This one-star review at Amazon kinda makes me want to read the Kidman book:
"This is humiliating and offensive: Thomson, who was (at least for me) until the publication of this book a respected critic and film historian, has plummeted upon churning this facile and rotten excuse for an act of mental onanism.
Supposition and desire take the place of objectivity and fact.
This is not a biography about one of the leading film figures of our time: this is a reeking bouquet of rotting roses.
Don't waste your money. Don't offend the artist by putting cash in the hand of this repellent, sick, delusional (and yes, lecherous -- the "Belle de Jour" flight of fancy is particularly disgusting) man."
David Thomson: "Liar . . . Liar"?
31 posts
• Page 2 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
by Jeff Wilson » Mon Sep 18, 2006 2:02 pm
-
Jeff Wilson - Site Admin
- Posts: 900
- Joined: Wed May 30, 2001 7:21 pm
- Location: Detroit
by Glenn Anders » Mon Sep 18, 2006 3:48 pm
Thank you, Jeff. I would not be quite so harsh, but if what is said be true, especially by Miss Kidman's press representatives, it would appear that what, to my sensibilities, was once a minor virtue in David Thomson's work has become a career ending vice.
I can report to you, however, that he is giving interviews freely on local radio, here in San Francisco, and he is showing up proudly for book signings. He is scheduled for a reading at the distinguished Booksmith venue in the Upper Haight, at 7 p.m., Tuesday, September 26, 2006.
Perhaps, Todd Baesen will ambush him there, take him across the street to the Zam-Zam or The Gold Cane, get him drunk, and we'll find out the real truth.
Glenn
I can report to you, however, that he is giving interviews freely on local radio, here in San Francisco, and he is showing up proudly for book signings. He is scheduled for a reading at the distinguished Booksmith venue in the Upper Haight, at 7 p.m., Tuesday, September 26, 2006.
Perhaps, Todd Baesen will ambush him there, take him across the street to the Zam-Zam or The Gold Cane, get him drunk, and we'll find out the real truth.
Glenn
-
Glenn Anders - Wellesnet Legend
- Posts: 1911
- Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2003 12:50 pm
- Location: San Francisco
by Jeff Wilson » Thu Sep 28, 2006 3:44 pm
No wonder Kidman was upset. I have bolded the most hilarious bit. If anything, maybe this will make people take his book on Welles less seriously. Here's the NY Times review:
Star Struck
NICOLE KIDMAN
By David Thomson.
Illustrated. 284 pp. Alfred A. Knopf. $24.95.
By LAWRENCE LEVI
Published: September 17, 2006
In his previous book, “The Whole Equation: A History of Hollywood,” David Thomson devoted an entire chapter to Nicole Kidman. “In searching commentary on films,” he wrote, “there needs to be some way of accommodating the fondness, the rapture, the attraction (there are other words) the writer feels for an actress.” Fondness? Attraction? What Thomson has is a full-blown obsession, and it has erupted into his latest book, “Nicole Kidman.” Ostensibly a critical biography, it comes off as a weird and unseemly mash note.
“I should own up straightaway that, yes, I like Nicole Kidman very much,” he says at the start. “I suspect she is as fragrant as spring, as ripe as summer, as sad as autumn and as coldly possessed as winter.” He loves her “hide-and-seek eyes,” her “pampered, cherished face” and “that elegant Australian body,” which “has sometimes shone like a lighthouse in sex scenes.” He says, “That’s why I’m writing this book, I think, to honor desire.” But don’t get the wrong idea; he respects her, too. She’s “the bravest, the most adventurous and the most varied” actress of her time.
When he’s not gushing, Thomson strives to show how Kidman used her talent and carefully modulated sexuality to climb to stardom, and how she has grappled with fame. But much of what he says is speculative, digressive or maddeningly obvious. “Just as I take the breakup with Cruise as the liberating and altering experience in Kidman’s life,” he writes, “so we have to see that Tom was changed, too.” Thomson is preoccupied with Kidman’s losing her looks and her status as she approaches 40, and assumes she’s worried, too: “I dare say she wakes up some nights screaming because she felt it was about to happen. (Not that I can be there to witness it — or stop imagining it.)”
