wow, Jimmy Kimmel is just about the least vulgar of any of the late-night comic hosts on TV today. This ain't the 1950s!!!
My gift to the thread, my subscription gets you behind the paywall as my guests. You too, @Mazzy . The viral Hugh Grant red carpet video seen as a clash of British & USA cultures. https://wapo.st/3FsOJml
That was a long time ago. Meanwhile, Ke Huy Quan is doing well this week... Ke Huy Quan's Oscars Selfies With Andrew Garfield, Nicole Kidman - Variety
I actually admire that they've aged naturally. Jamie Lee looks better as a realistic 64 year old than the disaster Madonna's (who is actually 3 mos older than her) become in her quest to never get old
Just saw Quan's selfies...somebody please explain to me why he has to point his finger at the people photographed with him
I do see the OP's point that they are not typical Oscar winners, however, I'd also add that Michelle Yeoh remains a beautiful woman in her maturity.
I like Michelle a lot, but I have had an unholy crush on Maggie for decades, so yeah, I saw this film and its sequel. The Heroic Trio and Jackie Chan They also appeared together in the Jackie Chan movie SuperCop/Police Story 3, the first film I saw with both of them, and a sweeping historical epic called the Soong Sisters, about three real life Chinese sisters who were in the middle of history in 20th century China. It was quite good, and showed that they didn't need to do kung fu to be amazing.
I agree, and I've felt she was beautiful for decades, and, at 60, she still is. Here's a making of video of Michelle and the two main martial arts stunt men (who are both in the film) rehearsing the kung foo fight scenes. Since the film was made two years ago, she would have been 58. Truly amazing. She never ages. I first saw her in Supercop in 1991, and I've been a fan ever since.
Chris Rock was way more vulgar last year I thought. It's not like Jimmy Kimmel is Nikki Glaser or Amy Schumer.
100%. JLC looks very good for her age and was a total babe back in the day - I suspect every rental tape of "Trading Places" sagged in the middle because of all the times horndogs would rewind/rewatch her topless scene. And Brendan was complete "hunky leading man" territory for a long time. Not sure when his looks declined, but he was obviously tremendously handsome for a good span of years.
Good call on The Soong Sisters. When it was released it got mixed reactions, but I found it got even better with age. At least the last time I saw it about a decade ago it felt that way. And totally, Supercop is another great one. The American release didn’t do great (counter programed to the Summer Olympics), but the stunts are impressive and the comedy is a lot of fun. Chan was on a roll during the period, as was Yeoh (who was billed as Michelle Kahn at the time). The whole Police Story series are incredible and Maggie is the perfect foil to Chan. I really miss that period of Hong Kong movies. Some of the most beautiful women in the world and outrageous stunts that no actor outside of Tom Cruise would even consider doing today. Of course Yeoh had a lot of close calls, almost dying on Supercop and Ah Kam. It’s impossible to look at the roles these actresses played in the HK industry and not be impressed. Beyond that, both Maggie and Michelle managed to crossover into international critical acclaim from their humble start in genre pictures 40ish years ago. Very deserved, but they worked their tails off to get there. It’s been fun sitting on the sidelines watching it happen.
Yeah, Jamie Lee Curtis has talked about the pressure to use Botox, get face lifts, nips and tucks, hair coloring, all that stuff, and she's said that around 10 years ago, she decided "hell with it, I am what I am"... and she looks her age. I thought she looked terrific on the Oscars -- she's got on make up, she's in good shape, good health, and that clearly works for her. Absolutely. I really liked her in Star Trek: Discovery, and had forgotten that she made a ton of kung-fu movies in the 1990s. And she was also terrific in Crazy Rich Asians.
