PHOTO GALLERY: Stars get physical to get that Oscar
After losing two Oscar bids while appearing much like his real-life self in "Saturday Night Fever" and "Pulp Fiction," can John Travolta now prevail for dressing up as deluxe-size diva Edna Turnblad in "Hairspray"?
Well, frankly, sometimes Oscar voters are more impressed by drastic physical transformations than subtle deft performances — like lovely Charlize Theron getting uglified in "Monster" and Helen Mirren doing a royal job as stoic Queenie Lizzie 2. Hefty overhaul can help a star to nab just a nomination, too (macho Felicity Huffman in "Transamerica").
My Envelope colleague Elizabeth Snead has compiled a photo gallery you must check out — complete with examples of roles that may get academy attention this year, like Cate Blanchett looking too creepily like Bob Dylan in "I'm Not There." CLICK HERE!
Tom, I've never been more happy to agree with you. I'll take every oppurtunity to trash this homphobic, boring and suicide glorifying film for as long as I live.
Posted by: Marshall | October 29, 2007 at 04:33 PM
tom, we love ya, we really really do. and sure the crash hate sometimes gets to me but on nicole and the hours, its just a bad rand... "its my party and ill cry if i want. ill cry if i want to"...get over it. Nicole won. Nose or no nose.
Posted by: Usman Hamid | October 29, 2007 at 08:41 AM
Okay, about Kidman not going supporting...She is the movie. Its called The Hours the title that Woolf was going to give to Mrs. Dalloway before she changed the book title. All the 2 other characters revolve around V. Woolf and having her supporting would be wrong....
Posted by: Mike. B | October 28, 2007 at 02:06 PM
Since when did Newsday and New York Daily News hold respected opinions???
Check your facts.....the majority of the "respected" critics praised the film and the performances.
Posted by: Nancy | October 28, 2007 at 11:46 AM
Tom I'm not bashing you here, because I respect your experience and opinion, plus I really like your page. However, the frequent rants against 'The Hours' are quite tiresome. Additionally your reasonings aren't even compelling.
-Kidman wore a fake nose. Not a big deal. In cinema, we see physical tweaks so often that the nose simply isn't a big deal. Most importantly, she did indeed resemble Virginia Woolf. To me, this argument has about as much relevance as, say, slamming Charlize Theron or Chris Cooper for wearing false teeth in 'Monster' and 'Adaptation;' both roles of real-life characters, like Woolf in the Hours.
-Time didn't like the movie. Most other critics did. Your reference to one or two reviewers doesn't reflect the general critical consensus in any way whatsoever.
-The role of Virginia Woolf did indeed end up with the least screen time, but only 12 minutes less than Streep's segment. It would have been nonsensical for Kidman to go supporting based on screen time alone. The character's segment is the undercurrent of the whole film. Woolf's struggles as a wife, sister, and an author are the meaty themes for Moore's and Streep's segments.
Posted by: Jackson | October 27, 2007 at 09:03 PM
Oh and a qoute from Newsday, "Some fine acting, but ultimately a movie with no reason for being." It wasn't Kidman's performance they didn't like but the movie itself...
Posted by: Mike. B. | October 27, 2007 at 07:45 PM
The Hours-
Rottentomatoes- 80%
Metacritic-81 (Time gives it a 40 out of 100--)
ALSO ON 71 CRITICS TOP TEN LISTS, INCLUDING 9 #1'S...Just get over your hate of The Hours, Tom. It's getting OLD!
Posted by: Mike. B. | October 27, 2007 at 07:38 PM