His obsession clouds his thinking. He seems offended, even hurt, that Kidman would stoop so low as to do a commercial for Chanel No. 5 or go seminude in an Italian GQ spread when she was already an Oscar winner. He clucks disapprovingly about her choice of lovers; they don’t “seem especially substantial or rewarding,” possibly because “she meets only famous or half-famous people.” He imagines the non-obsessed will want to hear his bizarre fantasies about casting Kidman in remakes of Alfred Hitchcock’s “Rebecca” and François Truffaut’s “Mississippi Mermaid,” or his dream — recounted over three excruciating pages — about stumbling across his beloved in a Paris brothel. (She’s wearing “a very revealing white brassiere, a size or two too small,” as she cavorts with a Gestapo officer and an “elderly Chinaman.”)
Buried within these pages are a handful of keen observations worthy of a critic who has written perceptively about movies for decades. Thomson has clever insights into the virtues of “To Die For” and the flaws of “Eyes Wide Shut,” and argues that as an actress Kidman was transformed by her unrestrained role in “Moulin Rouge.” Discussing “The Hours,” he says of Kidman’s eyes, “That is where the performance lives, in a gaze that has abandoned every hint of the seductive, the sexy or the rather amusing delight in being Nicole.” That’s easily the book’s smartest line. But if you flip instead to the Kidman entry in Thomson’s supremely entertaining “New Biographical Dictionary of Film,” you’ll find a snappy summation of her career — just a few hundred words long, and devoid of references to her “very cute, knockout body” — that’s more rewarding than nearly anything in this inane book.
Lawrence Levi, co-author (with David Kamp) of “The Film Snob’s Dictionary,” is on the staff of the editorial page at The Times.
Star Struck
NICOLE KIDMAN
By David Thomson.
Illustrated. 284 pp. Alfred A. Knopf. $24.95.
By LAWRENCE LEVI
Published: September 17, 2006
In his previous book, “The Whole Equation: A History of Hollywood,” David Thomson devoted an entire chapter to Nicole Kidman. “In searching commentary on films,” he wrote, “there needs to be some way of accommodating the fondness, the rapture, the attraction (there are other words) the writer feels for an actress.” Fondness? Attraction? What Thomson has is a full-blown obsession, and it has erupted into his latest book, “Nicole Kidman.” Ostensibly a critical biography, it comes off as a weird and unseemly mash note.
“I should own up straightaway that, yes, I like Nicole Kidman very much,” he says at the start. “I suspect she is as fragrant as spring, as ripe as summer, as sad as autumn and as coldly possessed as winter.” He loves her “hide-and-seek eyes,” her “pampered, cherished face” and “that elegant Australian body,” which “has sometimes shone like a lighthouse in sex scenes.” He says, “That’s why I’m writing this book, I think, to honor desire.” But don’t get the wrong idea; he respects her, too. She’s “the bravest, the most adventurous and the most varied” actress of her time.
When he’s not gushing, Thomson strives to show how Kidman used her talent and carefully modulated sexuality to climb to stardom, and how she has grappled with fame. But much of what he says is speculative, digressive or maddeningly obvious. “Just as I take the breakup with Cruise as the liberating and altering experience in Kidman’s life,” he writes, “so we have to see that Tom was changed, too.” Thomson is preoccupied with Kidman’s losing her looks and her status as she approaches 40, and assumes she’s worried, too: “I dare say she wakes up some nights screaming because she felt it was about to happen. (Not that I can be there to witness it — or stop imagining it.)”
His obsession clouds his thinking. He seems offended, even hurt, that Kidman would stoop so low as to do a commercial for Chanel No. 5 or go seminude in an Italian GQ spread when she was already an Oscar winner. He clucks disapprovingly about her choice of lovers; they don’t “seem especially substantial or rewarding,” possibly because “she meets only famous or half-famous people.” He imagines the non-obsessed will want to hear his bizarre fantasies about casting Kidman in remakes of Alfred Hitchcock’s “Rebecca” and François Truffaut’s “Mississippi Mermaid,” or his dream — recounted over three excruciating pages — about stumbling across his beloved in a Paris brothel. (She’s wearing “a very revealing white brassiere, a size or two too small,” as she cavorts with a Gestapo officer and an “elderly Chinaman.”)
