Slant watches David Lynch cook. Honestly why can't all directors go this extra mile for their DVD releases?MSN's Kim Morgan offers up a "Pfeiffer Top Ten" great writeups of Scarface and White Oleander in particular.
Gallery of the Absurd "Experience the Horror of John Travolta..."
patrakaar2b serves up the Booker list. Despite being called a "nerd" at work because I went to the library on my lunch hour (what is this, junior high?) I have not read these
Siskel & Ebert those were the days
MTV Chuck Pahlaniuk says Kathleen Turner's name out loud. Careful... in this bloggy world that causes misleading headlines and false rumors
The Movie Blog doesn't want to see baby 'Franklin' in the next Fantastic 4 Movie. Neither do I. I'm thinking: who would wish that plight on a child? But I'm also thinking: another FF movie? Dear Lord, no.
Bright Lights this rant about revenge in film makes a lot of assumptions about unseen movies but I still like it
And finally...
EW film critics keep losing at home...
Hollywood Reporter ...but they win overseas. I've often wondered why we can't get a law like this passed in America. Oh, that's right. We worship corporate profits above all else and it's in their best interest if they can control "reviews" of their products.
*
Posts
5 comments:
The kitschen Lynch bonus on the DVD explains a lot. I'm now sure his oven mitts are lying somewhere near the key board he used to edit Inland Empire. Yuk--what a bit of unbidden, self-indulgent seriousness that film is.
Well, sometimes it does happen that people lift the one positive highlight from your otherwise negative review. I've had this happen thrice already (that I am aware of, at least) and in all instances I thought it was pretty laughable. Since my reviews are online, why would people want to quote the one positive thing in my negative review? Has no one ever considered the possibility people might want to google the rest of the review?
lifts out of context are annoying but worst of all is how so many junketeers get their names on titles and hte general public doesn't know the difference between an earl dittman a susan granger or a legit critic you know?
it's all so maddening.
and it's changed a lot. when i was a kid you could tell the acclaimed films by the amount of text superimposed on their ads in the newspaper. Now every movie poster looks like that, doesn't it?
From Nathaniel: and it's changed a lot. when i was a kid you could tell the acclaimed films by the amount of text superimposed on their ads in the newspaper. Now every movie poster looks like that, doesn't it?
OH DEAR GOD YES. Everything is a crowdpleaser, action packed thrill ride, edge of your seat blahblahblahblah.
On not knowing the difference (or rather, trusting that the audience does not know the difference), it happened to me with a French poster of a German film that I thought was pretty good (not terrific, but pretty good) and they plastered the poster with three (!) of my quotes, one attributed just to my name with no affiliation, one attributed just to my website's name and one attributed to another website on which the review had been cross-published.
It just stopped short of noting it was the darling of the critics (i.e. just me), but that was definitely pushing it.
Post a Comment