Originally Posted by Kevtronn (Post 2333883)

zedd 117, I am also very interested in The Human Condition! However, I can not yet justify paying that much for a DVD...

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl (Post 2333667)

I ordered The Sevent Seal today, cannot wait to have it and watch it. The review for it is amazing and I have not watch the movie in quite sometime, maybe 15 years or so, the early 90's at the very least.

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl (Post 2333819)

I enjoy some of them personaly. It's in this collection that you will find movies that won't be release in any other fashion. They also do a wonderful restoration work on the movies. It would be so difficult to have movie like Sergei Eisenstein The Battleship Potemkin or Alexander Nevsky otherwise. They are not movies that are well known by the public and so will not get a wide release.

I know many buy Criterion release out of curiosity, to see different type of movies that you will be able to find at Best Buy :) Of course I am sometimes a bit suprise by what goes on Criterion listing but c'est la vie :)

Originally Posted by Elvis (Post 2334012)

If your talking about Michael Bay films and Hollywood blockbusters (Silence of the Lambs etc..) I think they serve one purpose and thats to generate cash so they can continue restoring films that should be preserved.

Originally Posted by Volume11 (Post 2334027)

Are you implying that Michael Bay is not worthy of the Criterion banner?

Originally Posted by Elvis (Post 2334040)

Umm...Yeah that would be correct but Criterion has to sell "some" mainstream dics to help pay the bills. :)

Originally Posted by Volume11 (Post 2333896)

I do not fall into that category. Its quite illogical to claim to like every release from Criterion. I have a few friends who have the entire DVD collection and a good portion of the laserdisc library and I always eff with them for just buying anything with criterion printed on the box.

That being said, criterion generally picks quality films and presents them well so they are different than liking a studio like Fox or Columbia.

But I also think people who hvave 500 BDs and counting are absurd and have no taste and/or too much time and money on their hands.

Originally Posted by Volume11 (Post 2334027)

Are you implying that Michael Bay is not worthy of the Criterion banner?

Originally Posted by Volume11 (Post 2334044)

Have you seen the Rock?

Originally Posted by Beta Man (Post 2334046)

For me personally.... Part 1) I enjoy a large majority of them, and buy the rest for pure "collecting" purposes, and also, because many I find liking more and more over time, or I rewatch them because other films pulled artistic bits and pieces from them, or because you can watch the evolution of a director/actor etc....

Part 2) Maybe they have very "wide" taste, and not none at all..... or perhaps they collect for the sake of collecting..... nothing wrong with that either.






I personally would never imply that either.......



I would flat out STATE IT.

Originally Posted by Elvis (Post 2334057)

Yes I have seen "The Rock" and yes I thought it was pure cheese (IMHO). Yes they put some mainstream films out to make money. How many people do you think would buy say Nanook of the North or Jules and Jim? Takes money to restore those films.

I was just trying to get a sense of why you would collect a film if you didnt like it. Do you think if Criterion's didnt have numbers on the spines people would still collect them all just to collect?

Originally Posted by Elvis (Post 2334012)

If your talking about Michael Bay films and Hollywood blockbusters (Silence of the Lambs etc..) I think they serve one purpose and thats to generate cash so they can continue restoring films that should be preserved.

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl (Post 2334138)

I did not notice, Michael Bay as some of his movies on Criterion?

Originally Posted by Elvis (Post 2334162)

Yes.

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl (Post 2334183)

That got me curious, went and check the list...Armageddon??? Really?? :confused:

I am not a film expert, far from it, my taste in movie is rather well known on this site by now :p Still it's funny to see Michael Bay on a listing of a collection of movies side by side with names like Kurosawa, Hitchcock, Fellini, Truffaut, Bergman, Godard, Olivier & Eisenstein :D

Originally Posted by zedd_117 (Post 2333806)

The trasfer is truely stunning. I've watched it twice in the past month, and am planning on watching it again with commentary soon. You shouldn't be disappointed. Not quite as strong as "The Third Man" transfer-wise, but a huge improvment over DVD releases I've been told.

Originally Posted by TTUBatfan2008 (Post 2334269)

Hmmm...the transfer looks better in the screenshots I've seen than the Third Man. Not a fan of the large grain in The Third Man. Seventh Seal features smaller, finer grain and consequently more detail.

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screen...774&position=2

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screen...195&position=6

Originally Posted by Volume11 (Post 2334396)

The 7th seal pops more than the third man. I wonder if it was criterion's choice or is it simply because they remained faithful to the original intent.

Originally Posted by Elvis (Post 2333575)

I wonder how many of you collect Criterion though just because it's Criterion? Would you buy a Criterion just to "have" it even if you didnt like it? I have never met anyone that has actually liked all the criterion releases...not one.
I am just curious.....

Originally Posted by Elvis (Post 2334012)

If your talking about Michael Bay films and Hollywood blockbusters (Silence of the Lambs etc..) I think they serve one purpose and thats to generate cash so they can continue restoring films that should be preserved.

Originally Posted by adh56 (Post 2334531)

Are you implying Silence of the Lambs is not worthy? Everybody else jumped on the Bay portion but the Silence of the Lambs part is sticking with me.