Buried within these pages are a handful of keen observations worthy of a critic who has written perceptively about movies for decades. Thomson has clever insights into the virtues of “To Die For” and the flaws of “Eyes Wide Shut,” and argues that as an actress Kidman was transformed by her unrestrained role in “Moulin Rouge.” Discussing “The Hours,” he says of Kidman’s eyes, “That is where the performance lives, in a gaze that has abandoned every hint of the seductive, the sexy or the rather amusing delight in being Nicole.” That’s easily the book’s smartest line. But if you flip instead to the Kidman entry in Thomson’s supremely entertaining “New Biographical Dictionary of Film,” you’ll find a snappy summation of her career — just a few hundred words long, and devoid of references to her “very cute, knockout body” — that’s more rewarding than nearly anything in this inane book.
Lawrence Levi, co-author (with David Kamp) of “The Film Snob’s Dictionary,” is on the staff of the editorial page at The Times.
-
Jeff Wilson - Site Admin
- Posts: 900
- Joined: Wed May 30, 2001 7:21 pm
- Location: Detroit
by Tony » Sat Sep 30, 2006 11:20 am
A well-witten, well desreved skewering of Thomson: it's business as usual for this intelligent writer who unfortunately believes anything he imagines about the psychology- even the id- of his subjects. There's no question that were Welles still alive when Rosebud came out, he would have publicly condemned it as the utter BS it is. It's strange that only after this heavily critisized Kidman book has been released are some people coming around to the "possibility" that the Welles book is of the same value- i.e. worthless.
I look forward to the additional possibility of a law-suit if Kidman sues Thomson.
:;):
I look forward to the additional possibility of a law-suit if Kidman sues Thomson.
:;):
- Tony
- Wellesnet Legend
- Posts: 1014
- Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2002 11:44 pm
by Glenn Anders » Mon Oct 02, 2006 3:31 am
Tony: I have terrible news to report.
Last Tuesday, Todd Baesen lured Larry French to the Booksmith, a distinguished "liberal" book store in the Upper Haight. There, they both confronted David Thomson with the charges I have reported at the beginning of this thread. I was right in there, kid, being your voice of reason (if not that of Cornstarch), demanding to know, what about my friends' doubts of his credability? Thomson, always the Kanesian Reporter, affably admitted that he had very limited but useful contact with the beautious blonde Nicole.
Then, after Thomson regretfully declined an invitation for a celebratory drink on setting the issue straight (he had to pick up his teenage son at a neighborhood PTA meeting), the rest of us found ourselves at the wild Moorish Zam-Zam with a group of French film buffs, playing the Max Steiner score for CASABLANCA on Big Bob Clark's excellent juke box.
I reluctantly left Larry and Todd in the company of "Julien" and his friends. Who can say what transpired? But when we met the author of Whatever Happened to Orson Welles? in Stonestown the next night, I learned that Larry was flying this weekend to Ronda, Spain, to engage in an arcane ritual at the well containing Welles' remains.
There are rumors that a blonde Nicole look-a-like is involved. These Thomson agents will stop at nothing!
I phoned Larry in desperation on Saturday, begging him to postpone his crazy trip. I promised him the outside possibility of meeting a "new Nicole Kidman" I've written about here recently, with the possibility of a movie based on Welles' later life, and a part for Larry as Richard Wilson. Alas, alas.
My phone messages were not returned.
And so, somewhere out over the Atlantic, as I write -- perhaps in the company of Todd Baesen and those Frenchmen -- Larry is flying into dangerous new adventures.
I trust that you know what you have done, Tony.
Larry has gamely just posted a promise to meet his obligations, as we would have expected, but reading between the lines about his "two week vacation," there is little to do now but pray for Larry's soul and the future of Wellesnet!
The last thing I heard one of the Frenchmen say was, "And when we get there, we'll have a lit-t-t-le tar-r-r-get practice . . . ."
