So Nicole Kidman might have already proven she can sing (a little), but is she really good enough to tackle the White Queen of Soul? Michael Cunningham, writer of The Hours and A Home at the End of the World, told NY Magazine that Kidman will star as singing legend Dusty Springfield in a music biopic that he is currently writing the screenplay for.

Springfield began her career at the tender age of 11, and by 1963 she had recorded her first major hit, I Only Want to Be With You. By 1967, the star had tired of show business and proceeded to record a string of flops from 1971 to 1986. Her comeback came in 1987 when The Pet Shop Boys asked her to sing on their hit What Have I Done to Deserve This? Springfield passed away from breast cancer in 1995 at the age of 60.

I will say it's about time that some more female vocalists got the biopic treatment (because Lady Sings the Blues and Coal Miner's Daughter are just not cutting it). Springfield had a tumultuous life full of addictions to drugs and alcohol, not to mention the pervasive stories of her struggles with her sexuality -- plenty of fodder for a juicy biopic. Considering working with Cunningham earned the actress her first Oscar, this project seems like a slam dunk for Kidman. Lord knows, she could use a hit.

They're still in talks, but everyone is reporting the deal as done, so I will too. Nicole Kidman and Judi Dench are joining Nine, Rob Marshall's film adaptation of the 1982 Broadway musical. The Hollywood Reporter says they'll be joining the already impressive cast of Javier Bardem, Penelope Cruz, Marion Cotillard and Sophia Loren.

Bardem will be playing the lead, a film director juggling the demands of several women in his life. The musical is an adaptation of Federico Fellini's autobiographical 8 1/2. Shooting was supposed to have begun in March, but due to the recent loss of Anthony Minghella, it has now been delayed to September. As Kidman is due to become a mother this summer, it would give her a nice maternity break.

Who among us hasn't wanted to get Nicole Kidman in a similar pose? But I digress. The February issue of Vanity Fair is boasting an exclusive photo and a jam-packed sidebar promoting the November release of Australia, but there's not a hell of a lot of new information here. Anyone who has been following the progress of the film since its filming began last year already knows the basics of the plot and characters, and that's mostly what gets re-hashed in the sidebar. Baz Luhrmann is quoted as saying that his ambition was to make a movie with "big emotions, big comedy, big stars, big stories and big landscapes." In a word, big. The sidebar then goes on to insult Kidman by declaring her character to be "a middle-aged (!) and childless British aristocrat." Come on now -- it may be true, but was that necessary?

This is one of the first Australia teases since a December 23 piece in the Herald Sun that detailed the conclusion of filming and talked up a sex scene between Kidman and co-star Hugh Jackman, for which Jackman helpfully reports that he "brushed his teeth five times" before commencing. Even though the big summer blockbusters are presumed to own the advertising airwaves over the next few months, Fox has so much money tied up in Australia that I would imagine you'll start seeing posters and teaser trailers -- and get more info on that rumored Elton John soundtrack -- over the next two months.

[via Australiamovie.net]

Quick: Name the last live-action film starring Nicole Kidman that absolutely rocked the box office? Okay, that's a tough one, I know, so how about the last live-action Nicole Kidman film that was any good? Hmm, that's also pretty tough. Fine, how about you just name the last live-action film that starred Nicole Kidman. That's pretty easy. The Golden Compass. It debuted last month. Yes, it's pretty clear that Kidman's appearance in a film is not all that it used to be, and fans aren't exactly flocking to the theater just because a film includes her name in the credits. Straight off filming the latest Baz Luhrmann epic, Australia, comes word from the sometimes-reliable Page Six that Kidman has dropped out of her next flick, The Reader, which was due to begin filming this month.

The reason? Well, they claim it's because the gal is pregnant, and she doesn't want to take on any work that could potentially harm her unborn child. Of course, Kidman, nor her reps, have confirmed that she is pregnant, and so I wouldn't go and take this news as official word. Page Six describes The Reader as being about "a man who carries a longtime sexual obsession for an older woman who's later prosecuted for war crimes after it emerges she was a member of the SS and a guard at Auschwitz." The film is based on Bernhard Schlink's book, and it co-stars Ralph Fiennes and Bruno Gatz. A rep for The Weinstein Co. said the "status on The Reader has not changed," so who knows what the real truth is.

