Early "Destroyer" Reviews. Guess How Good Nicole Is!
Sunday, September 2, 2018 at 8:07AM by Nathaniel R
We knew ahead of time that Nicole Kidman would be great in Destroyer -- it's kind of her schtick to be brilliant, duh! So it's not a surprise to hear early reviews saying that she delivers and then some. But it IS a surprise and a nice change of pace, post Lion & Big Little Lies, that people are willing to praise her so extravagantly for her uncommon gifts rather than berate her for (take your pick) not being warm enough onscreen / having a frozen forehead / liking "weird" projects / whatever other dumb things people used to hold against her between the Oscar win and Lion (so roughly 2003-2015)... Seriously why must every great actress go through the public hate period?
Anyway. In "we all love Kidman again" mode (nice but obnoxious to those of us who never stopped and didn't fall for the misogyny hamster wheel of public opinion) these are the kind of reviews she's getting...
- The Wrap "Repulsively brilliant. Is this the best performance of Kidman’s career? It very well might be."
- Variety "This is a transformation on par with Charlize Theron in Monster — not just in appearance, but in terms of her entire persona."
- The Hollywood Reporter "a bold performance in a sometimes potent but troublesome film"
- IndieWire "Kidman’s versatility is often the center of any movie in which she stars, but she hasn’t burrowed this deep into her material since Birth"...
It should be noted that most of the reviews are entirely Kidman focused so people are not saying much about the film -- or in THR's case definitely don't like it very much. Or make it sound thoroughly unpleasant like Kidman's own You Were Never Really Here or something. I would say that that Christmas release is a mistake but then Monster, also totally unpleasant with a hard-to-look-at antiheroine at the center, did pretty well at the box office and at the Oscars with a similar release date. We shall see.
In related news: Early reviews for Boy Erased are also in (respectful, particularly for the actors, but not effusive raves) at Variety, Vanity Fair, and THR... but I regret to inform that apparently the movie is told in a non-linear style which nearly always strikes me as too affected and more trouble than its worth, dramatically. I wish that now fairly familiar storytelling affectation would be put out of its misery for good.
These Telluride debuts also gave her a chance to reunite with her friend and Australia (2008) co-star Hugh Jackman. Awww, they look so great together. Can they please co-star again?
Reader Comments (53)
I was super elated reading the reviews that got out so far. All praising Kidman and in a "give her the Oscar already" tone. Can't wait for the competition to begin.
Sadly for Nicole the movie just isn't good enough to get her a nod, and the makeup is *horrible*. But glad she's starting to get back into her groove in terms of pushing herself with film selection.
It would be a great surprise if she did steamroll after all Theron in Monster is one of THE BA winners ever..
I'm definitely trying my best to temper expectations, but the glowing reviews for both of her performances make me so happy. It's just nice to see her being appreciated again.
People thought it was Lady Gaga coming for Glenn Close's coronation, when all along it was Nicole Kidman.
Melissa McCarthy is getting great reviews - and her film is apparently very good as well. Nicole Holofcener co-wrote the screenplay and could be a nominee, which would be awesome.
It's great to see Kidman's raves, but this film sounds like a tough sit for Academy members compared to The Wife, A Star Is Born, Can You Ever Forgive Me?, The Favourite, and the other films in contention for Best Actress.
She deserved the hate for the distracting frozen forehead and caterpillar lips period. When it detracts from the work and makes you wish for other actresses in the role, despite her being suitable if she wasn't so heavy handed with the injections, then it is a reasonable complaint. Many of her characters at the time wouldn't have believable altered their faces so drastically. When the forehead wrinkles came back for Rabbit Hole (and there were countless articles noting just that) it was a return to sanity. She also found a good medium for the lips. So Kudos Kidman for choosing talent and the work over "the work".
Nat: Monster was biographical. This isn't. On that initial Destroyer article, I predicted the top 10 was: Close, Davis, Layne, Gaga, Fisher, Mulligan, Collette, Blunt, Kidman, Stone. That still sounds like a solid call.
1/7: Glenn Close
1/6: Nicole Kidman (double nominee this year)
1/4: Viola Davis
Who fills out the other two spots is almost irrelevant.
