| The Next Big Thing | 
 enlarge | Actors: Connie Britton, Chris Eigeman, Ileen Getz, Peter Giles, Farley Granger
Studio: Fox Lorber
Category: DVD
List Price: $14.98
Buy New: $2.25
You Save: $12.73 (85%)
New (21) Used (10) from $2.25
Avg. Customer Rating:  2 reviews
Sales Rank: 92546
Format: Color, Dolby, Dvd-video, Widescreen, Ntsc
Language: English (Original Language)
Rating: R (Restricted)
Number Of Items: 1
Running Time: 87
Aspect Ratio: 1.85:1
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.2
Dimensions (in): 7.1 x 5.4 x 0.6
ISBN: 0794202403
UPC: 720917533629
EAN: 9780794202408
ASIN: B00006IUHD
Theatrical Release Date: 2002
Release Date: October 29, 2002
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Condition: This is a new DVD from a distributor.
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Amazon.com
This satire of the art world springs from this question: What matters more, the art or the artist? Floundering artist Gus Bishop (Chris Eigeman, Barcelona) can't get a gallery to even consider his work. Then a thief breaks into Bishop's studio and steals one of his paintings, which--after the thief concocts a dramatic and sorrowful life for the reclusive artist--sells for $10,000. The lure of easy money helps the thief convince Bishop to manufacture a hoax and turn this fictional artist into an art star. Before long, Bishop finds monstrous success that he can't take any credit for, and a girlfriend who dumped him when he was a failure decides to blackmail him for a share of the loot. Though The Next Big Thing has some lapses in logic, Eigeman's unique combination of innocence and cynicism carry the film along. --Bret Fetzer
|
| Customer Reviews:
 Wonderful movie for any artist September 6, 2003
0 out of 5 found this review helpful
Simply said the art speaks for itself, watch the movie and find out what the heck I mean!
 Entertaining with one big flaw May 2, 2003
2 out of 3 found this review helpful
The premise is quite well carried off and the art even looks real, but there is one big logical flaw in the plot that bothered me. It is NOT fraud to use a "nom de brush" just as writers can legally use a "nom de plume". As long as the artist was not trying to pass off the work as an existing artist's work, there was NO law that was broken. As for embellishing the background of the artist, well just ask any Hollywood agent about that. Otherwise the story is provocative and does make you wonder...just what is being "valued" in a work of art..the work itself or the label, with the label being the artist's tortured bio.
|
|
|
