Letters to the Editor

This letter is associated with the following article:
It's painful to watch a movie with characters that leave you cold -- but not as painful as seeing what's happened to Nicole Kidman's face.
  • Who needs sexists when you've got other women?

    I think this review would have been witty and servicable without descending into an attack Nicole Kidman's face.

    By doing this Zacharek scrapes double bottom: first reinforcing the stereotype of female writer who can't get through a review without gleefully descending into gossip, then trying to pass an ornately catty brow furrow joke as some dignified rumination on Hollywood. It's just the usual creepy, sexist obsession with tearing into the age and bodies of women, with a healthy dose of the idea female celebrities are all vain liars who "mutilate" themselves.

    Does Zacharek have any proof Kidman is lying? Could it be she's a stiff actress? She's 39, not a crone - at that age good skin is still possible and the illusion of unlined skin can involve heavy makeup and choosing fewer expressions as much as surgery.

    If some guy - gay or straight - ripped on an actresses looks an acted like it wasn't a cheap shot, they'd get called on ot. So come on Stephanie, if you want to get TMZ in your movie review, drop the mask of thoughtful concern - it's more phoney than botox.