As Page Six points out, perhaps now is a good time for Kidman to take a much-needed break. Her last three films, The Invasion ($15 million), Margot at the Wedding ($1.8 million) and The Golden Compass ($59 million) didn't exactly break any box office records, and so some time away to nurse that bun in the oven might be the appropriate move.

On the same day filming on Baz Luhrmann's Australia wrapped, the production released the first three official stills from the movie. Of course, clever photographers haven't been sitting around on their hands waiting for anything official -- they've been shooting candid photos all along, of everything from action shots of Nicole Kidman on horses and riding dinghies at sea to detailed photos of the set. But there's something to be said for photos that the director actually wants you to see. After looking at these three pictures, I can't say I'm discerning anything special though, except maybe for the one of Kidman seemingly about to twirl around while standing on a gazebo of some kind. It looks very 'Gone With the Wind' if you ask me. The other two are just a double headshot of the two leads and one gentleman who I'm going to guess is playing a native.

Meanwhile, perhaps sensing that The Golden Compass wasn't going to be all it was cracked up to be, Kidman was recently circumspect when talking to journalists about why she chooses her film roles. "I just choose off the cuff a lot of times, but primarily this was because Philip Pullman wrote me an amazing letter telling me that when he was writing the novels, he had me in mind," she said. "So that's hard to turn down. He's such a good novelist." Oh, so it's all his fault, huh? Let's hope she has a better answer for the studio bosses, next time they ask why they should continue forking over $15 mil per film.

A massive wrap party took place on Saturday night for Baz Luhrmann's romantic war epic Australia, which began its long filming schedule back in April and will finally wrap this coming Friday. The film tells the story of Lady Sarah Ashley's (Nicole Kidman) journey from England to the Australian outback to visit her husband's ranch, Faraway Downs. Once there, she meets a rough cattle driver played by Hugh Jackman and an ensuing love triangle situation ultimately culminates with the Japanese bombing of Darwin during the war. (I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that someone dies.) The film shoot is coming in around a month over schedule and also reportedly well over budget, The Herald Sun reports. There are also apparently still some interiors that will be shot during the coming year, but Jackman and Kidman both have new commitments that they must attend to first, he Wolverine and she that movie with Ralph Fiennes.

Also, several outlets are reporting that Luhrmann is courting Elton John to contribute to the movie's soundtrack. John is known to have visited the Australia set last week to watch some filming and while there, he was taken to a screening room to see an early assemblage of footage. When asked for comment, he reportedly declared that the film could be "like Titanic on dry land." John's visit to the set coincided with the filming of some kind of big ballroom sequence and Luhrmann arranged to have the band play one of John's old songs, as part of this musical seduction dance. Australia is currently scheduled to arrive in theaters in November, 2008.

At an admitted production cost of $250 million, which may not even include marketing, The Golden Compass needed a smashing domestic opening weekend just to allay fears that it would cause major long-term problems for a struggling New Line Cinema. Instead, it pulled in an alarmingly low $26 million this weekend at a whopping 3,500 theaters, much closer to Eragon's disasterous $23 million opening weekend last Christmas than the $65 million opening weekend for the first Chronicles of Narnia film or the routine $90 and $100 million openings for the Harry Potter films. (The lowest opening weekend for a Lord of the Rings film was $47 million.) With muted buzz at best, expect Golden's numbers to plummet next weekend, especially with a new crowd of pre-Christmas contenders packing in, and total domestic box office to top out at around $80 million. Ouch.

Over at Nikki Finke's blog, she's declaring Golden a "wildly expensive flop" and specifically citing a low per screen average, which is another indicator that this thing will have no legs and certainly won't do well enough to warrant those two sequels. In fact, coming on the heels of other huge disappointments for New Line like Shoot em Up (a $5 million opening weekend) and Rendition (a $4 million opening weekend) and Mr. Woodcock (an $8 million opening weekend), this will likely spell the end for New Line chairman Bob Shaye, who shareholders already want to dump because of his ridiculous feud with golden goose Peter Jackson.

If there's any saving grace for this boondoggle, it will be international box office, which is important for a film like The Golden Compass. Even though the film may need to pull in over $700 million internationally just to be in the black, the Guardian is reporting that first day grosses in British cinemas were very healthy. The film has already grossed $4.3 million in Britain, which is very substantial, and a good indicator of how it will fare across Europe.

