Nicole kidman is the best for the role of Grace kelly
Nicole kidman and grace kelly look A like, i was hoping for nicole to be cast for the role and now she might be cast, so its a really great news
share[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > Grace of Monaco (2014) Discussion > Nicole kidman is the best for the role o...
I personally disagree. I don't think Kidman as half of the charm and class of Grace Kelly...
sharein terms of being classy nobody can beat Nicole Kidman
sharemy dear friend, I think you got mixed up. nobody can beat GRACE KELLY in terms of classy. But in terms of nowadays, then I guess you have some truth.
"I'm going crazy. I'm standing here solidly on my own two hands and going crazy."
I think they are both classy ladies. And that they would have liked each other. Grace had a tough time in Hollywood, she called it "A town without pity" and made damn sure her contract with MGM allowed her to live in New York most of the time.
I mention this because NK doesn't seem overly fond of Hollywood either - and while they are both shy, they also both love to laugh, and Grace was a wonderful friend to her intimate friends, to people she had just met... so i hope the "Who is classier" debate will end in a happy draw! :)
Nicole Kidman is a great choice. Looks beautiful and elegant in the stills from the set.
Grace Kelly was beautiful and full of class, but not the best actress. The years after her death have made her an icon, just like Monroe.
I like what you wrote. And I am fond of Nicole Kidman; especially since she got rid of Tom Cruise. I don't think she is not classy enough, and I am a huge Grace Kelly fan. I just think Nicole is huge in physical size compared with Grace, and although she is graceful (no pun intended...I can't think of a better word at 3am, lol), Nicole is so so tall and kind of gangly; whereas, Grace Kelly was delicate and almost petite but still curvy. A half a foot in height is not unnoticeable! And they look very little alike, and part of watching a biographical movie about someone who was physically recognizable is being drawn into the illusion that you are watching their life. Nicole Kidman is an amazing actress and seems to be a lovely person, and this movie could be as successful as "Walk the Line", which I did like, but I did not think I was watching a Johnny Cash life story. And not just because of the huge height difference, but also because there is no physical resemblance there at all either. It was just a good story and a great movie. But it could've been even better if Joaquin had even remotely resembled, sounded like, or moved like Johnny Cash. Anyhow, I love biographical flicks, so I am still looking forward to seeing this.
"If I told you that, I'd have to kill you."
"I'd like to see you try."
[quote]I just think Nicole is huge in physical size compared with Grace, and although she is graceful (no pun intended...I can't think of a better word at 3am, lol), Nicole is so so tall and kind of gangly; whereas, Grace Kelly was delicate and almost petite but still curvy. A half a foot in height is not unnoticeable!
Grace Kelly was a tall woman for her era: 5'6 1/2. She was a New York model before she went to Hollywood.
Nicole Kidman is 5'10.
I don't think this is such a huge difference. I mean, Yes, it's a difference, but both are/were essentially tall, slim women. share
Kidman is more like 6', although her height is listed as 5'11" NOT 5'10"!! Where did you come up with that magic number? That is a HUGE difference between Grace's height and Kidman's, lol. Keith Urban's height is listed as 5'10" and that might be who you were thinking of. A half a foot of difference- especially when her costar, Tim Roth, who is 5'7"- makes a massive visual difference. Then there's the whole age difference between Kidman and Kelly. But it's a non-issue since the glaring height difference removes any possibility of suspending disbelief. And Nicole's feet are enormous! I could see them flopping around and that is not graceful. I thought Meg Ryan had huge feet, and she walks like a clod, but omg, Nicole's are like skis, lol. Flats make them look even longer, but she's so tall, she has to wear them to not tower over other people, like costars and husbands.
I saw the movie. It was pretty boring, but I still enjoy historical stories brought to life, even if they're somewhat inaccurate. And it was very hard to feel I was watching Grace. I was watching Nicole Kidman play someone from the 60s, and she is a good actress, so I enjoyed it that way.
And, this is mostly unrelated, but does anyone know why her palms are beet red? Does she have a liver illness? I have red hair but I have dark skinned family so maybe that's why I've never had freckles or been sunburned, but she is translucent-looking with red, red palms. Why? I can't find the answer anywhere.
Kidman's sister has said "I'm 5ft 10 and a quarter, so is Nicole and so is Mum. When we're together we're all stooping, trying to be the smallest."
.
Oh good. I thought I was crazy being the only one to think that. To the person that said 5'6 1/2 and 5'10 is close, I'll agree that 3 1/2in doesn't seem too far apart, visually it is. Nicole's height is very noticeable, especially when she wears heels, and she's much leaner than Grace. Compared to Kidman, Kelly looks very petite. Plus no, they really look nothing alike. Grace had softer, feminine features while Nicole, although she is beautiful, has more sharp, angular features. When I saw Nicole in the trailer, all I could see is Nicole. Not for one second did I believe that it was Grace Kelly. That's the problem I have when people make these biopics with famous people. If the person is really well-known/famous, then my mind refuses to suspend it's disbelief, I just see Nicole Kidman. It's like the Diana biopic. I don't see Diana, I see Naomi Watts. Or the upcoming Saving Mr. Banks. I don't see Walt Disney and P.L. Travers, I see Tom Hanks and Emma Thompson. I would much rather see a movie with an unknown actress or actor that can act and looks like the person they're cast as rather than going to see a well-known actor/actress in a film and they're only there to get butts into theater seats and Oscar bait. Unless they plan to use a lot of makeup and prosthetics (which from the looks of the trailer, they didn't) to make Nicole look like Grace, I'm not convinced. Like Ditzy-Gypsy said, maybe it will have a good story and turn out to be a good movie, but I don't buy for a second that it's Grace Kelly, not Nicole Kidman picking a role for a potential Oscar nomination.
If it's been fifteen years or more, it's no longer a spoiler.
[deleted]
Agreed. Grace Kelly(then Princess Grace)was not a mouth breathing moron(which is Kidmans' stock and trade).
The New York Rangers suck. And Sidney Crosby is a cry baby!
I don't think Kidman as half of the charm and class of Grace Kelly...So true. Plus, she's one and a half decades too old for the role. January Jones would have been the better choice. But I guess producers just wanted a bigger name. Also, hoodlum on duty Tim Roth as the sovereign has no resemblance at all. Considering this miscast the film wasn't so bad after all. share
I think she can play Grace Kelly. My only concern is that it takes place in the early 60s when Kelly was in her early 30s. Kidman is 44. Maybe they just won't bring up Kelly's age in the movie.
Worst cast. Nicole probably great for the role 10 years ago, she just look scary and old now, the effect from botox and plastic surgery maybe.
Charlize Theron maybe a better choice, but she's following Nicole's way and she kinda look old for her age. I personally think Naomi Watts would be perfect for the role, she probably one year younger than Nicole but she's still amazing and beautiful, she's talented actress too!!
[deleted]
Yes and yes! I do hate Nicole with her botox but its undeniable she is still a brilliant actress.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
Nicole Kidman would have been good 12 years ago, the movie The Others had remnants of Grace Kelly through and through. Now? It's a tad too late especially since she's butchered her face with botox and looks so plastic.
Jessica Chastain would do a brilliant job and would land an Oscar nod for it.
Rosamund Pike would have been PERFECT for the role physically and personality wise.
share[deleted]
What about Kate Winslet? She would have made a great Grace: http://static-mb.minutebuzz.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Kate-Winslet-Grace-Kelly.jpg
sharetrue! good choice ;)
share