Nicole Kidman will be Dusty Springfield!!!

Message

DJAMIX · #1 Post by **DJAMIX** » Wed 30 Apr 2008, 4:50 pm

Michael Cunningham is writting a script to tell the biography of Dusty on the movies, produced by Fox2000, according to New York Magazine web site!

And the main role might be played by Nicole Kidman!!!

GalataPSB · #2 Post by **GalataPSB** » Wed 30 Apr 2008, 5:18 pm

http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/20 ... ty_sp.html

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=44529

Pani · #3 Post by **Pani** » Wed 30 Apr 2008, 9:04 pm

Hehe, so the duet will have to be done again by Tennant/Kidman then .
Just a thought

Hmmm · #4 Post by **Hmmm** » Wed 30 Apr 2008, 10:44 pm

Pani wrote:Hehe, so the duet will have to be done again by Tennant/Kidman then .
Just a thought

Could be she can sing and she is Australian

.

Deschanel · #5 Post by **Deschanel** » Thu 01 May 2008, 3:27 am

Dear god, no. Dusty deserves a good biopic, but not sure Nicole Kidman is at all up for it.

She managed to botch a recent bio-pic of an authentically fascinating photographer, Diane Arbus, in "Fur".

Sorry, but you can put Nicole in the same pile as Angelina and Brad Pitt and George Clooney- allegedly they're massive movie stars, but it's financial bomb after bomb after bomb. Their movies never make money. Their status as "movie stars" is purely from the magazines that put them on the cover.

What gigantic hit movie did Brad, or Angelina, or George Clooney , Nicole, ever appear in? None.
They're handsome individuals that the gosssip mags are obsessed with, but can't sell a movie ticket to anyone. This is quite a far cry from what a "movie star" once meant.

West 4th · #6 Post by **West 4th** » Tue 06 May 2008, 2:57 am

Actually just because she hasn't picked any good moves lately to be in doesn't mean she's not good. She was very good in The Hours and just look at her in To Die For.

She just hasn't picked any really great films lately.

glennjridge · #7 Post by **glennjridge** » Tue 06 May 2008, 3:47 am

I think facial wise Ellen Barkin would be a close match. but I can never tell. I remember thinking before I saw it that val kilmer could never look like jim morrison, but I thought he did a good job.

one thing I cant figure out is how weird Nicole Kidman looks when she's not in a movie.

when she is out and about she looks actually kinda sinister looking in a sort of old fashioned amish woman kind of way. her hair is usually pulled so tight and back she looks like an old maid.

yet then I see her in films like to die for and her hair is down in bangs and she looks hot as hell and soft.

go figure.

Radiophonic · #8 Post by **Radiophonic** » Tue 06 May 2008, 7:54 am

Cameron Diaz is to play Petula Clark in the film. Cilla will be played by Angelina Jolie, Sarah Michelle Gellar will play Sandie and Lulu will be Halle Berry.

Great cast!

Patrick Bateman · #9 Post by **Patrick Bateman** » Tue 06 May 2008, 9:20 am

Yes, To Die For is her best performance but she's probably playing herself in that.

Loins Of London · #10 Post by **Loins Of London** » Tue 06 May 2008, 1:28 pm

Deschanel wrote: What gigantic hit movie did Brad, or Angelina, or George Clooney , Nicole, ever appear in? None.
They're handsome individuals that the gosssip mags are obsessed with, but can't sell a movie ticket to anyone. This is quite a far cry from what a "movie star" once meant.

Ocean's Eleven.
Se7en.
Moulin Rouge!
etc...

Also, Batman Forever made $52m on its opening weekend in the States, and Batman & Robin $42m.

You seem to be forgetting that even in the golden days of Hollywood even the sort of people you would class as genuine movie stars (Cary Grant, Bette Davis, Humphrey Bogart etc) had flop films in amongst the big hits and future classics.

glennjridge · #11 Post by **glennjridge** » Tue 06 May 2008, 9:47 pm

I love those ocean movies. the last one with al pacino sucked but the first 2 were pretty awesome.

Deschanel · #12 Post by **Deschanel** » Wed 07 May 2008, 12:02 am

West 4th wrote:Actually just because she hasn't picked any good moves lately to be in doesn't mean she's not good. She was very good in The Hours and just look at her in To Die For.

She just hasn't picked any really great films lately.

You're actually right West 4th, and i was a bit hard there on Nicole Kidman. And I do appreciate her icy beauty in Moulin Rouge. And not just her beauty, her active collaboration with the director to make some beautiful images and moments. Superb.

But it's the icy, remote, statuesque beauty of Kidman that does make me wonder if she can pull off portraying earthy, needy, warm, neurotic, wonderful Dusty.

There's a competing Dusty biopic out there in development, I forget who's attached.

Loins Of London · #13 Post by **Loins Of London** » Wed 07 May 2008, 1:06 am

Deschanel wrote: There's a competing Dusty biopic out there in development, I forget who's attached.

Never mind, as long as its a gigantic blockbuster. For that seems to be the main criterion in a film's (or indeed actor's) worth here....

glennjridge · #14 Post by **glennjridge** » Wed 07 May 2008, 3:33 am

yeah I also agree. one of my favorite actors Philip Seymour Hoffman has been in alot of good films,but they usually arent blockbusters. means nothing to me I happen to think he's a great talent.

so many of my favorite films really didnt really do all that much at the box office.
before the devil knows your dead,unfaithful,one hour photo,,american psycho,clerks. the box office is not really a dependable indicator.

Radiophonic · #15 Post by **Radiophonic** » Wed 07 May 2008, 2:59 pm

Deschanel wrote:There's a competing Dusty biopic out there in development, I forget who's attached.

Kristin Chenoweth.