Glenn
Last Tuesday, Todd Baesen lured Larry French to the Booksmith, a distinguished "liberal" book store in the Upper Haight. There, they both confronted David Thomson with the charges I have reported at the beginning of this thread. I was right in there, kid, being your voice of reason (if not that of Cornstarch), demanding to know, what about my friends' doubts of his credability? Thomson, always the Kanesian Reporter, affably admitted that he had very limited but useful contact with the beautious blonde Nicole.
Then, after Thomson regretfully declined an invitation for a celebratory drink on setting the issue straight (he had to pick up his teenage son at a neighborhood PTA meeting), the rest of us found ourselves at the wild Moorish Zam-Zam with a group of French film buffs, playing the Max Steiner score for CASABLANCA on Big Bob Clark's excellent juke box.
I reluctantly left Larry and Todd in the company of "Julien" and his friends. Who can say what transpired? But when we met the author of Whatever Happened to Orson Welles? in Stonestown the next night, I learned that Larry was flying this weekend to Ronda, Spain, to engage in an arcane ritual at the well containing Welles' remains.
There are rumors that a blonde Nicole look-a-like is involved. These Thomson agents will stop at nothing!
I phoned Larry in desperation on Saturday, begging him to postpone his crazy trip. I promised him the outside possibility of meeting a "new Nicole Kidman" I've written about here recently, with the possibility of a movie based on Welles' later life, and a part for Larry as Richard Wilson. Alas, alas.
My phone messages were not returned.
And so, somewhere out over the Atlantic, as I write -- perhaps in the company of Todd Baesen and those Frenchmen -- Larry is flying into dangerous new adventures.
I trust that you know what you have done, Tony.
Larry has gamely just posted a promise to meet his obligations, as we would have expected, but reading between the lines about his "two week vacation," there is little to do now but pray for Larry's soul and the future of Wellesnet!
The last thing I heard one of the Frenchmen say was, "And when we get there, we'll have a lit-t-t-le tar-r-r-get practice . . . ."
Glenn
-
Glenn Anders - Wellesnet Legend
- Posts: 1911
- Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2003 12:50 pm
- Location: San Francisco
by ToddBaesen » Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:37 am
Glenn:
Please don't worry. I talked to Mr. French and he got off safely to Spain I know as I drove him to the airport. He tells me while in Spain he will be talking with the great Spanish film authority on Orson Welles, Juan Cobos. Mr. Cobos was the author of two of the best Welles interviews we have in any language, one of which is reprinted in the Univ. of Mississippi press interview book, as well as several books on Welles, which regretably have never appeared in English edtions.
But you fail to mention that at our encounter with Mr. Thomson is Mr. French asked him directly about why he thought that THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND shouldn't be completed. This came after an initial challenge to Mr. Thomson's claim that Nicole Kidman commands the highest price in Hollywood for an actress. (French claimed that honor at the least was matched, if not surpassed by Julia Roberts). Thomson did not agree, but eventually said that both command 20 million a picture. Anyway, I am paraphrasing this from a possibly faulty
memory, but Mr. French tells me he taped the entire exchange which he will post when he returns from Spain, along with his interviews with Joesph McBride and Juan Cobos.
Please don't worry. I talked to Mr. French and he got off safely to Spain I know as I drove him to the airport. He tells me while in Spain he will be talking with the great Spanish film authority on Orson Welles, Juan Cobos. Mr. Cobos was the author of two of the best Welles interviews we have in any language, one of which is reprinted in the Univ. of Mississippi press interview book, as well as several books on Welles, which regretably have never appeared in English edtions.
But you fail to mention that at our encounter with Mr. Thomson is Mr. French asked him directly about why he thought that THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND shouldn't be completed. This came after an initial challenge to Mr. Thomson's claim that Nicole Kidman commands the highest price in Hollywood for an actress. (French claimed that honor at the least was matched, if not surpassed by Julia Roberts). Thomson did not agree, but eventually said that both command 20 million a picture. Anyway, I am paraphrasing this from a possibly faulty
memory, but Mr. French tells me he taped the entire exchange which he will post when he returns from Spain, along with his interviews with Joesph McBride and Juan Cobos.
