Grace of Monaco : Too old to play Grace… too botox'd!

Grace Kelly was in her early 30s in the early 1960s, Kidman is too old in her late 40s. But more than that she's mucked about wither face too much, she doesn't look at all natural enough to be Grace Kelly. Not to mention that accent! Still, I will watch this on DVD.

You mean Nicole's Aussie accent, trying to be posh American sounding didn't work for you? You were disappointed by her whispering through yet another role? You, my friend, are not alone!!!! Even Nicole "Granny Freeze" Kidman is distancing herself from the movie now! Claiming the editors are to blame! LOL!!!!

That was supposed to be Posh American!!? Although I didn't think Grace Kelly was English!

She was a Yankee!

Too old, too botox'd, too tall and not good enough looking.

Kidman isn't a bad looking woman, but Grace Kelly was stunning.

Maybe a better fit for the role might have been Charlize Theron, younger, shorter and far better looking than Kidman.



I was walking down the skyway my way

But also too old. She's almost 39, when Grace married Prince Rainier, she was 26/ 27.

No actor could play that age gap and make it convincing. (People claim that Joe Pesci did it, by being in his forties playing a guy who was in his 20's when he died. But Pesci played an amalgamation of characters, and not a real character. His character, Tommy DeVito, was largely based on a guy called Tommy DeSimone.)
Not unless it was an animated film.

The bulk of the film is set in 1962, when she was 33.

But Nicole Kidman is 47.

She was 45 during filming, and casting actors who are older than their characters (real or fictional) is the norm. In this case, star power also played a role.

A good choice would have been Australian actress Margot Robbie (The Wolf of Wall Street).

>> But also too old. She's almost 39, when Grace married
>> Prince Rainier, she was 26/ 27.

I assume you're referring to the previous poster's suggestion of Charlize Theron?

First off, this movie takes place in 1962, when Kelly was 33. This movie was also filmed in 2012, maybe even 2011, when Theron would have been 36 or 37. That's only a 3 or 4 year age difference, which really isn't significant.

Second, I think Theron is *stunning* and is easily comparable to Kelly.

Also, skin treatments and makeup have come a *long* way in the past 50 years. Women of today really can and do look 10 or more years younger than their counterparts of the 50's and 60's.

Finally, someone said they though Theron would be better because she's "shorter" than Kidman. Not that much really. Kidman is 5'11' and Theron is 5'9.5". Only an inch and half. Again, not really significant.

Perhaps January Jones??

Why too old? Nicole is a beautiful woman. Believe me, I met her last year, and she looked just gorgeous. watch the film "Congress" just to understand how important is to stay young in Hollywood. Another thing is, I don`t think Grace of Monaco is that bad. Weinstein tries to create a scandal around this film to make it more interesting for some people to watch. I have a friends who already seen it in Europe, and they told me GoM is wonderful film. Even though, they are not Nicole`s fun, they liked her performance as well.

I love Grace kelly, and I`ve seen most of her films. I have so many book and videos telling the story of Grace. So, I truly believe that only Nicole would be able to play Grace. But hey, Grace is Grace. No one ever can be second Grace of Monaco. Same way as Audrey Hepburn, or Vivien Leigh, Greta Garbo or Bette Davis We don`t have any of those actresses right now that could replace them. But do we really need it? So I am glad that Oliver Dahan did not try to transform Nicole from Nicole to Grace.

I'm not saying she's too old in general, I'm saying she almost 20 years older than the age of the person she's playing. While I agree she is a good looking woman but it seem she's taken needless measures to look young. Look at Uma Thurman who is a similar age or as you mentioned The Congress - Robin Wright and even Meryl Streep; now I've no way of knowing if anyone has had work done but none of them look like they have.

And as you say nobody could replace these actresses, and no we don't need replacements; equivalents? yes - and I think Cate Blanchett is one! Still, after seeing her in some scenes of Broken Embraces I think Penlope Cruz could definitely play Audrey Hepburn in a biopic!

Again, not 20, more like 11 or 12.
Movie is set in 1962 when Kelly was 33.
Movie was filmed in 2011 or 2012 when Kidman was 44 or 45.
So difference in age is 11 or 12 years, not 20.

---

Why too old? Nicole is a beautiful woman. Believe me, I met her last year, and she looked just gorgeous.

---

Why too old? Joan Collins is a beautiful woman. Still. Believe me, I met her last year, and she looked just gorgeous. Nothing done, just Botox once. I love her very much, but I wouldn't suggest her playing Audrey Hepburn.

There is a fake new IMDB member called Mrs_Bitch, but he is no new member, he is the old janowitz20, and after deleting all his posts he created a new profile with the name of Mrs_Bitch.
janowitz is a well know sick individual,for years he is been using this site to express his profound hatred for all women.He has absolute no respect whatsoever for the ladies and he loves to show his hatred for the females every chance he gets.
He is the ultimate misogynist and he is on his way to become the next ELLIOT RODGERS.

Watch Paperboy and tell me she is to old she good in Paperboy as she ever has imo.

She actually looked the right age. But detractors will always attack to make their own empty lives seem important

Well, let's be frank here about botox in Hollywood: I believe most actresses there in order to stay bankable do it starting in their late twenties, when the first shadows of a wrinkle show up. That's the movie industry and those who want to defy it, especially female actresses, need to put an end to their careers, since there are so many others who won't hesitate to use botox, plastic surgery, implants etc in order to stay fit and competitive.
When men in their sixties play super-heroes there are much less protests. But when it comes to women who, still good looking in their forties, get to play parts of younger women, there is so much fuss about it.
Do I smell some gender discrimination here (paradoxically coming from fellow "girls"), as well as some jealousy maybe?!
Kidman is a good actress and her real age doesn't matter since she can act and look the age of her character. And, in my opinion, she does an excellent job at it.

Even at the right age and without botox, she didn't hold a candle to Grace Kelly.

Just a ridiculous comment.. Kidman looks in her thirties, not matter what her real age is.. and is the only actress could could elevate this boring picture to a somewhat bearable & watchable movie

Her botoxed face was distracting in some scenes.

Just the other day I was watching one of the first episodes of Mad Men and thinking- I bet Hitchcock would have had a field day with January Jones- she is just the short of icy blonde he liked and I think she would have made a wonderful GoM.

I think Nicole Kidman has gotten better with age. She's stunning and, imo, was perfectly cast as Grace. She's such a good actress and has so much class, more than most actresses in Hollywood. Not just anybody could play the role of Grace Kelly. When Nicole was in The Others, I thought she had so much beauty and grace (no pun intended) and reminded me of the princess.