AMC to roll out three new Nicole Kidman ads we’ll all have to pretend to like
Heartbreak will have to find 3 new ways of feeling good in a place like this
Aux News Kidman
It’s a standard thesis of online comedy that, as soon as The Brands really get their amorphous corporate hands on a comic premise, it’s probably reached the last legs of its natural lifespan. (Some scholars refer to this as The SNL Line, a.k.a. the point where a joke becomes so ubiquitous that Saturday Night Live can easily digest, and then baby-bird back up to its millions of viewers, an initially subversive chunk of comedy.) Few such pieces of pop culture detritus have been more thoroughly processed, at this point, than AMC’s “post”-pandemic Nicole Kidman ad, the one where “heartbreak feels good in a place like this,” as demonstrated by Nicole Kidman’s face not moving one solitary millimeter while staring up at a brightly lit movie screen.
You have almost certainly seen this commercial, if not told jokes about it, done extended riffs on it, and, if we have our audience zeroed in on correctly, filmed your own elaborate parody videos of it. And now, you’re going to get to see three more of it, as Deadline reports tonight that “Phase 2" of the ad campaign is preparing to roll out, with three more Kidman ads all ready to go.
Per AMC’s Adam Aron—who acknowledged that the original ad had taken on “cult” status, a corporate way of saying “People made fun of it in a way that made us money”—the theater chain is getting ready to release 3 new 30-second spots that will air in its theaters. Each will feature Kidman, and only one of them will randomly play in front of each movie you go to, ensuring you can only get your full dose of irony by hitting up at least three showings. Get collecting, kids!
39 Comments
Hmmm. At least Regal had the decency to stop showing that dumb promo with Danny Trejo and others just reciting various movie quotes.
Never got the love for the Kidman ones and I can only assume that outlook involved comparing it to those awful Regal ones.for those unaware:
I’m a traditionalist: bring back the Coca Cola Refreshing Filmmakers Competition!
I do not like Nicole Kidman. I find her off-putting for reasons I don’t care to articulate at this time.Thank you for respecting my privacy.
Same. She’s one of those actors who is keenly aware of the camera at all times. That’s just bad acting, imo. I get the same sense with Kristin Kreuk (Smallville), Hugh Grant and Gyllenhall.
I never liked her either, even though I’m supposed to, possibly by law. I just see…Nicole Kidman. Never seen her disappear into a character.
I thought she was good in The Others.
She was amazing in The Others. Brilliant film. But I also enjoyed her in Bewitched – a film that seems to have gone down better in our household than elsewhere.
“Never seen her disappear into a character.”Virginia Woolf was the primary subject of my doctoral work. Kidman’s rendition of Woolf put me in a near rage for months. Either she doesn’t act or she over-acts. There are recordings of Woolf’s voice and so many accounts of her behavior. Kidman’s over-the-top histrionics and pouty mad-woman dolor are an embarrassment to the author’s legacy. Streep played a different character owing to her age but even though she was 52 (I think), she could have pulled it off. I had always hoped she’d play the author, who was 40 at the writing of Mrs. Dalloway.
You get the feeling her agent was standing on the edge of the sets yelling “ACT, NICOLE! ACT HARDER! This for the Oscar, honey! I called in a lotta favours to get you this!” (And yeah, she was going to win, because if there’s one thing the Academy loves it’s…stories about how Hollywood is the most important institute on the planet. But after that, it’s taking a nominally attractive actress and making her play someone homely. Er, no offence to Virginia.)She just got famous for being somewhat exotic, but, more importantly, being married to Cruise for as long as she was and sticking it out for as long as she did. I mean, if you want an Aussie actress who can actually act, of the same vintage? Cate Blanchett. Strangely, though, Nicole would make a better traditional elf, since proper elves were mostly just aloof psychopathic dicks.
Good reasoning.I thought The Hours sucked. Renee Zellweger was irresistable in Chicago and Hayek was incomparable in Frida. I’m confident more people have seen those two movies than that poorly slapped together attempt at Symbolism. Objectively unrelated time-line narratives are so dumb. I guess Hollywood was feeling very literary that year. Kidman’s fake nose should have won the Golden Raspberry. Yeah, that was right after the Cruise divorce. Do you really think that was it? I’ll probably obssess about that for a while, lol.Cate Blanchett is amazing. I can’t choose a favorite role, although I’d vote for The Gift for that southern accent alone.“…proper elves were mostly just aloof psychopathic dicks.” Haha! You have the best analogies. I can def. see her stealing babies (poor things).
