It seems like an odd choice. I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. I'm probably one of the only females on the planet that doesn't care much for him, aesthetically, and I don't generally like the movies that he makes which leads to further apathy. (I loved "Australia" pretty much in spite of him.) That said, he is a quite versatile performer so perhaps he will be able to put all those skills to work during the telecast.
@ kat - the few articles I've read have talked about how "all females" love Hugh. Thanks for debunking their generalization.When I told my wife, her response was "is he funny?"I think the historical presents of comics at the presentation really makes Hugh an interseting choice...clearly it seems like they are going another direction...maybe not?I wonder if they will load up comics into the presenter catagories like they have in the past...will there be Ben Stiller, Jonah Hill and Jim Carrey presenting?
Without sounding TOO cynical, it's rare the comedians who host are truly funny. Maybe a different direction with a "charming" host could work better and allow the presenters and "awardees" to shine? Couldn't hurt to try for someone who could be a solid - funny at times without too many expectations - glue for the whole event.
I saw Hugh host the Tony awards. At first I was suprised wondering what the heck this guy was doing there. After watching the show I changed my tune. The guy is suprisingly charming, gifted in many respects including song and dance, and has enough charisma and humor to be able to maintain something like this. After watching him I became more of a Jackman fan than just as Wolverine.
Since when can foreigners host AMERICAN awards shows. Don't they have their own award shows? Has a foreigner ever hosted the Oscars? Or is Australia finally being acknowledged as a vassal state?Seriously though. Don't you get the feeling that British and Australian actors are slumming it when they do big budget films? At least that is how they portray it. When you watch DVD extras or hear commentaries they are always saying things like, "of course in my years in the theater I wasn't used to the luxury of doing multiple takes..." or "Yes, I enjoyed working with Ian McKellan (or whatever obscure name that sounds famous, but most Americans wouldn't know). He's a charming gentleman. We worked together in London on MacBeth. He like myself understands the challenge of bringing serious acting to a movie full of explosions..."I don't know. I just feel like they are only doing it for the money. They'd much rather be slogging away at nightly performances of Greek tragedies in Saunterbury or Rothersdam or whatever British-sounding town they grew up in. Perhaps I'm paranoid.
Post a Comment