There is not a single mainstream country song in the Pitchfork Top 500 Tracks of the 2000s.* Not judging, just interesting!
* Unless I missed one. There are songs from Loretta Lynn and Johnny Cash, but they don’t really count. There certainly aren’t any of the ones I’d expect to be there, e.g. Miranda Lambert, Big & Rich, and Taylor Swift.
Honestly, did anyone think “Land of the Lost” was going to be a hit? I could have told everyone that it would bomb. Will Ferrell’s star power does not extend to crappy remakes of crappy TV shows from the ’70s. I’m still shocked that “Duplicity” didn’t do better, though.
And Brad Pitt? I don’t think he has actual “get people to the movies” power. He’s a big star with a lot of recognition, but I wouldn’t count on him to actually bring in a huge audience, not the way Tom Hanks or Julia Roberts used to. I predicted that “Inglorious Basterds” would have a good enough opening weekend and then fall, like so many of the current movies. So far, I’m right about the first part of that prediction.
"“Imagine That,” starring Mr. Murphy, was such a disaster that Paramount Pictures had to take a write-down. Mr. Sandler? His “Funny People”limped out of the gate and then collapsed. Some of these may simply have not been very good, but an A-list star is supposed to overcome that.” - Well, yes. A lot of these movies are not very good. Who greenlit “Imagine That?” Why does Eddie Murphy insist on doing horrible childrens’ films? “Funny People?” was never going to do gangbusters business.
I think Hollywood is too lazy to figure out how to make accessible, decent films, and the chasm between the “Transformers” and the artier, indier movies is growing ever larger.
My co-worker and I have this thing where we talk about how hot Alexander Skarsgard is. The man is a chameleon, I think. He can look totally different with long hair, short hair, slicked back hair. And the True Blood makeup factors in, too.
I was supposed to get this badass manicure at a Japanese salon by my place tonight [rarely does anything cool happen on the UES], but the woman didn’t understand what I wanted, so I wound up getting just some glitter, which I figured I had to do, because it wasn’t like I was going to any ordinary nail salon. What’s going to happen- I’ll go back next month and get the crazy cal-gel thing with these peacock nails, and I’ll be satisfied. It’s kind of expensive, but I rarely get a professional manicure.
1. That editor is full of bullshit, with that whole “looking your best” thing. SELF should be about promoting the best YOU without retouching, hmm? Also, the editor [Lucy Danziger] should not have included her little anecdote about airbrushing pictures of herself post-marathon. The hipocrisy of SELF magazine pulling this shit is just delicious. Again, no one believes that all cover subjects look the same in real life, but there are certain limits on what is alright in terms of airbrushing/retouching.
2. Everyone knows that Kelly is not a size 0. No one is going to forgo buying the magazine because Kelly looks “fat” on the cover.
3. Don’t pose the cover subject in such a way that massive airbrushing/retouching will be necessary afterwards! Shoot her face. Shoot her in an action pose…I don’t know! What’s the point of putting her on the cover in the first place if you’re going to shave pounds off?
4. VOGUE, for heaven’s sake- Charlize Theron is on the cover looking like herself! Yes, she looks extra smooth, but at least she’s recognizeable.
5. Everyone’s buzzing about Mario Testino and Anna Wintour’s dissection of Sienna Miller’s poorer features in “The September Issue,” but again- why put her on the cover if you have issues with her general looks, and you’re just going to do some composite Frankenstein work to get the perfect cover shot? She’s not Angelina Jolie. She’s not Gwyenth. She’s not the most well known, well loved actress.