Hey, they were. The whole Tolkien thing about them being serene, caring demigods is bullshit. They were arseholes (it’s why Pratchett didn’t do much with them – most of them are barely aware other races exist).For an actress who is drop-dead gorgeous but hagged it up, there was Charlize Theron as Aileen Wuornos a coupla years later.
There’s a symmetry with her ex: if Tom Cruise is one of the last Hollywood stars, Nicole’s gotta be one of the last starlets, two use a gendered phrase. You don’t go see a film that’s got Nicole Kidman in it. You go see the Nicole Kidman film. It’s not that they’re particularly good, but nor are they famous for being famous a la one of the assembly-line Kardashians. They’re famous for being in movies, but they’re not exactly high-grade thespians like your Anthony Hopkinses or Meryls Streep. Today, actors are more and more interchangeable, and the last thing you want is your actors getting too famous, because otherwise they’ll fuck right off out the eighteen-movie franchise you signed them up for…but just in case they do get a bit uppity, who gives a shit if you have to replace them?The idea of the star being the main drawcard for seeing a movie is becoming less and less of a thing.
Australia is “somewhat exotic” to you?
I mean, I haven’t seen all of it, but Ipswich gets up there on a Friday night.
Jake or Maggie?
Lol, Jake. I’m sorry that Maggie hasn’t had more roles. I Googled “why hasn’t she had more roles” and the only results I get are her being replaced by Holmes for The Dark Knight. Wow, that isn’t even related to the search question, stupid internet.
duh
I’m guessing you’re a scientologist?
Haha, good god no. Hate scientologists considerably more than I dislike Nicole Kidman.
I manage to time my arrival carefully enough to avoid the trailers, but I’m still greeted by the artificial syrup of that voice too many times. I was willing to sacrifice the first five minutes of American Fiction rather than witness those schlocky platitudes again
And she’s just creepy AF. She’s like Cruise. I can’t imagine what they do when alone except possibly stare into mirrors and soak in unicorn blood.
Great now I have to come up with a new reaction for each one. Giving out a little gasp when she says “because here-THEY ARE” is fine for the original but I need more material to prove I’m not a hack.
The only way to show real emotion is to throw up.
Does that mean that the greatest actor of this or any generation is Elisabeth Moss?
STOP GIVING MY CAT ACTING ADVICE.
Are they still going to show Kidman sitting alone in an otherwise abandoned theatre, or have they finally realized that’s a look that doesn’t exactly scream “everyone’s coming back to the movies”?
I DO LIKE NICOLE KIDMAN I THINK SHE’S PRETTY SHE HAS A COOL ACCENT
THAT’S KEEN I LIKE HER TOOWHY ARE WE SHOUTING
I liked these. I was born before 1990 so I have that ability.
I unironically liked it too, then it became kind of funny, then it was my last chance for a bathroom run before the movie.
I hope her next productions feature some of those same clever ideas like her other series, like an entire plot derived from a group of women guiltily conspiring to cover up the crime of a friend – when the friend actually committed no crime, and in fact was a demonstrable hero.
Or, having a murder mystery where someone is slaughtered with a hammer but no blood is spilled, then the killer hides the weapon 30 miles from the crime, on his own property – 20 YARDS FROM THE ATLANTIC OCEAN.Or ghost-conjuring culty yoga instructor where there is no pretense of a plot.Yeah, great work Nicole.
The new ads should consist of people confronting Kidman over holes in plots she didn’t write. It would be super charming.
“You have almost certainly seen this commercial, if not told jokes about it, done extended riffs on it”Joke’s on you, I don’t live near an AMC theater so I’ve only experienced it via podcasters acting like it’s the funniest damn thing ever.
Maria Menounos angrily tweeting out Nicole Kidman’s home address
Wait, what? She’s not just someone who gives 30-second lifehacks on that loop that plays while I’m pumping gas into my vehicle?
Somehow, shitty writing feels good on A.V. Clubs like this…
There’s rampant online discussion about an AMC pre-movie ad?I know we haven’t reached the nadir of online discussion, but this seems like we’re getting close.
I’ve gone to two movies in the past few months – Napolean and, as of today, Dune Part Two. One at AMC and one at a Regal. In both cases, the actual movie didn’t start until a whopping 35 minutes after the advertised showtime. There were actual advertisements first, then way more trailers than reasonable (no – I don’t need to see Godzilla x Kong or Argylle every fifteen minutes), and then advertisements for the theater chain I’m already sitting in.If any theater chain advertised starting movies at the listed time, I’d prioritize going there.
Please, in one of them, Nicole’s heel gets stuck on a piece of gum that a patron from the previous showing left on the floor.
I fucking love the AMC ads. Get those dollars Nicole!