Todd
-
ToddBaesen - Wellesnet Advanced
- Posts: 647
- Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2001 12:00 am
- Location: San Francisco
by Tony » Tue Oct 03, 2006 1:18 am
OK: so now I'm seriously jealous about all the hijlinks you Fransiscans are up to...
:p
Glenn: thanks for holding me responsible, but you are at least 50% to blame for all this chaos, as you are such an unabashed fan of Mr. Thomson, and do go on about him, ad infinitum...
:;):
:p
Glenn: thanks for holding me responsible, but you are at least 50% to blame for all this chaos, as you are such an unabashed fan of Mr. Thomson, and do go on about him, ad infinitum...
:;):
- Tony
- Wellesnet Legend
- Posts: 1014
- Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2002 11:44 pm
by Glenn Anders » Tue Oct 03, 2006 2:09 am
Thank goodness for your news, Todd! Perhaps, I was unduly concerned about the French film buffs. Some good may come of all this yet!
Tony: I am not un-a-bashedly a defender of David Thomson. I get bashed around here a lot.
And I should never want you to think I hold you entirely responsible for Larry French's safety, and "the chaos," as you put it.
Was it not I who called the attention of you and Todd to Mr. Thomson's super-heated references to ice-cool Miss Kidman?
Given my wonderful experience since Larry French left the U.S., I have begun to worry that the HORROR of it all has not affected my mind!
You will understand, no doubt.
Glenn
Tony: I am not un-a-bashedly a defender of David Thomson. I get bashed around here a lot.
And I should never want you to think I hold you entirely responsible for Larry French's safety, and "the chaos," as you put it.
Was it not I who called the attention of you and Todd to Mr. Thomson's super-heated references to ice-cool Miss Kidman?
Given my wonderful experience since Larry French left the U.S., I have begun to worry that the HORROR of it all has not affected my mind!
You will understand, no doubt.
Glenn
-
Glenn Anders - Wellesnet Legend
- Posts: 1911
- Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2003 12:50 pm
- Location: San Francisco
by RayKelly » Sun Oct 08, 2006 9:28 am
Jeff Wilson wrote:or his dream — recounted over three excruciating pages — about stumbling across his beloved in a Paris brothel. (She’s wearing “a very revealing white brassiere, a size or two too small,” as she cavorts with a Gestapo officer and an “elderly Chinaman.”)
Re: NY Times review of Thomson's NICOLE KIDMAN.
The New York Times is so out of touch with mainstream America.
Isn't watching a scantily clad Nicole Kidman in a brothel cavorting with a Gestapo officer and an elderly Chinaman the dream of every man? <g>
Seriously, how many undercooked Pu Pu Platters or greasy anchovie pizzas would I have to devour before bedtime to have dreams like that.
-
RayKelly - Site Admin
- Posts: 385
- Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 8:14 pm
- Location: Massachusetts
by RayKelly » Thu Nov 30, 2006 5:19 pm
Slightly off topic:
LOS ANGELES (AP) – Nicole Kidman is the queen of Hollywood when it comes to money. The Oscar winner, who earns as much as $17 million per movie, tops the fifth annual list of highest-paid actresses released Wednesday by The Hollywood Reporter.
Kidman, 39, ranked second on last year’s list behind four-time top-earner Julia Roberts, who didn’t make the list this year. She spent time with her 2-year-old twins.
In second place, with $15 million per movie, was Reese Witherspoon, 30, who won the best-actress Oscar this year for her performance in “Walk the Line.”
Renee Zellweger, Drew Barrymore and Cameron Diaz placed third, fourth and fifth, respectively. They also get $15 million for each film.
Rounding out the top 10 are Halle Berry ($14 million), Charlize Theron ($10 million), Angelina Jolie ($10 million), Kirsten Dunst ($8 million to $10 million) and Jennifer Aniston ($8 million).
The list will appear in the Women in Entertainment Power 100 issue to be published by The Hollywood Reporter on Dec. 5.
LOS ANGELES (AP) – Nicole Kidman is the queen of Hollywood when it comes to money. The Oscar winner, who earns as much as $17 million per movie, tops the fifth annual list of highest-paid actresses released Wednesday by The Hollywood Reporter.