Who ever would have thought one of the most controversial films of 2007 would be a family fantasy film? Let's set aside the politics and religion for the moment, though, and take a look at how director Chris Weitz (About a Boy) did at adapting the first book in Phillip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy. When I heard a year or so ago that a film adaptation of The Golden Compass was coming, my biggest concern was not the controversial aspects of the story, but the sheer breadth and depth of the information that would have to be compressed into two hours or so of film time. Much like the Harry Potter adaptations, an awful lot happens in the books, and you're not going to cover it all without crossing some chasms with big leaps and threading things together with substantial exposition. Nonetheless, Weitz does a fair job at piecing it all together -- at least, if you've read the books. If you're going into the film having never read the books, you might have to concentrate a little harder to follow along.

The orphaned Lyra (newcomer Dakota Blue Richards) lives at Jordan College, where she was placed by her Uncle, Lord Asriel (Daniel Craig). Lyra is a free spirit of a child, shunning more scholarly pursuits in favor of running wild with her best friend Roger (Ben Walker), the kitchen boy, waging games of pretend war against the gyptian children who come to town when their water-dwelling tribes' ships dock there for trade. All the children live in fear of the Gobblers, mysterious boogey-men said to steal children away -- poor children, mostly, servant kids, and the children of the gyptians (it seems that in Lyra's world, much as in our own, no one much cares if the poor kids on the fringe of society disappear).

Imagine a villain who's like a female Darth Vader, only more evil, and she'll invoke the worst nightmares for children since the Child Catcher from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. This is how Guardian critic Peter Bradshaw has described Nicole Kidman as Mrs. Coulter in his review of The Golden Compass (aka His Dark Materials: Northern Lights, as it's titled in the UK), which he's given a rating of four stars. As if that's not appealing enough, he also claims the character is Kidman's "juiciest" role since To Die For. According to Bradshaw, it seems Kidman is the main reason to see the movie. His only other highlight is the look of the movie's universe, which he calls "wonderful" and "Gilliamesque." He also points out how it's obvious the movie is aiming for association with Star Wars, The Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and The Chronicles of Narnia. Well, that isn't very surprising.

For a "four star" movie, The Golden Compass, according to Bradshaw, sounds like a mess plot-wise. Aside from looking nice, the movie's universe is apparently "crowded" and "alienating" and the audience is expected to get used to it as best it can, despite a lot of missing background material included in the book. Also, it's apparently more "absurd" than the source novel. Of course, confusing plots and universes aren't always a bad thing to audiences -- just look at the Pirates of the Caribbean series. What could be bad for the movie's box office is its violence; Bradshaw claims a significant polar bear battle could be too much for younger viewers. I have a good feeling that other critics will be less favorable considering the faults that this review seems to address, but of course even with terrible reviews, The Golden Compass could be a hit -- again, just look at the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise.

Noah Baumbach's Margot at the Wedding did smashing business at two theaters in Manhattan, earning a per-screen average of $39,800, according to estimates compiled by Leonard Klady at Movie City News. Was it the sparkling dialog, the witty performances, the star wattage of Nicole Kidman, Jennifer Jason Leigh and Jack Black? The critics were mixed: our own Ryan Stewart opined that the film was "torpedoed by its own self-indulgence." A. O. Scott of the New York Times was kinder ("frequently brilliant, finally baffling") and Lou Lumenick of the New York Post was not ("I've had root canals that were more enjoyable"). Check Metacritic for more critical coverage.

Opening in a single Manhattan theater, What Would Jesus Buy? performed quite nicely according to Box Office Mojo, making $11,600. Personally, I thought Rob VanAlkemade's documentary was timely and entertaining, although quite scatter-shot in its approach.

Opening in a single Los Angeles theater, Smiley Face earned an estimated $5,700 over the weekend, according to Mr. Klady. Distributor First Look has been criticized for changing their plans from a wider release last April; filmmaker Sujewa Ekanayake comments: "It is sad to see a film that screened at 4 incredibly well known festivals [Sundance, SXSW, Cannes, Toronto] being released in only 1 theater." Amen! Both Jette Kernion and Monika Bartyzel reacted positively to Gregg Araki's stoner comedy starring Anna Faris; the movie hits DVD in January.