Nah /3rtful, I love great performances period. Doesn't need to be from a revered actress. Not even close to irrelevant, but nice try. :P
The Academy doesn't really go for repulsive.
Ask Streep about the “public hate period”.......
Bad News day for Glenn Close then.
I am not a Kidman fan at all. But I hope this
movie is ex cellent.
Are some of the posters on Awardswatch mentally ill or something?
Destroyer gets one or two so-so reactions on Letterboxd and suddenly Kidman is out of the race ( or fighting for 5th spot). Kidman's personal reviews are undeniable. To the point where she could easily do a near-sweep with critics awards (if they are feeling inclined in her direction). Destroyer may not be a dead cert best picture contender, but it's solid enough for Kidman to win Best Actress with (5 reviews on Rotten Tomatoes so far, 4 fresh with a B+ average).
The desperation to drum out threats to Glenn Close is palpable on that site. Kidman is a huge threat to win with her reviews, and her film is good enough. Especially with those Monster comparisons.
So many distinct faces out there, non conventional beauties or even normal looking actresses that could take a role like this without the makeup gimmicks being one of the main topics of discussion.
Don't get me wrong, I always appreciate Nicole Kidman taking risks (i think she has one the best CV in working with auteurs in Hollywood) but for me this "transformation praise" reads a bit weird, especially when it is not a biographical piece in which there is not a person whose looks should to be matched.
I know that she might be amazing in Destroyer, but the reviews discuss a lot Nicole Kidman acting personas and not much about what the movie wants to tell.
I get that but I'm so over it too because I want leading actress movies that are also powerhouse narratives, nominated for best pic/screenplay/editing/cinematography/direction, with lots of complexity and layers in its narrative, like really Best Picture material, not only like another "best actress movie"... i don't know, but it bothers me.
THE WIFE just made more than U$ 1 million on + 70 cinemas.
GLENN WILL NOT BE IGNORED NEXT FUCKING OSCAR!
To upend Glenn Close this year, if you've ALREADY won an Oscar, it'll take something super-duper-extraordinarily special. I highly doubt Kidman, Davis, or Stone will reach those heights, but it's possible. Gaga has too much baggage from an acting perspective. I do think Collette could surprise with some traction in critics circles.
Nicole Kidman is definitely bringing it over and over and over again. She should be called Queen Nicole.
gemini: So that's 80% on 5. Not super promising for the end sample, where the best case scenario is probably 60% or so. For a non-biography. With the character identified as "repulsive." Let's compare to other prospective Best Actress nominees. A Star is Born? 95% on 19. The Favourite? 100% on 16. She's more likely than Emma Thompson's 70% on 40, which sounds guaranteed to fall below 50%, but that's still not a strong endorsement of her chances.
gemini. And people still consider Kidmaniacs as crazy stans.
Anyway let's check points:
Kidman's personal reviews are undeniable. To the point where she could easily do a near-sweep with critics awards
Great if it wasn't Kidman is actually competing for the critics awards - Not only Close has RAVES, also Toni Collette (The best horror perf since "The Exorcist"), "The Favourite" girls and now Yalitza Aparicio who beats them having the most acclaimed film - ROMA and the underdog narrative in favour (Mixtec Mexican actress).
but it's solid enough for Kidman to win Best Actress with (5 reviews on Rotten Tomatoes so far, 4 fresh with a B+ average).
Not when the film is qualified as "pulpy thriller" with gritty lead character in an unlikable way.
And it's really likely the film will drop in rating after releasing at Toronto. Considering the reception after the second screen has cooled down. On top of that, there's a reality clear with Kidman and Oscars, they nominate her when she plays safe, not when she goes risky (The meltdowns for "The Paperboy" snub would have been enough for leaving the delusion.
Kidman's first win was a BUtterfield8/Accused. She needs a Virginia Woolf/Silence of the Lambs
Volvagia: What are you even talking about? How on earth can you predict the final tomatometer will be '60 % at best' based on 1 negative review and 4 positive? It's ludicrous or wishful thinking. It's a positive start....the real reviews leaned more positive than the armchair Letterboxd critics, which is always a danger at festivals. There's an equally strong chance appreciation for Destroyer grows over it's festival run, as it came out of Telluride in a decent position. Not unconditional raves, but it wasn't Roman J Israel either.
Secondly, Best Actress has never been about the level of the film's reception as much as out has been for Best Actor. You do not need to be in a Best Picture contender or a film with a 90% finished to win Best Actress. Heck, sometimes you can even be in a Rotten Tomatometer film and win Best Actress (as The Reader was at the time Kate Winslet won, and as Iron Lady we for Streep).
With Best Actress, most of the time, your film simply needs to be solid. Being in 100% fresh Best Picture contender sure doesn't hurt, but it simply not always essential in that category. If you have the type of raves Kidman does (not to mention her current level of respect, popularity and skill as a campaigner) the reception of Destroyer so far is more than good enough for her to win. Reviews are basically love letters to her performance, more than the film itself, which is not always a bad thing if you look at the performance it's being compared to....Monster.
The barking at Kidman's initial win still feels strange to me. Unless you really wanted one of her rival nominees to prevail there was nothing remotely un-Oscar worthy about her Virginia Woolf.
"With Best Actress, most of the time, your film simply needs to be solid. Being in 100% fresh Best Picture contender sure doesn't hurt, but it simply not always essential in that category. If you have the type of raves Kidman does (not to mention her current level of respect, popularity and skill as a campaigner) the reception of Destroyer so far is more than good enough for her to win. Reviews are basically love letters to her performance, more than the film itself, which is not always a bad thing if you look at the performance it's being compared to....Monster."
Monster was a game changer biopic for an starlet like Charlize Theron
True, Best Actress can win for subpar films, but most of them follow a certain pattern:
2013: Cate Blanchett
Blue Jasmine was 10th in BP and that was Woody Allen
2011: Meryl Streep
Biopic about one of the key figures of XX century.
2009: Sandra Bullock
Biopic. Weak year.
2008: Kate Winslet
Overdue factor for first Oscar. Holocaust element
2007: Marion Cotillard
Biopic of one of the most recognizable French figures worldwide
2003: Charlize Theron
Reasons made
In conclusion, we have proper biopics (Favourite genre by AMPAS), an Holocaust subject and overdue status for first Oscar. None of them came from second Oscar in a pulpy thriller.
The other day I rewatch the Eyes Wide Shut trailer. Oh oh how natural and so gifted she was in that movie!
After her insane line of GREAT roles, she kind went further outside the box and went for it. Artistically that is cool to me. But fixing and mixing her face with botox and stuff is against any artistic rule book according to me
that takes some time to heal both for her, the critics and the audience
It is good for her that the reviews are so strong. But winning, I dont think so. Glenn Close is the one I am rooting for this season. Also fingers crossed for Michelle Pfeiffer in Where is Kyra?
We all know there are going to be seven or eight great performances to choose from. After that, it's about still of the campaigning, how well liked the performer is at the moment, who's overdue for a first or second (or as happened with Streep) third Oscar. I haven't seen the new Kidman film, but unless it's "mother!"-level unpopular with a wide swath of voters, it merely has to be a good showcase, as gemini pointed out (nobody really liked "The Reader" or "Iron Lady." Of course they were pushed by Weinstein while he still had power.) Really though, it's too early to tell.
Leon: At least 3 or 4 of the reviews for Destroyer do far have called Kidman's performance a 'gamechanger' for what actresses are allowed to do onscreen and how they are allowed to act. I'm sure you've read those reviews as well, so you know I'm not exaggerating. The fact that almost all the reviews are pointing out that only men get to play Kidman's role, gives it a significance that can't be ignored, pulpy thriller or not. The female Dirty Harry or whatever.
It sounds like the type of performance that will generate a lot of passion, and pro-feminist thinkpieces about what women can be onscreen. Which gives the performance an air of 'importance, regardless of it's genre leaning.
The delusion in this thread is thick and heavy.
I think Nicole Kidman is going to be a solid contender for the Oscar for the following reasons:
1. Building a tsunami of momentum since Big Little Lies/Lion/Cannes last year.
2. Respectable reviews for Boy Erased.
3. This is someone who got Career Best reviews for Big Little Lies just last year, and that was a Major thing, getting them again so soon is really a Solid deal.
If she manages to rack some critics awards pre-release, Kidman is going to have a solid case for Oscar number 2. Plus now that people ( including critics) are revisiting Kidman's filmography and body of work ( e.g. the Kidman world cup), this best work of her career is a really solid complment. Her body of work is exemplary, very few sour notes.
But Leon, "Silence of the Lambs" was a second Oscar for a pulpy thriller--albeit a popular one. Also, the "Monster level" transformation narrative might just take off. I'd say Kidman's overdue for a second Oscar, though the moment people hear the word "overdue" they'll think of Close. It could well be a horse race between Kidman, Close, and Gaga. It could then depend on the box office (mainly of Star Is Born) and the critics awards in December mainly for the other two films.
I wish people could discuss Nicole Kidman as if their wigs were not on fire.
How are people taking Gaga seriously? She won't unseat Close nor Kidman.
Dan H. - Like you said "The Silence of the Lambs" was a popular and ACCLAIMED as a full BP. Key difference. Pulpy Thrillers needs to overcome bias.
gemini - Equal happened with "The Paperboy" and other Kidman perfs. And pro feminist films have always an uphill battle, as we saw with "Carol" and "Thelma and Louise" among others. But anyway, believe the delusion.
Just to pointed out, at the same time last year, people here on TFE were even proclaiming Jake Gyllenhaal as the winner. I fought against and people said I'm crazy or hater and look what happened (Another list of Jake snubs). If i'm wrong I'll eat crow, but considering TFE tendency to overperform the chances of their loved ones without learning the lesson.
Just wanted to note that Kidman seems to be a love/hate actress. Among my friends, there are several who "can't stand" her; most think she is just overrated. I'm a big fan.
Leon: The Paperboy was a significant critical failure ,(43% on RT). The fact that Kidman nearly came close to an Oscar nod with a film like that actually says more for her chances with Destroyer, which should be fresh at worst (I won't predict the percentage like Volvagia). Destroyer is clearly already a much stronger vehicle for Kidman than The Paperboy. You seem pretty smart, so I'm sure you already know this. Destroyer may not be a BP contender, but until further evidence suggests otherwise, it seems more than solid enough for Kidman to be able to compete for the win.
Carol and Thelma & Louise did not happen in the #metoo era. There is a far greater sensitivity today to feminist viewpoints and opinions. The zeitgesit success of Kidman's female empowerment HBO show Big Little Lies bears that out).
In this climate, being 'woke' is important, and that helps a pro-feminist performance like Kidman's seems to be.
Kidman is one of the most respected actresses in the business, who is undergoing a career renaissance and won every significant TV acting award last year. She's hot property with a narrative. Jake Gyllenhaal, god bless him, is just one of those actors who seem to try too hard for awards and regularly get snubbed. Kidman is not Gyllenhaal. I genuinely believe the industry would be more than happy to give Kidman a 2nd Oscar. Whether it's for Destroyer, we shall see....
Omg, Kidman is such a hot topic here in TheFilmExperience, I mean, best actress in general.
Still, I gonna wait, it is too early for conclusions.
Just really happy to see the potential nominees so far, like, genuinely happy to see a variety of styles and narratives in best Actress that it is already on the game (Kidman, Close, Gaga, Collete, Weisz, Colman, Stone, Elsie Fisher) and can't wait to see Viola and Kiki Layne. Plus, Theron, Cruz, Blunt, MacCarty... hope they are not only strong "best actress movies" but also great best picture nominees too.
ps: I do take Gaga seriously, so pretentious not too.
Y'all need to settle down. It's only the start of September. We don't know how anything will happen yet let alone talk about it with such definitiveness. Yeesh.
Leon, you make a lot of good points, but the history of Oscar, at least in the "modern era," is the history of at least occasional surprises: An X rated film won best picture (and, to prove that wasn't a fluke, another one was nominated for best picture two years later), a sequel won best picture, a horror film about a cannibal swept the major categories one year, a micro-budget black/gay themed film won best picture, a nostalgic pastiche film about a woman in love with a fish man won best picture. (And Denzel Washington won best actor for a not-universally loved "pulpy thriller.") As Glenn suggests, it is waaaay to early to be making anything but the most tentative predictions. Not that we can help ourselves.