Kidman, 39, ranked second on last year’s list behind four-time top-earner Julia Roberts, who didn’t make the list this year. She spent time with her 2-year-old twins.
In second place, with $15 million per movie, was Reese Witherspoon, 30, who won the best-actress Oscar this year for her performance in “Walk the Line.”
Renee Zellweger, Drew Barrymore and Cameron Diaz placed third, fourth and fifth, respectively. They also get $15 million for each film.
Rounding out the top 10 are Halle Berry ($14 million), Charlize Theron ($10 million), Angelina Jolie ($10 million), Kirsten Dunst ($8 million to $10 million) and Jennifer Aniston ($8 million).
The list will appear in the Women in Entertainment Power 100 issue to be published by The Hollywood Reporter on Dec. 5.
-
RayKelly - Site Admin
- Posts: 385
- Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 8:14 pm
- Location: Massachusetts
by Glenn Anders » Thu Nov 30, 2006 9:48 pm
Ray: Far from being off topic, you scored a direct hit. We shall have to call you "Colin P. Kelly, Jr." around here, from now on.
I read that item, too, but as the instigator of this thread, I did not want to embarrass Larry French on the matter further. But now that you have splayed it all out there on the Wellesnet stage, there is not much more damage to be done.
For some reason, the fateful night of Thomson's Haightful book-signing, before the Frenchmen sent Larry French on his "Mission to Ronda," Todd Baesen seized on Evil Dave's observation that Nicole Kidman was the highest paid female star in Hollywood, commanding, he said, up to $20,000,000 a picture. Baesen (who was seen smoking earlier with friends in an alley off Haight and Ashbury) cried: "But that's not true. That's absurd!"
Thomson looked a little startled at the three of us, who had just stumbled in from the Zam-Zam across the street, almost twenty minutes late (my fault and that of those mysterious Frenchmen), and said mildly that he had seen the statistics. [Turns out one of Thomson's main points in his fanciful critical biography is that Miss Simpson generously will work for relatively next to nothing, if she believes in a project.] But the issue was joined, I'm afraid.
Baesen almost jumped up and down, frightening a bucolic group of outlanders clutching their ice-blue first editions, "But what about Julia Roberts? Julia Roberts is the highest paid star in Hollywood!"
"Not any more. I'm afraid the figures will bear me out," persisted Thomson.
Then, Larry (perhaps under the influence of some sinister substance slipped into his Zam-Zam drink) loyally came to our Wellsian colleague's defense. "Julia Roberts is surely a bigger star than Nicole Kidman."
I kept whispering to Larry (to no avail): "Larry, Evil Dave has written two books on Hollywood finance. He's an expert."
"We shall have to see," Thomson sneered with the kind of twisted lip, side-eyed delivery Lionel Atwill might have admired.
And now Thomson has had his minions in Hollywood manipulate the accounting to make it appear that he was correct. Hmm, almost correct. Not quite twenty million a picture. Perhaps the extra several million had to be used to grease a few calculators. There is still hope for us, chaps. Where is Tony when we need him? Shall we regroup and force a taste of our steel on Thomson? Yes, I say!
Glenn
I read that item, too, but as the instigator of this thread, I did not want to embarrass Larry French on the matter further. But now that you have splayed it all out there on the Wellesnet stage, there is not much more damage to be done.
For some reason, the fateful night of Thomson's Haightful book-signing, before the Frenchmen sent Larry French on his "Mission to Ronda," Todd Baesen seized on Evil Dave's observation that Nicole Kidman was the highest paid female star in Hollywood, commanding, he said, up to $20,000,000 a picture. Baesen (who was seen smoking earlier with friends in an alley off Haight and Ashbury) cried: "But that's not true. That's absurd!"
Thomson looked a little startled at the three of us, who had just stumbled in from the Zam-Zam across the street, almost twenty minutes late (my fault and that of those mysterious Frenchmen), and said mildly that he had seen the statistics. [Turns out one of Thomson's main points in his fanciful critical biography is that Miss Simpson generously will work for relatively next to nothing, if she believes in a project.] But the issue was joined, I'm afraid.