Redacted ($1,760 per screen; 13 theaters) and Southland Tales ($1,780 per screen; 63 theaters) appeared to fall victim to bad buzz. Everyone kept saying that no one would want to go see Brian DePalma's Iraq War project and it became a self-fulfilling prophecy. Critical response was lukewarm overall, though a number championed it, according to Rotten Tomatoes. (Ryan Stewart felt it "doesn't ever truly gel.") The same site estimated that only 34% of the Southland Tales reviews were positive; its champions are fewer but no less appreciative -- but not Nick Schager, who called it "monumentally vapid."

The Coen Brothers' No Country for Old Men expanded into 148 theaters and soared into the overall Top 10, scoring a scorching per-theater average of $20,540.

Everyone up to speed on The Golden Compass rhubarb? Claims are that the new film adaptation tends to soft-shoe some of the pretty clearly anti-fundamentalist religion elements in Philip Pullman's source novel. Here's Ryan Stewart's Cinematical item on Nicole Kidman going public with the "watering down" last August. Now, on MTV's movie blog, director Chris Weitz reaches for a time-tested defense: "Philip Pullman likes to quote James M. Cain on this issue. Once, when somebody asked him if he was worried what a movie adaptation would do to his book, he said, `What do you mean? The book is right over there, on the shelf.'"

Now, let me digress for a second. The only time I ever met Allen Ginsberg (wonderfully played by David Cross in I'm Not There, BTW), I wasted my thirty seconds in his presence listening to the same comment regarding Cronenberg's Naked Lunch. When a sage like Ginsberg says this bit about the unruined book you listen. But here's other claimants: In the blog Sergio Leone and the Infield Fly Rule, a correspondent is complaining about V for Vendetta, a film disowned by the source writer Alan Moore: "I keep meeting people who love this movie and my only solace in my bitterness after seeing what they did to Moore's brilliant work is a quote from the author himself:

"Interviewer: 'How do you feel about Hollywood ruining your work?'
Moore: 'What are you talking about, they didn't ruin my work, it is right up there on the shelf.'"

Here, a person worried about the then-upcoming film of Lord of the Rings cites Stephen King as the one who knows where his unruined books are, right on the shelf; here, it is Larry Niven calming the fears of those who feel his book Ringworld will be ruined as a film. Just for good measure, from the Portland, Oregon blog "Book Pusher," is a list of five good books that are waiting to be ruined, and the best way to ruin them. Can you wait for the The Farrelly Brother's wild comedy Me Talk Pretty Some Day with Adrien Brody as David Sedaris (does the hero have to be gay)?
My point is: let's don't hear this time-worn excuse anymore. Here's one from Evelyn Waugh instead: "Each book purchased for motion pictures has some individual quality, good or bad, that has made it remarkable. It is the work of a great array of highly paid and incompatible writers to distinguish this quality, separate it, and obliterate it."

Once again, Film Threat has released its annual list of the Coldest People in Hollywood -- the ones whose careers are in the most trouble according to them. Strangely, the actress I would have thought was the natural contender for #1, Nicole Kidman, only makes #6. Of course, if The Golden Compass is a huge hit, it'll reverse a string of box-office misfortunes. Film Threat's advise is for Kidman to seek a job on George Miller's projected Mad Max 4. Hilary Swank, star of a robust contender for worst of '07, is advised to choose her work with more care ("She may have grown up eating sawdust in Gooberville, Washington, or wherever, but it's no longer necessary to accept every script that comes her way"). And there's no arguments here with choices Eli Roth (#8), scandal plagued actress Vanessa Hudgens (above), and Jennifer Lopez ("there doesn't seem to be any measure that can stop her from making more bad movies."). Certainly, Natalie Portman (#41) deserves a remembrance for her dual role in Goya's Ghosts, not even mentioned in the citation.

Naturally, this list offers more bones to pick than a washtub-sized bucket of KFC. Jessicas Alba and Biel share #12 (hey, Jessica Biel can act, you ruffians!); Eddie Murphy (#16) who is still quite A-list, is derided for Norbit, a popular hit that had a few defenders. Quentin Tarantino (#22) is hardly out of the game, despite the mixed feelings people had about Death Proof, and Ray Liotta (#29) has a wicked cameo in a Top Five movie right now. Lindsay Lohan charts at #51 on a list of 50. Guys, where was Eddie Izzard on this list: Across the Universe and Romance and Cigarettes within months of each other! Film Threat's number 1 pick isn't even an actor, though I doubt if anyone feels like returning his phone calls right now. In the meantime, bad-film fans can wait breathlessly for the Golden Raspberry awards coming up later this year.

