movie detritus
- Christina Ricci is so far gone career-wise that she is down to being quoted about her eyebrows. Check this out: "I was plucking my eyebrows like crazy for a while, but it was too high maintenance. ...I like that old movie star look, but my boyfriend was like, 'You look crazy.'"
(sigh)
Prozac Nation really must have done a number on her. And I don't mean the movie itself, but how long it went without being released. And then, well, yeah, how awful it was. According to, oh, EVERY film critic I ever read.
- Gene Wilder was quoted as saying he thinks Tim Burton's version of Charlie & the Chocolate Factory was made strictly for the money.
No, you think?
Wilder seemed quite cordial about the whole thing, saying he admired Johnny Depp's work and was complimented by the star's comments. And while it smacks of someone standing up for their version of a story, it also comes down to that question I've been repeating over and over lately: Why would they re-make THAT movie? We have seen so many lately: Texas Chainsaw Massacre / Amityville Horror / Willy Wonka / Psycho / The Getaway / King Kong / Manchurian Candidate / you name it. Frequently they aren't even great movies.
So why all the do-overs? Greed and the inability to create. Business and sterile art.
I blame Blockbuster.
- Lastly, British film magazine Empire did a poll to see who were the best film directors of all time. The list was as follows:
1-Steven Spielberg
2-Alfred Hitchcock
3-Martin Scorsese
4-Stanley Kubrick
5-Ridley Scott
6-Akira Kurosawa
7-Peter Jackson
8-Quentin Tarantino
9-Orson Welles
10-Woody Allen
I don't put it past anyone to name Spielberg the best, because he's viewed as such a magician that I almost don't mind him slipping through. Granted, his weightier films are fewer than his fun ones. But he has the ability to do both on his side, and I'd wager that few on the list can lay claim to that skill.
The majority of the list are directors whose works clearly will be remembered, studied and revered for decades to come. But...Ridley Scott and Peter Jackson? They make enjoyable films, to be certain. But they have not yet garnered the kind of resonant acclaim that I think the rest of the list displays. Even Allen and Tarantino, who are more contemporary auteurs than pure artists, have at least become synonymous with their favored genres, even if they haven't risen above them.
It just seems a shame that masters like Sidney Lumet, John Ford and Billy Wilder weren't noticed. Or that more European filmmakers didn't make the grade. Godard? Truffaut? Bertolucci? Wenders? Herzog?
Ah well. Lord of the Rings was awfully pretty, huh?
(sigh)
Prozac Nation really must have done a number on her. And I don't mean the movie itself, but how long it went without being released. And then, well, yeah, how awful it was. According to, oh, EVERY film critic I ever read.
- Gene Wilder was quoted as saying he thinks Tim Burton's version of Charlie & the Chocolate Factory was made strictly for the money.
No, you think?
Wilder seemed quite cordial about the whole thing, saying he admired Johnny Depp's work and was complimented by the star's comments. And while it smacks of someone standing up for their version of a story, it also comes down to that question I've been repeating over and over lately: Why would they re-make THAT movie? We have seen so many lately: Texas Chainsaw Massacre / Amityville Horror / Willy Wonka / Psycho / The Getaway / King Kong / Manchurian Candidate / you name it. Frequently they aren't even great movies.
So why all the do-overs? Greed and the inability to create. Business and sterile art.
I blame Blockbuster.
- Lastly, British film magazine Empire did a poll to see who were the best film directors of all time. The list was as follows:
1-Steven Spielberg
2-Alfred Hitchcock
3-Martin Scorsese
4-Stanley Kubrick
5-Ridley Scott
6-Akira Kurosawa
7-Peter Jackson
8-Quentin Tarantino
9-Orson Welles
10-Woody Allen
I don't put it past anyone to name Spielberg the best, because he's viewed as such a magician that I almost don't mind him slipping through. Granted, his weightier films are fewer than his fun ones. But he has the ability to do both on his side, and I'd wager that few on the list can lay claim to that skill.
The majority of the list are directors whose works clearly will be remembered, studied and revered for decades to come. But...Ridley Scott and Peter Jackson? They make enjoyable films, to be certain. But they have not yet garnered the kind of resonant acclaim that I think the rest of the list displays. Even Allen and Tarantino, who are more contemporary auteurs than pure artists, have at least become synonymous with their favored genres, even if they haven't risen above them.
It just seems a shame that masters like Sidney Lumet, John Ford and Billy Wilder weren't noticed. Or that more European filmmakers didn't make the grade. Godard? Truffaut? Bertolucci? Wenders? Herzog?
Ah well. Lord of the Rings was awfully pretty, huh?
posted by scn at 11:26 PM
<< Home