Baesen almost jumped up and down, frightening a bucolic group of outlanders clutching their ice-blue first editions, "But what about Julia Roberts? Julia Roberts is the highest paid star in Hollywood!"
"Not any more. I'm afraid the figures will bear me out," persisted Thomson.
Then, Larry (perhaps under the influence of some sinister substance slipped into his Zam-Zam drink) loyally came to our Wellsian colleague's defense. "Julia Roberts is surely a bigger star than Nicole Kidman."
I kept whispering to Larry (to no avail): "Larry, Evil Dave has written two books on Hollywood finance. He's an expert."
"We shall have to see," Thomson sneered with the kind of twisted lip, side-eyed delivery Lionel Atwill might have admired.
And now Thomson has had his minions in Hollywood manipulate the accounting to make it appear that he was correct. Hmm, almost correct. Not quite twenty million a picture. Perhaps the extra several million had to be used to grease a few calculators. There is still hope for us, chaps. Where is Tony when we need him? Shall we regroup and force a taste of our steel on Thomson? Yes, I say!
Glenn
-
Glenn Anders - Wellesnet Legend
- Posts: 1911
- Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2003 12:50 pm
- Location: San Francisco
by ToddBaesen » Thu Nov 30, 2006 10:10 pm
Well, as some of our Presidents might say, it depends on what you mean by the word "sex" or in this case "highest paid."
According to the above report, Nicole Kidman only made $17 million, which is still below Julia Roberts, who makes $20 million. It's just that Julia didn't make a movie this year. But that still makes Julia Roberts the highest paid actress in Hollywood, when she does make a movie, and I don't think she will be retiring from the screen anytime soon, the way Greta Garbo did.
According to the above report, Nicole Kidman only made $17 million, which is still below Julia Roberts, who makes $20 million. It's just that Julia didn't make a movie this year. But that still makes Julia Roberts the highest paid actress in Hollywood, when she does make a movie, and I don't think she will be retiring from the screen anytime soon, the way Greta Garbo did.
Todd
-
ToddBaesen - Wellesnet Advanced
- Posts: 647
- Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2001 12:00 am
- Location: San Francisco
by Glenn Anders » Fri Dec 01, 2006 2:06 am
Baesen, you old hornswoggler!
What you say is like claiming Elizabeth Taylor might make 20 million, if she found the right script, and made a come-back. It could happen . . . .
But Julia Roberts is enjoying being a mom too much to test your theory.
Meanwhile, a certain dangerous man, known to Wellesnetters as "The Neopolitan of Grime," may well be giving capsules in lead-lined boxes to out of work Soviet secret agents, in order to punish us all for what you've said and written.
I suggest that you either phone the gentleman, and tell him you will meet him at 3 a.m., in the Tenderloin, or buy a one-way ticket to London.
Glenn
What you say is like claiming Elizabeth Taylor might make 20 million, if she found the right script, and made a come-back. It could happen . . . .
But Julia Roberts is enjoying being a mom too much to test your theory.
Meanwhile, a certain dangerous man, known to Wellesnetters as "The Neopolitan of Grime," may well be giving capsules in lead-lined boxes to out of work Soviet secret agents, in order to punish us all for what you've said and written.
I suggest that you either phone the gentleman, and tell him you will meet him at 3 a.m., in the Tenderloin, or buy a one-way ticket to London.
Glenn
-
Glenn Anders - Wellesnet Legend
- Posts: 1911
- Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2003 12:50 pm
- Location: San Francisco
by RayKelly » Fri Dec 01, 2006 1:57 pm
I didn't post it to embarass Larry French, rather I thought it supported what he said.
Julia Roberts was considered the highest paid actress at the time he made his comments and Nicole was No. 2. Julia commanded $20 million in 2005, according to the Hollywood Reporter.
Either way, nobody is worth that much money.
Julia Roberts was considered the highest paid actress at the time he made his comments and Nicole was No. 2. Julia commanded $20 million in 2005, according to the Hollywood Reporter.
Either way, nobody is worth that much money.
-
RayKelly - Site Admin
- Posts: 385
- Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 8:14 pm
- Location: Massachusetts
31 posts
• Page 2 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests