Entertainment Weekly Hype Etc.

Started by modage, July 15, 2010, 09:15:22 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Pas

I wish Pedro Almodovar wasn't there. Him being in it makes the list completely insane and stupid not because he doesn't deserve it but because it means non-english directors are considered. Wong Kar Wai anyone?

Also Jim Jarmush and Michael Mann are better than some of these.

Katherin Bigelow better than James fucking Cameron is a farce and a travesty.

Also:

22. J.J. Abrams
THE EVIDENCE: Star Trek (2009), Mission: Impossible III (2006)

lol

WTF

socketlevel

strange days and near dark are great movies. too bad her evidence is only one film because they didn't do their research.
the one last hit that spent you...

Pubrick

oh and polanski and eastwood have had it.

i forgot to say that last time.
under the paving stones.

modage

Quote from: Pas on February 24, 2011, 07:45:20 AM
Wong Kar Wai anyone?

I think he nearly invalidated himself with My Blueberry Nights.
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

Stefen

It's not a BAD list, but yeah tons of undeserving Americans. It basically follows the EW modus operandi of people who are hot right now.

I would have put Cronenberg on there in place of Wright or even Polanski. Cronenberg has been doing work and doesn't appear to be letting up. Glad to see Malick in the top 10 and PTA right outside it. If they're going by NOW they should take Spike Lee and Lynch off. Like P said with Wes Anderson, it would probably kick start Spike Lee and get him to make something relevant again.
Falling in love is the greatest joy in life. Followed closely by sneaking into a gated community late at night and firing a gun into the air.

Pas

Of course it's a bad list. It wouldn't be as bad if they sad : ''Hottest directors in hollywood right now'' or whatever, but 'greatest'?! Not even a mention of hollywood, too. Also, what a major overrate for Aronofsky.

Sounds like a stupid magazine. Doesn't sound like the people writing it are very smart either, or at least know much about cinema. They do sound like they know a lot about box office and how much popcorn this or that movie sold. Maybe they considered in their ratings of directors how much money people paid for extra butter in their popcorn. There is a huge markup in that sale so it's important for directors to realize you have to push the extra butter sale.

I read Sight and Sound a couple of times and it was smart. Maybe that's why their list of top directors is not so lame.

Sucks for you guys not to have english Cahiers. They have the best lists. They even talk about american cinema like 80% of the time (maybe more 30% but I want to sell it to you guys). It's weird because they sometimes love american movies that are critical flops in America. Like, they went apeshit over Bad Lieutenant Port of Call New Orleans. Oh no, the weirdest one is that they just LOVED War of the Worlds with Tom Cruise. Man they loved that one. It's as if not only do they not care what american critics say, they kind of despise them. French people, oh how we are awesome.

samsong

offensively american!

really though i think the kicker here is that in celebrating fincher as the "greatest" director working today, they cite benjamin button and aaron sorkin's facebook movie as the benchmark for his mastery of visual storytelling.  mike leigh's inclusion seems especially bizarre to me.  i didn't think him to be popular or fashionably obscure enough to make the cut for a list like this. 

it's an entertainment weekly list.  like gt said, meaningless. 

picolas

the write-up on malick is so silly..

"All of his works seem to spring fully formed out of his mind and onto the screen"

are you serious?!?!?!?!?!?!? he's like, the least planned person ever. let alone director.

pete

I'm just grateful it's not a photo of Michael Bay with "say what you will about him, he's insert however you measure some dude's success"-type blurbs.
"Tragedy is a close-up; comedy, a long shot."
- Buster Keaton

Gold Trumpet

When Ingmar Bergman was approached with the idea "everything is political", he said he preferred for people to look at things as if they were all ethical. More and more, magazines and critical appetites feel political in whatever trends they are promoting. You look at a magazine like Entertainment Weekly and others and all you see is the politics of taste.

Pubrick

Haha gt sometimes you talk as if you've swallowed .

Here's what you were like .
under the paving stones.

Alexandro

this thread shouldn't even exist.
who gives a shit about entertainment weekly?
entertainment . weekly.
that should be enough.

cahiers du cinema, that's a thread. they have interesting and plain weird selections. they loved the fucking village. they find interesting shit in the flops. and they choose good movies too.

Pas


modage

Quote from: Alexandro on February 26, 2011, 05:22:11 PM
this thread shouldn't even exist.
who gives a shit about entertainment weekly?
entertainment . weekly.

Read the first post. I made it to talk about how EW has no POV.
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.