Demi Moore lost the Oscar but she’s still a winner

by Cláudio Alves

THE SUBSTANCE (2024) Coralie Fargeat | © MUBI

Bedecked in a silvery Armani Privé number and Chopard diamonds, Demi Moore arrived at the 97th Academy Awards like a winner. She left a winner, too, despite the lack of a little golden man complementing her crushed ice glamour. Saying such things may seem like a pity party or a way for fans to cope with their idol's losses, but it rings true here. Though she lost the Oscar, Demi Moore effectively changed the narrative of her career and forced both the industry and the public to reassess her worth as a performer, her history, her legacy. From "popcorn actress" to respected thespian, this is a reinvention of miraculous proportions and deeply deserved, too.

In many ways, these things are bigger than AMPAS' golden trophy, and may even have a bigger impact. After this season, nobody will look at The Substance star the same way ever again. At least, I won't…

Click to read more ...

Review: Charlie's Angels (2019)

Box office and reviews have been tough on the new Angels. I guess today the contrarian corner is a theme here at TFE. Tony likes it! - editor.

by Tony Ruggio

We'll start with where I'm coming from: I’m no fan of the original series. The early-Aughts adaptations were mostly forgettable save a dance or two from Cameron Diaz and Sam Rockwell. But these 2019 Angels are surprisingly fresh and fun. It’s an IP brought back from irrelevant hell and updated with verve.

About the three new Angels. Elizabeth Banks is clearly in love with Kristen Stewart, and who can blame her? Stewart is a charisma machine as the weird, spunkiest Angel of the bunch. She's so good you almost wish she took movie star roles more often. You also forget there was once a time when she got gruff for playing mopey all the time. Those days are long gone...

Click to read more ...

Good Morning, Charlie!

By Spencer Coile  

It’s been 18 years since the film remake of Charlie’s Angels was released and 7 since the failed television reboot aired – not to mention over 40 years since the original television series premiered. But as time has shown us in the past few years, nostalgia sells. And so we have news of a new Charlie’s Angels.

With Elizabeth Banks set to direct and star in the film and the three leads rumored to be played by Lupita Nyong’o, Naomi Scott, and Kristen Stewart, our anticipation escalates. A story about strong women told by women! Although casting is still in the works, the film is rumored to be looking at the summer of 2019.  

Does this news excite you, or have you had enough of reboots? Who will voice Charlie (fingers crossed on Judi Dench or Viola Davis)? But perhaps most importantly, is anyone else a huge fan of 2003’s Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle?  

Beauty Break: Vintage 1977 - Magazine Covers

Liz, and Liza and Halston, Oh my!

Reminder. At the end of the month the Smackdown returns with a look at the Supporting Actress Race of 1977 (The Turning Point, Julia, Close Encounters, The Goodbye Girl, and Looking for Mr Goodbar so get to watching so you can vote!).

To get you in the mid to late 1970s mood, if you lived through them, or just to engage your curiousity if you didn't, a collection of magazine covers from the year in question. Naturally we'll start with two Best Actress winners and then hit the general collections of showbiz covers...

Click to read more ...

Q&A: Australian Greats, Leading Men, and Camera Muses

It's time for reader questions. Here are 10 recently asked I'm opting to answer tonight. Join the conversation in the comments. 

INQUIRER: Who do you believe is more worthy of an acting Oscar between Brad Pitt, Tom Cruise, and Johnny Depp, and who do you think is more likely to win one?

This would surprise anyone unfamiliar with the site but Brad Pitt towers over the other two. He's among my all time favorite movie stars. But you've crafted a tricky question because all three men have loyal camps that they've earned. Cruise is the most consistent, always laser focused on Doing His Job in whichever movie. Depp is the most inspired when he's inspired but he's also the laziest. It seems impossible to imagine now but people did not want him to play Pirates like he played it. The studio was concerned. What is he doing? Now people hire him to for Depp shtick and that's what he gives to the point of self parody! Pitt is the most uneven actor among the three but he's also the most endearing, has the best taste, has aged superbly with his talent, and has evolved the most. Years ago I felt certain that all three would eventually be crowned but it's hard to picture now. If any one of them does a moving hit drama when he's an old codger though perhaps he'll get a career achievement prize. If none of them ever win competitively I'd wager that Brad Pitt is the most likely to get an Honorary Oscar. 

This might be as good a time as any to tell you (warn you?) that April will be ACTOR MONTH here at the blog. We talk about actresses so much that it's time for a wee curveball. Any requests?

TABITHA: Why do female movie stars now largely seem to be in their 20's or 60's? There seems to be a resistance to embrace middle-aged stars (apart from Sandra Bullock or Charlize Theron).

I blame this phenomenon entirely on sexism and the patriarchy. It's intrinsically tied to the "Last F***able Day" phenomenon that Amy Schumer named so brilliantly. I think once an actress has passed that threshold of straight men being "ewww she's AGING -- how dare she?" and is now just an older person, who for better or for worse are often desexualized in art, it's easier for people to just enjoy their acting again. That's my 100% correct theory. It's also harder for female stars to age because a huge percentage of them are famous in part because of exceptional beauty which is not necessarily true (certainly not percentage wise!) with their male counterparts.

KEVIN: if you put Meryl on a strict diet of auteurs, who would you pair her with for her next 3 films?

[more Q&A after the jump]

Click to read more ...