Back in January, we were invited to visit the set of The Golden Compass, which was wrapping up its final week of shooting at that time. Since then, a number of photos have hit the net, in addition to two trailers, a few posters and a whole lot of buzz. Based on Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials, The Golden Compass (originally titled Northern Lights when it was released in Britain) is the first of three books New Line hopes to adapt for the big screen. Unlike New Line's Lord of the Rings franchise, all three His Dark Materials films (The Golden Compass, The Subtle Knife, The Amber Spyglass) are not being shot at the same time. While plans to make The Subtle Knife are currently in the works, it's believed the studio will wait to see how well The Golden Compass does in theaters before moving on to its sequel.

Earlier this month, director Chris Weitz dropped somewhat of a bomb on fans (in a letter to the His Dark Materials fansite), letting them know that he, along with Scholastic, New Line and Philip Pullman, have decided to cut out the last three chapters of Book I from the film, and will instead use the material for The Subtle Knife (even though footage from those last three chapters does appear in the trailer for Compass). For those of you that have read The Golden Compass, you'll know that the book ends on a pretty big cliffhanger (with both a major death and a betrayal). The consensus from fans is that this was a good choice, and will make for a better overall cinematic experience. Additionally, it also means there's a very good chance The Subtle Knife will be made into a film as well ... and what a beginning it will have! The Golden Compass opens nationwide on December 7th; below you'll find a gallery of pics from our set visit and make sure to read on after the jump to find out how this monstrous production was pieced together.

So I just returned home from checking out the New York Film Festival's closing night film, Persepolis, which is an amazing little animated flick about a girl coming of age during the Islamic revolution. Sony Pictures Classics is releasing it in December, it might get nominated for a Best Foreign Language Oscar (it's currently France's selection, so we'll see), and, heck, it might even win. An Oscar! For a film starring an animated girl from Iran! Go figure. The theater was pretty crowded, because from what I gathered people were still interested in films featuring women in the lead roles. I know I am. By now you probably see where I'm going with this -- in case you haven't heard yet, Warner Bros. chief Jeff Robinov is still simmering in some hot water over comments he allegedly made; how, ya know, he doesn't want to make any more female-driven films because ... The Invasion and The Brave One didn't do so well? Yeah, I don't get it much either.

Nikki Finke, the blogger over at Deadline Hollywood who broke the story, continues to go on and on about the fiasco, while, I imagine, folks over at Warners are scrambling to correct this PR nightmare. Finke reminds me of that girl from Can't Hardly Wait who runs around throughout the entire film trying to get people to sign her yearbook. Whatever happened to that girl after everyone completely dissed her? Where did she go after high school? What is she doing now? Let me take a wild guess ... Anyway, I'm still having trouble wrapping my head around this whole thing. If it's true, and Robinov did say those things, then why is he blaming the actresses? I asked a friend of mine, who saw both The Invasion and The Brave One, if he didn't like the films because of Kidman and Foster. His answer: "I didn't like them because they sucked. Kidman and Foster had nothing to do with that." And why did he go to see them in the first place? "I like Kidman and Foster." Heh. (I wonder if they changed the name to Legally Blonde: Invasion of the Purse Snatchers, if, then, people would've showed up to see it?)

I tried reading Finke's reports, but I just got a headache. They're filled with lines like, "And then a Warner Bros. rep told me ..." and "Three studio insiders claimed to have ..." and "When I got off the phone with the agent whose rep used to be a studio exec ..." Who gives a sh*t? Should we care about this story at all? Seriously. Warner Bros. could make 70 films in a row about homosexual kangaroos from Egypt, and it still wouldn't change the fact that my electric bill is too high. Should we boycott Warners? No. Why? There are very few guarantees in life: 1. A lot of folks making the decisions in Hollywood are morons. 2. 300 is and will always be a pile of crap. 3. Female-driven films simply don't do well at the box office unless they star Reese Witherspoon doing her best Valley-girl accent, and 4. There will always be something better worth seeing on any given weekend, be it on DVD or in the theater. Like Persepolis. So let Warners make their testosterone-laced, male-driven films, and the rest of us can go about our lives knowing there will always be a choice when it comes to what we watch, when we watch it and who we watch it with. Isn't that what's most important here?