Embarrassment of riches

Posted by · 5:32 pm · March 25th, 2009

Remember when, a few weeks ago, Freida Pinto was automatically declared Woody Allen’s new “muse” simply because she had committed to his next film?

Well, it seemed premature then — and now that none other than Nicole Kidman has been added to a cast that already included Naomi Watts, I think it’s fair to say the focus (not to mention the pressure) is off Pinto.

Even by Allen’s own lofty casting standards, Kidman is quite a coup. As usual, we have no other details of the project, but I would love to see Kidman let loose in a comedy for a change. With Josh Brolin, Anthony Hopkins and Antonio Banderas also in the mix, it’s certainly an attractive line-up. But then, when does one of Woody’s films not look good on paper?

(UPDATE: Thanks to diligent commenter Billyboy, I can inform you that the film is “a dramatic comedy which is set in London (and) revolves around the romantic intrigues, sexual desires and ambitions of a group of people.” Business as usual for the man, then — not that we’d want it any other way.)

→ 20 Comments Tags: , , , | Filed in: Daily

20 responses so far

  • 1 3-25-2009 at 5:46 pm

    Billyboy said...

    From Mediapro, the production company behind this:
    “The film, a dramatic comedy which is set in London, revolves around the romantic intrigues, sexual desires and ambitions of a group of people.”

    Not THAT much of information, but certainly something considering how scarce information is when Woody’s projects enter preproduction.

    A great cast indeed (not sure about Pinto though). Similar to those great ensembles Woody used to get back in the 80’s /90’s

  • 2 3-25-2009 at 5:50 pm

    Ash said...

    Pinto’s been cast in Julian Schnabel’s next movie. She doesn’t need Woody, pshaw.

  • 3 3-25-2009 at 6:08 pm

    Guy Lodge said...

    Thanks, Billyboy.

    Sounds like a startling departure for Woody, no?

  • 4 3-25-2009 at 7:40 pm

    Mr. F said...

    I suppose that people (kidman haters) will start hating this movie now.

  • 5 3-25-2009 at 7:40 pm

    JAB said...


  • 6 3-25-2009 at 7:42 pm

    alex said...

    Well, Kidman is in the musical “Nine” where she gets to sing, so I guess she’s taking a short break from epics and indie dramas

    (but please do The Danish Girl with Theron !)

  • 7 3-25-2009 at 7:42 pm

    R.J. said...

    I have to agree with you Mr. F, I’m sure the haters are about to come out of the woodwork…but haters be damned!!!!! I love me some Nicole Kidman and Woody Allen is one of the directors that I have wanted her to work with, so I’m happy.

  • 8 3-25-2009 at 7:46 pm

    Mr. F said...

    Indeed R.J. I don’t know why they hate her. Is it her face? sure, she is not as good looking as she used to be but she is a talented actress. I hope that one day she works with Steven Spielberg.

  • 9 3-25-2009 at 7:54 pm

    R.J. said...

    Is it odd that I never even thought of her doing a movie with Spielberg? It seems kind of obvious now, if for no other reason than for the fact that they’re both huge names, but I never thought of it before.

  • 10 3-25-2009 at 10:07 pm

    Marvin said...

    I’m excited but I’m more excited about his coming one with Patricia Clarkson. That woman is a national treasure if I say so.

    And I can’t fucking wait to see the Taking Woodstock trailer. Hopefully JAB’s post means it’s not too far from being released.

  • 11 3-25-2009 at 10:20 pm

    Ash said...

    If you still haven’t seen it Marvin…


  • 12 3-25-2009 at 11:05 pm

    Alex said...

    I thought she was in India filming scenes for that adventure movie written by Simon Kinberg.

    Honestly I think it’s a shame that the film is such an ensemble…those are generally Woody’s less successful ones. I think her performances in To Die For and Margot at the Wedding justify her having her own Woodie Allen film.

    Also, since she and her best friend Watts are now starring in the same film, could they please scratch Ryan Murphy’s ‘Need’ off their to-do lists….

  • 13 3-26-2009 at 1:38 am

    Alex said...

    Also….could this be out by the end of the year? I don’t think it would be a very long shoot or complicated production. These films aren’t very hard to edit. It might be possible – although lately Woody tends to like having a film in the can before he announces another one.

  • 14 3-26-2009 at 2:13 am

    Guy Lodge said...

    Unlikely, Alex. Allen hasn’t veered from his one-feature-a-year routine since he brought out both “Radio Days” and “September” in 1987. And those were released at opposite ends of the year.

  • 15 3-26-2009 at 3:48 am

    Jonathan Spuij said...

    Allen sure has a major cast assembled here. On a sidenote, I was thinking the other day: Why hasn’t Allen made a proper movie about post 9/11 New York yet? Or any movie for that matter. It was his favorite city to situate his films in and he seems like the perfect man to make a film about the subject.

  • 16 3-26-2009 at 4:15 am

    Glenn said...

    Maybe he felt the NYC he knew and loved had changed?

    This news though is fantastic. I’d love to see Kidman in another comedy that’s not a big budget affair (like “Stepford” or “Bewitched”) and think her “Margot” perf was one of the best she’s ever done. So acidic and sharp, I’m sure Allen can utilise her to full potential.

  • 17 3-26-2009 at 5:03 am

    Guy Lodge said...

    Jonathan: It all comes down to money, simple as that. After his bad run earlier this decade, he couldn’t get funding for New York-set projects, so he sought greener pastures. “Match Point,” for example, wasn’t written for London — it was originally set in the Hamptons.

  • 18 3-26-2009 at 5:10 am

    Guy Lodge said...

    Glenn: At the risk of enraging Kris, I’m totally with you on “Margot.” Brilliant work.

  • 19 3-26-2009 at 6:17 am

    Highwayroller said...

    yeah, Margot was very woody-allen-esque, so we can expect another tour-de-force from Mrs. Kidman.

  • 20 4-23-2009 at 6:08 pm

    Georgie Barnes said...

    I’d watch Naomi Watts watching paint dry. She’s that good an actress.