Monday, January 25, 2010

Is my frozen face losing me work?

A new article claims that Lady Kidman is not being offered roles anymore because of her frozen face. Well, d'uh! Just check out the above photos from her recent appearances at the Hope for Haiti, and SAG Awards. Nicole does indeed look frozen. Nicole should know by now that cinema-goers want to see emotion in an actor's face. We want to know that they take their craft seriously, not their plastic surgery.

We have to say though, that it is great to see Nicole returning to curls, rather than the dreadful straight hair extensions that she wears too often. The curls soften her face and make her look slightly less frozen. And let's face it, Nicole looks much better with the dark red hair, as shown above. Let's give some credit, where credit is due. Red has always suited her, as do curls.

Some people would say that it's not just the frozen face making her lose work. Some would say it is her bad acting too. You decide! If the bad acting is the case, we are stumped how she won an award for THE HOURS. Was that really a sympathy Oscar because Tom had dumped her? Everyone knew Julianne Moore deserved the golden man for THE HOURS.

25 comments:

Anonymous said...

Definitely - her frozen looks and acting are costing her dearly. She must think everyone is too dumb to notice. Doesn't she read the papers?

Anonymous said...

To be fair to this lady, her surgeries might be out of necessity, as shown by these pictures here, her face does appear to periodically fall off...and here they'd fallen off a bit. It's really about non-ending torture to have to pull a face, undergo knives just to maintain a face that falls off....

maclen said...

Well, kidman's frozen face is simply compounded by her very dull and bland personality. And she is of rather mediocre acting talents. All together it makes her failure all too difficult to ignore any longer! And therefore the failures of her films precedes her inability to get any more film roles...in movies the film makers would prefer didnt end up flops! Its elementary, my dear watson!

ZZZZZZZZZZZ said...

that is why most people start getting plastic surgery Anonymous 12.42 - because their face is starting to fall. Do you really think they go under the knife for the fun of it? Maybe Nicole also went under to improve her nose and gums, but she is essentially lacking in confidence and thinks she needs to look like she did back in 1991. She needs to focus on her kid now, not her face. What a famewhore she is.

ttttttttttttttttttttttttt said...

I have to say though, she really looked much better at the SAG awards -- she has these periodic moments when she does seem to look less frozen and more like the 'old' Nicole - I think another example is the Nine NYC premiere, even with the screwed up makeup there...

see this comparison:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1245660/Latest-fashion-oddity-Nicole-Kidman-Aztec-chic-dress-Screen-Actors-Guild-awards.html

Maybe all the criticism is finally reaching her about the botox, fillers and who knows what else...

Anonymous said...

Yeah, it's like where's Waldo, the same face, floating around in events, basically vacuous, never immersed or involved in circumstances. Don't think we want to see yet more of the same face in movies. Geez, it's about time the entertainment industry decided to limit that face exposure -- put a bag over it!

Anonymous said...

Forget the frozen pop. No pun intended. Amy Adams is the new Nicole. Red haired. Beautiful. Vivacious. Sparkling personality. Oh yes, Amy can act.

Anonymous said...

Something rarely noticed but can really see her above eye brows cranium heavy head in the link provided by ttttt 3:51 pm as compared to those of other actresses -- not that much taller than others as had been featured in pre-production Nine ads (like a good foot taller), but did take that height to carry the head. She looks odd here to me....

Laura said...

I guess that is why she's now producing her own projects and even so she recently said in an interview that she was having trouble attracting funding. Nicole's been overrated for years and now more and more people are coming to realise that she's an average acress at best. I think losing Cruise made her work a little harder at her acting. She seems to have made her best films in the post divorce period, probably because she was worried about no longer being on the A-list. I think that she's now fallen to being just a celebrity - you know one of those who attends awards ceremonies, does magazine shoots, and TV adverts. Her career is strikingly similar to Demi Moore's - another plastic surgery devotee.

Choice said...

Hi Laura
I agree with you, but what are your thoughts on her performance in THE HOURS where she got the academy award. I personally feel she had some good moments, but the last seven years have been nothing but bad movies and bad performances. She made the mistake too of over-exposing herself doing one movie after the other for awhile.

Anonymous said...

Not a forum for this, but, Anon 11:44PM, I don't think Amy Adams has a kind of body that qualifies her in the truly outstanding beautiful category. Sorry guys, but in her heyday -- long since over by decades -- NK was beautiful minus the tits....

Anonymous said...

Anon 1:29. I was speaking of Amy's face. Amy Adams has a womans body. Not a boys. At one time Nicole had an interesting face and hair. She looks very plastic now. I wonder what it's like to be with a woman who has fake lips, fake hair and fake botoxed porcelain skin that rubs off on you. It must be like working in a Barbie factory.

Anonymous said...

Referring to tttttt link, who in the heck strives to emulate what one looked like in 20's when you're in your 40's. This alone makes you seriously question her mental state...that's got to be Brit's dry humor or latent scathing sarcasm about her, specifically, her mental state, together with all her surgeries, tanked career, fake pregnancy, etc. etc. Imagine her in another 10years if she even makes it to the tabloids....