Maybe this has been said, but I think representing the winning actors as collectively being a "you are never past your prime" or "comeback" group is actually short-sighted. Maybe that helps the classically trained Shakespeare reciting New Wave watching actors excuse it as a flash in the pan. But in actuality what these winning actors really represent is the "derided genre actors" group. Each one of them is best known for genres that critics have scoffed at: Brendan Fraser - comedy, yeah he has action in his blood too, but the man is known for delivering comedy one-liners while fighting Mummies or Giant Man Eating Plants, or chasing a fictional monkey come to life. Michelle Yeoh - again, action and comedy. I'm watching her right now hold her own against Jackie Chan in Supercop (1992.) I watched her interview with Cate, and maybe without meaning to, Michelle came off as a down to earth person afraid of big crowds, and Cate came off as a somewhat pretentious play actress who likely talks a lot about "the craft." Ke Huy Quan - action and family comedy. But one more thing too, the child actor who made the mistake of growing up. His story is inspiring, and again, there is no pretention with this guy. He seems as genuine as they come. Even when offered tequila by Guillermo on the red carpet, instead of everyone's laughing "oh good one more person to humor" reaction, Guillermo hardly got to the question when Ke told him how overjoyed he was he was getting the interview he had seen so many times on TV. Jamie Lee Curtis - obviously she is considered a scream queen, but beyond her 4 early slashers, and then her later Halloween revival, she didn't do that much horror in between. Her next most famous role would be True Lies, so action/comedy again, and you have stabs at many different popcorn genres on her resume. These 4 had no right to win Oscars, not just because they were past their prime (BTW the Oscars actually love that narrative) but because they are actors who actually made it a point to try and entertain the audience during their career without eyeing the golden calf. And maybe for Brendan this is akin to Erin Brokovich for Julia Roberts or Good Will Hunting for Robin Williams, a silly actor getting serious, and doing another Oscar winning trope of uglifying himself (IE Nicole Kidman, Charlize Theron, Grace Kelly.) However, the other 3 genre actors known for doing action/comedy won for roles in AN ACTION/COMEDY!!! I would love it if this started a surreal genre cross-pollination movement.
Well, I agree that the Hollywood narrative of awarding actors past their prime or comeback roles is not really what the awards should be about, but except for JLC the other three did VERY well in their roles. Maybe I'd given another Oscar to Cate Blanchett and one for the Banshees Supporting Actress.
Just watched Supercop and.....that was Michelle Yeoh herself falling off a speeding car (in the stunt she says nearly killed her) AND that is her jumping a motorcycle onto a moving train, despite apparently having ridden a motorcycle before. I have no words. Nah, actually, I do.... If Linda Blair didn't win an Oscar because the wasn't really her voice, then shouldn't that follow to stuntwork in film? If an actor requires a stunt person, shouldn't that word spread and reduce their chance of an Oscar, because that wasn't them. And if a film didn't require a stunt person for that performance because it is a stuffy Oscar baiting drama, then shouldn't someone else putting themselves on the line physically be given a leg up in consideration? And if you can juggle that with comedic timing and emotional beats then GAME OVER. Michelle > Cate
Production Designers create the worlds you watch those actors play in and darn well deserve their moment of respect along with every other leader of their respective crafts. The segment should have been a few minutes longer, then it might have spared the Academy criticism that won’t be forgotten anytime soon. At least Lenny Kravitz was a vast improvement over the distracting dancers they had last year. However, the focus/blur split screen technique was terrible. I understand it saved time, but using light to direct the viewers attention would have been less distracting than this focus effect.
I watched again this year, it's the only awards show I still watch, even though I usually don't see all the best picture nominations. I finally did watch EEAAO at home last Friday, and I really enjoyed it, and need to see it again sometime. Did it deserve all the awards? Sure, why not. Why do any of them deserve the title of "Best" over another choice? You could argue back and forth about which was more deserving, but in the end someone or some film has to win, so there you are. I don't believe for a second the voting is un-biased, and ever since Shakespeare in Love won best picture over Saving Private Ryan, I've been highly suspicious about the whole voting system. Still, just because one film/actor wins "Best" does not negate the others. This isn't the World Series, the other films aren't "losers". I still want to watch some of the other films, like Women Talking, Triangle of Sadness, All Quiet, though I have zero interest in seeing Avatar or Top Gun. I did see Elvis but thought it was all about the spectacle of Baz Luhrmann and not the story/characters. Butler was great in his role, but he was completely overshadowed by the style-over-substance direction. I did see Banshees in the theatre and really loved it, but didn't think it was more Oscar worthy than anything else, so I wasn't surprised it didn't win. I don't mind Kimmel as host, and think they could bring in someone else, but the show really needs a comedian who can make it enjoyable to watch. Some of the jokes were bad (really, they brought a live donkey on stage for that?), but I like his humour in general. The years they didn't have a host were terribly dull to watch.
I pondered the same thing when Rami Malek won. It wasn't him singing, and those were the best parts of the movie by far, so why exactly did he get an award?
