Wednesday, July 12, 2006

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Following up on my post of last month about the writer of "Heathers," one of the more perfect movies of the past 15-20 years, reuniting with its star, Winona Ryder, for a new film...


"According to Winona Ryder, she and Heathers scripter Daniel Waters--both at work on the dark comedy Sex and Death 101--are drumming up a sequel to the 1989 cult classic. 'I've been [arguing], 'There's Heathers in the real world!' she says. 'We have to keep going.'"


No. No you don't. No you shouldn't. "Heathers" does not need a sequel. Then again, that's what I think about "Clerks" and look what's happening there. Even if you could justify such a sequel artistically-and 99% of all sequels can't be-too much time has passed; it's been 17 years and we know too much about Winona.

I don't know what it is with all these years-after sequels lately. I think the "Clerks" sequel is going to suck but I don't care that much, and I certainly don't care that the "Basic Instinct" sequel wasn't worth the wait (who was waiting?). I read elsewhere that Danny DeVito is talking about a third "Romancing the Stone" picture. Forgive me, but has anyone seen Kathleen Turner recently? She may still have the sexy Jessica Rabbit voice but "Body Heat" was a long time ago. Most people probably know her best now as Chandler Bing's transsexual dad.

But "Heathers" actually means something to me, and I don't want to see it tainted.

Source-via ONTD.

1 comment:

Tom Hilton said...

Heathers is great, and I agree with you--no need for a sequel.

I saw it while I was in a teaching credential program; the woman sitting next to me was, I noticed, grading English papers before the movie began. All of which kind of enhanced the movie experience.