Anonymous said...

There are even wesites that question her age, possibly that she deducted years when she came to the states. Even with her surgeries, she does not look a contemporary of Aniston, P. Arquette, (younger than) C. Cox, etc. I'd guess conservatively, add 5, and more like 47 or older going on 50 if not over it...her desperation is abnormal.

Choice said...

Anon 3:11
Age 47? You're too kind. Some would say she looks like 50. Did you know Nicole has got the Joan Crawford syndrome?

mikki said...

Choice, she won the oscar on a film produced by Tom Cruise - immediately following the divorce. Don't you find that just a little curious? Everyone says he is the reason she made it in Hollywood. Connect the dots.....

Anonymous said...

Mikki, the film she won the Oscar is Hours, not Others, which I think was produced by cruise...as to cruise affiliation helped her career, some believe was the reason she got married in the first place; others think was sympathy vote (being dumped by him) helped her career; by now it's overwhelmingly clear, pure luck that got her there, WITH with a proven track record of many years as a bona fide "box office poison." Let this be a lesson for the Academy Award committee...she's probably their most embarrassing case.....

Deidre said...

Yes, Tom produced The Others - which was a great film because of the storyline, her performance was the same as it usually is i.e. "look at how worried I am looking". You know the face I mean.

Tom had nothing to do with The Hours for which she won the sympathy Oscar. At that time public felt sorry for her, the academy felt sorry for her, and her performance was OK. Julianne Moore, who was nominated the same night for the same film, missed out for one hell of a performance. Everyone was gob smacked that night! It's similar to when Gywenth Paltrow won for Shakespeare in Love, but everyone knew Cate Blanchette should have got it. There was alot of criticism that year. The film company behind Shakespeare in Love were a major studio with money coming out their ears and used their power on the Academy to get Gywenth the Oscar.

One thing - Oscars should not go to stars who have no formal theatrical training, or degree in dramatic arts etc. That would mean Nicole would miss out!

tttttttttt said...

Well.. I guess at the time of the Hours kidman did have a great track record & was on a high.

I don't think she was the best actress the year she won, but she was fantastic the previous year in Moulin Rouge so maybe that had something to do with it.

Kidman is very hard working & with the right director, before she messed up her face, I think she really could turn in good performances. I agree with the commenter above who said she was beautiful. I loved her looks when I was a kid, back in the 90's.

She also does have that old-fashioned movie star quality which can work for or against her -- I think the facial alterations and the fame-whoring fit in with that -- Joan Crawford is totally right!

Anonymous said...

She looks like a cougar next to her husband with or without her latest version of plastic face.... Her latest is better than those of the past, but a mutton is strictly that. You look young like an old worn lady trying to look young -- pathetic and freakish...and without quality work to offset your tarnished image, a SAD FREAK!

Anonymous said...

I reckon too she is suffering from the Joan Crawford thing. Getting old, box office poison, face changing, then will end up in C grade horror films. If she could just act, it would help her. Go do some acting courses Nicole. You may learn how do more than just whispery voices.

Anonymous said...

Just out of curiosity, Australia was a big budgeted film with behind the screen credit going to some of the industry's recognizable technicians. How did her performance make the cut? Now showing on cable, it still makes me cringe looking at for a few seconds by accident by not turning the channel fast enough. They had to have known her performance was going to stink big time.... me thinks at some point people in the industry hates your guts and gives up on you. Let you fall hard on your own...yes, J. Crawford notwithstanding, the list of fallen actors goes on, I guess....

Choice said...

ANON 12:14am
While Kidman stunk in the film Australia, the whole blame cannot go to her for the dud it was. The script stunk, Baz's vision stunk and even Hugh was annoying. The film had very little hope from the start. A missed opportunity. I hope they are not planning a sequel.

Anonymous said...

The thing with her acting ability is foremost she is unable to introduce, carry & sustain a character that we can take interest in(not just visually which gets really tiring and old fast, was bad before and especially worse now with her frozen face and aging) in her films. We never get to know the characters she play, which by themselves are weird with our limited interest, so makes her even more limited talent a strenuous stretch (hmmmm...maybe not, we'd come to realize that she's not all there off-screen either.) I guess this is bad acting all the way through, and never commercially successful. Unless something changes to her career package -- yawn -- yep, she's a goner, a forgotten one-time small wonder.

Anonymous said...

In addition to anon 12:28, she was asked how she plans to play her character in Compass. Her response was stroking and moving her hand across something (suppose to evoke evil hand movement) Everything is visual to her, she's unable to portray thought-provoking characterization of major leading roles assigned to her and required in her films...no wonder all the roles she played are forgettable. She's frighteningly limited, has no personality or mental acumen required to portray characters. Vacuous. Not an actress of any means whatsoever, her true calling was facial/cosmetic modeling in her youth and that should have been it.