Not only Foster. McDormand also won her second Oscar for a pulpy thriller.
McDormand's 2nd Oscar is retread no different from Vivien Leigh, Sally Field, and Hilary Swank.
Read the final paragraph of Variety’s “Boy Erased” review. It ends on a sad, personal note for the reviewer
/3rtful’s second and third comments on this thread are the most true out off all of the takes here.
LOL at the delusional comments here.
I hope Glenn Close FINALLY wins the Oscar.
I fear that Lady Gaga will actually win. The film has glowing reviews and I think we all know it's going to make a lot of money.
Already hating this awards season :)
Vivien Leigh’s second Oscar (for A Streetcar Named Desire) is as richly deserved as her first (for Gone With The Wind). I actually would argue that, while both film are stone-cold classics, her performance in the former is more technically challenging and impressive. Either way, comparing her to Sally Field and Hilary Swank in terms of undeserved double Oscar wine is ludicrous.
Go Kidman!
I love Kidman as much as chocolate, trust me; she possibly has the best and most diverse CV of all the leading ladies her age; she's a complete range rover, ferocious, fearless, charismatic, fineness personified and, Oscar aside, I find her career tremendously unpraised/unrewarded.
I should be all in for Oscar no2 (Lord knows she deserves it) BUT...
There's another performer in the mix who's equally game changer, ferocious, fearless, charismatic AND abhorrently unrewarded; and that's GLENN CLOSE. Not even if Kidman's work in Destroyer is as revelatory as Theron's was in Monster should the Academy miss another chance to reward one of the most pivotal actresses in film history.
There, i said it.
(I'm filled with joy, though, that Kidman's work is being respected and praised again after years of incomprehensible disdain)
I'm reading all the reviews from Venice and Telluride with glee. Kidman, Stone, Gaga and McCarthy all seem like Close's fierce competitors, and still there's almost four mouths and lot of names left. This is going to be one of the strong years for best actress for sure with Close the only one veteran without Oscar among top contenders. I'm so excited. It is going to be so much fun following Nathaniel R's All Oscars Charts Updated! until 2019.
The awardswatch forums are full of fanboys with an inflated sense of their own knowledge and industry plants with agendas who will use any opportunity to try and eliminate perceived threats to their chosen awards season horse. Same shit, different year. If enough of them play down Kidman as a threat to win, they hope by natural osmosis it'll become common consensus that she can't win. Slick, but I don't see it working. Kidman is a threat to win with those reviews, her career momentum and such an extreme deglam.
Last season on that forum, anyone who dared to still predict Denzel Washington for a nomination after Roman J Israel Esq poor reception at TIFF, was branded a delusional idiot. Even if you pointed out that he's Denzel freaking Washington, and never needed his films to have an amazing reception to get nominated. Sure enough, pretty much that entire forum had no clue that Washington's stature in the industry was significant enough for him to get nominated with a weakly recieved film. A lot of them really don't know what they are talking about, for people that follow the awards derby every year.
Seems like a long shot for a couple of reasons:
1. It’s a gritty, repulsive crime drama where she plays a cop. Academy does not go for violent movies, especially not ones starring women.
2. It’s an indie film directed by a woman that is not getting great reviews for the film itself. It already seems like a hard sell to audiences, like that Joaquin Phoenix film that came and left.
Actually, for some reason, I feel "Destroyer" as some kind of "Under the Skin" (yeah, I know Kidman is not Miss Snubed Johansson) and I bet a 5th Oscar nom will happen for Kidman this year... but for "Boy Erased". Seriously, don't forget the AMPAS loves the "loving mom" role and she's said to be the movie's heart alongside Lucas Hedges.
.
P.S.: to take Kidman's spot in Best Actress shortlist I would predict Julia Roberts for "Ben Is Back" in a "no guts no glory" kinda of prediction at this point of the race. Lucas Hedges' screen women seem to attract Oscar love (Williams, McDormand, Ronan... and now Kidman and Roberts)