it was to remove them from their families and place them in the institutions for "half-caste" children.

The tale is layered by the surreal character King George, played by David Gulpilil. King George is Nullah's grandfather, and the uncle of Nullah's mother. He is a sorcerer from Arnhem Land who surveys Faraway Downs from his eyrie on the peak of the mountain range overlooking the homestead. Falsely accused of the murder of Lady Sarah's husband, he subverts the idea of the lurking savage made famous in much colonial literature and, as the hunted and despised ritual leader, represents the power and fragility of Aboriginal religion and culture.

The superb effect of the film, reading it through the lens of post-colonial literature, is its pride in the ingenuity, bawdiness and larrikinism of Australians of Aboriginal, British, Chinese and European descent living side by side in a complicated caste system during the period leading up to and amid World War II in the Top End of the Northern Territory and the east Kimberley where the fictional - and symbolic - Faraway Downs is located.

The plot hinges on the competition between King Carney, a cattle baron played by Bryan Brown, and Lady Sarah Ashley, who inherits Faraway Downs from her murdered husband, each determined to get their herds of cattle to Darwin to win the contract from Australian Defence Force officers who need beef to feed the army. King Carney orders his future son-in-law, Neil Fletcher, played by David Wenhem, to stop Lady Sarah from succeeding. She appeals to the Drover, a role brought to life by the superb horsemanship and physical presence of Hugh Jackman. He gathers together their unlikely team, Magarri (David Ngoombujarra), Bandy Legs (Lillian Crombie), Kipling Flynn (Jack Thompson), Sing Song (Wah Yuen) and Nullah (Brandon Walters) to drove the 2000 head of cattle to Darwin.

This long cattle drove across the plains and rivers provides the magical scenes for Neil Fletcher's treachery, the triumph of Aboriginal sorcery, and the build-up of the romantic tension between the Drover and Lady Sarah.

Luhrmann depicts with satirical sharpness the racial caste system of that time. The scene in the Darwin cinema is especially delightful for me. The Wizard of Oz has come to town, and Dorothy's escape from Kansas to the dream world is a metaphor for Luhrman's own artistic struggle with the prosaic facts of history. In his imagined cinema of the 1940s, the spatial and social shape of racism is reconstructed with such exact detail, I felt I had been transported back to my own childhood. His white townsfolk are in their designated whites-only seats in back rows under the roof and the Aboriginal and Chinese members of the audience are in the front rows under the open sky, and I found my eye drawn to the location of my own seat on a bench in the cinema of my childhood in western Queensland.

The bombing of Darwin is the setting for the crescendo of the plot in which good triumphs over evil. Whereas the Gallipoli legend captures the birth of a national myth born of the sacrifice of thousands of Australian lives in World War I in distant Turkey, the history of the Japanese bombing of Darwin in 1941, soon after the Pearl Harbour raid in Hawaii, took place on Australian soil. The threat of invasion was real. Darwin was the only theatre of war on Australian soil, a fact often overlooked.

Luhrmann brings these events to life with gusto and emotion, responding to the persistent concerns about the nation's past and how it should be represented.

The poetry that gave us the droll, lyrical and fatalistic Australia observed by Banjo Paterson and Henry Lawson celebrated the people on the land, the graziers, the drovers and the wanderers. Such writing memorialised the long drought and the post-Depression poverty of rural Australia. In the '40s and '50s our film industry - often in partnership with the UK Ealing Studios - also celebrated these Australian staples in a series of "frontier" films in which white settlement progressed as intended by God and state. Baz Luhrmann's hand in the screenplay is evident. He brings a fresh, bold approach to these familiar tales, and presents a radical departure from conventional outback lore. The film provides an alternative history from the one John Howard and his followers constructed. Luhrmann's fellow writers, Stuart Beattie, Ronald Harwood and Richard Flanagan, must have had fun developing the details of this epic set in the mesmerising northern landscapes, intertwining the system of racial segregation, World War II and the cattle barons with the story of a child eventually captured by police and placed in the "half-caste" institution at Garden Point on an island off Darwin.

This adventure into the soul of the nation succeeds with powerful cinematic craft, passion and humour.

Marcia Langton is professor of Australian Indigenous Studies at the University of Melbourne.

realitycheck said...

One more thing, to the poster that said there was no premiere for NY. There's premieres scheduled in London, NY, Germany, Spain, and Auckland. The film is also showing at two film festivals in Sweden and Italy.

maclen said...

...should note that harvey weinstein apparently is also willing to offer kidman anything and everything despite her results...recall that The Reader was kidman's...and we all now know what a "fraken" genius weinstein is! Just announced layoffs at weinstein co... going hat in hand looking for film funding for tarentino...and a hit movie in who knows how many years. The difference is that murdoch is far more fortunate to have billions at his disposal to continue to fund kidman's lackluster and failed career.

maclen said...

Choice said...
"The Sun Herald, one of Australia's popular Sunday newspapers gave Australia movie 5/10. Ouch!"

Well, again choice....uncontrollable tentacles... or simply not too inconceivable that this latest kidman over blown...over hyped....over produced...over indulgant... overly long...overly cliched...overly CGI'ed...derivative, conceited, and vain pile of outback dung is simply too much of a mess for murdoch to even bother to restrain his pack of lapdogs... he wouldnt be the only one....

realitycheck said...

maclen, are you trying to blame Kidman for the poor economy? Give me a freakin' break!

abc said...

Here [below] is a radio interview with Nicole [Nashville to Oz] where she says that she has only ever seen two of her films: Moulin Rouge and now Australia. she said she asked Keith if she "was any good in it" [Australia]. I find that absolutely amazing. Surely all artists look at their product to see where they might want to improve etc. Is that maybe why her performances never improve because she never gets to see how bad they are? Does she look at the rushes? She always says she cringes watching her own performances. When will she realise that we also cringe watching her performances. It is about time she takes a reality check and assesses the critics' view [generally speaking] that she simply IS over-rated and over-paid. Yes, there is always something about her films that we want to watch, however, her presence in them seems always to spoil the movie somewhat: for me anyway. I have mixed feelings about seeing Australia - I just wish it wasn't her in it!! And by the way, her comments about retiring followed a question: "what if Australia flops?" ... sadly, I don't think we are going to see her departure from the industry [and the general media] anytime soon. PS ... I am convinced that "Reality Check" is a plant. And to you, Reality Check, you sound mighty 'hateful' toward Angelina Jolie! Is that where you get the concept of "hating on" a celebrity from?

I also watched the section of Oprah where she shows the pic of her and Sunday sleeping ... she was most definitely egging Oprah on to get her to whip it out. She has been on Oprah before to know that she wouldn't 'see Oprah beforehand' - the show is just not structured that way. ... also she says: "on my i-phone, oh, on Keith's i-phone". I am just really tired of her acting so seemingly innoscent and childishly spontaneous when in reality she knows exactly what she is doing [and manipulating].
I just wish I could get over her bugging me!!

http://www.2dayfm.com.au/entertainment/gal...tralia_premiere

maclen said...

...boy, what a difference having popular and engaging and interesting actors in a movie makes as opposed...to not having popular, engaging and interesting actors in a movie...and especially when the movie may not be of the highest of filmmaking caliber...

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/toldja-summit-announces-twilight-sequel-stars-thank-fans/

"TOLDJA! Summit Announces 'Twilight' Sequel "New Moon': Studio May Make #2 And #3 Back-To-Back; Stars Thank Fans"

juxaposed to say...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081121/en_nm/us_twilight_books

"Twilight" publisher sees film boosting
book sales"

"A less encouraging parallel is "The Golden Compass," a big-budget Hollywood production starring Nicole Kidman that was based on Philip Pullman's fantasy trilogy of books. They were a huge phenomenon in Britain but the film did not translate into U.S. success for the books."

...or to movies...or sequels, it seems....

maclen said...

abc said...
"Here [below] is a radio interview with Nicole [Nashville to Oz] where she says that she has only ever seen two of her films: Moulin Rouge and now Australia."

HA! you mean to tell me that kidman hasnt tortured herself by forcing herself to sitting through the voluminous and hideously wretched films she has made! And the only movie she claims to have watched is the new baz film...AND that other baz film... you mean she didnt watch the aforementioned "fantasy epic", compass? That "masterpiece" known as Bewitched? The "sublime" artwork that was "Fur? Is anyone sure there werent any ostriches shipped in to be in this new film? Because she certainly has her head in the sand... or more likely, her head definately up her ass, if she expects anyone to buy that one.... "Oh yes, those two films were just simply "magical"....

Choice said...

Hi Maclen. Looks like Granny may be lying again. I find it very hard to believe that she has only seen two of her own movies. I mean, I can understand it and all. She has probably read all the bad reviews. BUT, isn't that what the premieres are all about? The 'star' sits in the theatre and sit through the pain like everyone else? Or does she slip out through the EXIT sign like everyone else does?

maclen said...

Choice said...
"Hi Maclen. Looks like Granny may be lying again. I find it very hard to believe that she has only seen two of her own movies."

Yes choice, again another asinine and clueless... and totally and just "stooopid" statement by kidman. Can you just imagine the listeners of that interview who happened to go and see any of her movies last year...invasion....margot or compass... and were not impressed...or thought it was just a waste of 10 bucks... and now hear her claim she's supposedly only watched moulin or australia...as if that is supposed to be some kind of "extra special" endorsement of her latest baz directed film... and expect them to be especially jazzed to go and watch this film? Kidman's constant habit of "moving the goalpost"...ie: most of my movies were lousy...but this new one is great...really"... is just an invitation to movie goers to conclude that cliched, but very sensible saying..."fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

Choice said...

Totally spot on Maclen. Did you know Nic phoned into a Sydney radion station after rumours of her new pregnancy came about, following the tummy shots. She said she always had a bit of a belly, and so does her mum and sister. I tell you, if I was her mum and sister I would just want her to shut up. Almost as bad as saying "I have bad pimples, just like my mum and dad". Once again she just doesn't know how to say anything correctly.

Choice said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
maclen said...

Well, choice, dont be surprised if she next blames her greying hair on her dear ol' mum as well... so just another point I want to make about Australia's upcoming release. I've been checking over at rotten tomatoes to check it;s reviews... and I guess for the kidman fansies, it might appear to be postitive news... as the film at the moment has a 75% rating...but...that's with only 16 reviews. Being that 16 is only about a third, or even a fourth of the amount of reviews films usually get at rotten tomatos, for a movie that is about to be released in just 4 days... that seems kinda paltry, what could be the reason? By comparison, ron howards Nixon movie, due to be released on dec 2, about two weeks away, almost has as many reviews as Australia, at 12 reviews... and has a higher percentage at 92%...so are the fansies going to settle and be satisfied for a rating in the 70's...yet lose out in the end because it is actually just another indication that interest in the film is so low?

Choice said...

Thanks Maclen for clarifying Rotten Tomatoes. It is a largely unknown website in Australia. After browsing it, I am impressed with it. As you pointed out, there are some very well regarded critics on there, and some Australian critics too, I see. One of which is David Stratton who c0o-hosts his own Movie Review show on TV as well. Anyway, I notice the tomato metre has gone up a smidgen. Hovering around 54% after falling to 50%. While I respect Reality Checks comments that this website doesn't indicate how a film will go in the end, I think it would be safe to say that many US cinema goers would look at this site and then decide whether to see a movie or not.

http://au.rottentomatoes.com/m/australia/

maclen said...

Choice! I almost missed this comment in this previous thread. Certainly opinions of a movie are very subjective...what you like in movies will of course be different from what I like, and vice versa. But really, a site that has over 100+ independent reviews of a movie, you're getting a pretty good indication of how the movie ended up... or how it is and will be percieved by the overall public.