Get ready -- in the wake of an oldie but goodie like Harrison Ford and a young but slick Matt Damon, we're now getting ... Nicole Kidman. The Hollywood Reporter posts that she's going to star in (and produce) a new action adventure called The Eighth Wonder. They're saying practically nothing about the plot, but we do know that it's a globe-spanning race centered on an archaeological discovery. "The goal is to create a movie that will be to Raiders of the Lost Ark what the Bourne movies are to James Bond movies: a character-driven, treasure-hunting thriller." Nicole Kidman. Really? To anchor a big action adventure franchise?

I mean, let's forget her notorious "iffyness" on sticking with certain projects and focus on the theme of this flick. Do any of you really think she'll pull in the audiences as the next action star, or even pull it off in a way to tantalize apprehensive audiences? I would love, love, love to see a kickass woman take the action adventure reins, but her?

In the last few years, Nicole Kidman has starred in a number of movies that underperformed at the box office, but last year's disappointing grosses for The Interpreter The Invasion, The Golden Compass and even Margot at the Wedding likely contributed to her being named the least bankable actor in Hollywood by Forbes magazine. Apparently, given her exorbitant asking price, Forbes estimates her movies only earn, on average, as much from ticket sales as she earns for appearing in them. This is a major drop compared to last year, when Kidman's films were estimated to gross $8 for every $1 she's paid.

After Kidman, Forbes names Jennifer Garner, whose '07 films The Kingdom and Catch and Release did poorly enough that the runaway success of Juno couldn't help her ranking. On average her films grossed $3.60 for every $1 she took home. In third place, not surprisingly, is Kidman's ex, Tom Cruise, who bombed big time with Lions for Lambs last year. Others making the list of most overpaid actors include Nicolas Cage, Drew Barrymore, Cameron Diaz, Jim Carrey, Cate Blanchett and Will Ferrell. Meanwhile, Russell Crowe, who topped the list last year, is considered more fairly paid this year thanks to the success of American Gangster.

Such fluctuations in actors' bankability only continues the debate regarding the importance of movie stars these days. Certainly all the names on Forbes' list are big names who occasionally headline blockbuster hits, but are they actually significant to moviegoers' attraction to a movie? Apparently not.

So, which actor do you think is most in need of a major reality check before his or her next major paycheck?

All the movie studios are just hellbent on messing with my fall season. Australia is the latest movie to get the old switch-a-roo, as Variety reports that Fox is moving its release date from November 14 down to November 26. I know, it's only a matter of weeks, but it's just the principle of the thing. And it's now pitted against The Road, forcing me to chose which one to see opening day. I don't need that kind of stress, particularly on Thanksgiving which isn't exactly the most relaxing of holidays.

The delay is apparently the result of director Baz Luhrmann needing some extra time to polish the film. He brought everyone back for some pick-up shots, which explains the paparazzi shots I've seen of Hugh Jackman riding around Oz in full drover gear. I thought he just did that sort of thing all the time.

The fact that Australia's delay means it now neatly dodges the release of Quantum of Solace is, I'm sure, mere coincidence. I suspect we'll see more November rearranging -- Variety is reporting that The Time Traveler's Wife is also coming out on the 26th, though IMDB is still showing a Christmas release. If Variety is right (and why wouldn't it be?), I wouldn't be surprised if it ran to the 14th to steer clear of competing with another romance. Plus, I just don't think America could handle Viggo Mortensen, Hugh Jackman, and Eric Bana all having a movie out on the same day -- not when us girls are supposed to be home making pumpkin pies and turkey.

Ladies (and gentlemen), start your drooling. Entertainment Weekly has two new photos from Baz Luhrmann's romantic epic Australia, and if the photo to your right is any indication; this is going to be one sexy flick. Back in June the film was the subject of a photo shoot for Vogue, and those images were stunning (and pretty romantic). This latest photo, though, has a little more carnality on the brain. Mind you, I'm not complaining; anything that facilitates a half-naked Hugh Jackman is okay by me.

News about the film has been pretty scarce, but we do know that Stuart Beattie's (G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra) script centers on an English lady (Nicole Kidman) left in control of a cattle station in Australia during WWII. When a drover (played by Jackman) shows up to help her bring the cattle across the country, their relationship becomes something more -- and judging from that photo, there's going to be a lot more.

Its been a bumpy road for Luhrmann's epic; there have been casting changes, and the occasional act of god. But don't feel bad, the film also has a lot of things going for it: namely that epic romances sell, especially during Oscar season. Australia will arrive in theaters on November 14th, 2008.

Now it's your turn, do you think Australia could be the landlubber's Titanic at the box-office this fall? Sound off below...

Occasionally Hollywood cobbles together random members of the A-list to play family members on film, even if their genes obviously come from opposite ends of the earth. If the actors are good enough or if the chemistry is there, sometimes the combo can work, such as Ethan Hawke and Philip Seymour Hoffman as brothers in Before the Devil Knows You're Dead or Colin Farrell and Ewan McGregor in Cassandra's Dream. Other times, it stretches credibility, such as Adrien Brody, Owen Wilson and Jason Schwartzman in The Darjeeling Limited. My all-time favorite oddball casting is in Sidney Lumet's Family Business (1989), with Sean Connery, Dustin Hoffman and Matthew Broderick playing grandfather, father and son. (Huh?) At the same time, there are actor combos out there who just scream to be paired up in a family capacity. Remember Julia Roberts and Kyra Sedgwick in Something to Talk About? Well, neither do I, but that pairing was perfect. Here are a few others that could work:

1. Helen Hunt & Leelee Sobieski

They're so similar it's spooky, from their hair and foreheads, right down to the tonal quality of their voices. Anybody check the hospital records for mixed-up babies? (Helen is about 20 years older.) Not too long ago, both careers hit a peak: Helen won an Oscar while Leelee was working with Stanley Kubrick and playing Joan of Arc on TV. Now they're both in decline. For some reason, whenever Helen's name comes up, I hear "I HATE Helen Hunt!" And Leelee's last movie was for Uwe Boll. Now would be the perfect time for these two to team up in a mother-daughter drama. If they cooked up something along the lines of Terms of Endearment, with a good, solid writer and/or director, it could be interesting. Or better yet, how about something really strange and kooky with Spike Jonze or Harmony Korine? (Note: apparently the two once went head-to-head on "Celebrity Death Match.")

Gallery: Actors who could play relatives

Fantasy may have the most rabid and obsessive fans, but it also has the staunchest detractors of any mainstream genre. We all know people who simply refuse to watch fantasy films or read fantasy books of their own volition. They may have sat through The Fellowship of the Ring grudgingly, but didn't bother with the rest of the series. They probably associate the genre with asocial nerds, fan conventions, and Dungeons & Dragons. They can only shrug at the exuberance of the devotees. Fantasy is "not their thing."

Why are fantasy movies (and the genre in general) so polarizing? I've long thought it has something to do with viewers' relative affinity for cinematic worlds. Some people go to the movies to see something that directly relates to their own lives, something that takes place in the universe they live in and know. Others – myself among them, if you haven't figured it out – flip for new, self-contained worlds that could exist independently of the movie; wonderful and strange places we feel like it's possible to actually inhabit. This might explain why those who like good fantasy also tend to enjoy good science-fiction.