SB/CG,

I thought you'd like Malick. Days of Heaven was practically filmed like a silent movie and has sparse dialog (that and it's masterful, imo). Plus, I know you love silents.

I'm not understanding the indifference towards Malick.

Might be because he created two of the best films of the 70s and one of the best films of the 90s, which were his first three films. Might give him just a little bit of credibility as a director.

If you liked Scarlet Street you should look around for The Woman in the Window. It's a little bit more of a straight crime drama but it's another very good Lang/Robinson combo (made the year before).

I'd love to see somebody give these a really high quality restoration but I'm pretty sure they're both public domain. I know that's not an automatic dealbreaker but it doesn't usually help.

I absolutely LOVE "Scarlet Street". I caved recently and bought the DVD for the David Kalat commentary and it was completely worth it, his commentary on this disc (and all of his other commentaries that I've listened to for that matter) are fantastic. Practically little film history courses in and of themselves! :D

I'd love to see it come out on Blu!

Yeah, that must be it.

Must be.

I was never a huge nerd for Malick, no. I LIKE his films, don't LOVE them. It's kind of like a Barry Lyndon thing for me. Love the cinematography (best of any Kubrick's films), but come on now.

Speaking of Tarr, he needs to get a Criterion release immediately. The 9 hour Satantango? I'd prefer Werckmeister Harmonies myself, as it's still the most moving picture I've seen.

When you say "Two of the best films of the 70's" and "one of the best of the 90's", how many films are in the "best" list? Like, are they #1 or #2,345 of the best? And what about his last film? It's not a "best"? Now we are giving ratings to movies that is not out yet, based off of director's past works?

The very definition of ideologue (and a reminder that the word "fan" is short for "fanatical"). Such bias gets my hackles up too but I admit I fall victim from time to time. The Criterion label has influenced me, leading me to watch movies I normally wouldn't have and giving those I didn't particularly care for the benefit of the doubt just because they're Criterions. That seems to be the case with a lot of Criterion fans. I can think of more than one example of someone saying a Criterion title was great--not OK, good or pretty good but "great"--that (IMO) just plain sucked.

I like Scarlet Street too. I received the "5 Film Noir Killer Classics" DVD collection as a gift. Usually those public domain collections suck so I wasn't too excited. However, in addition to Scarlet Street this one has D.O.A., Detour, The Stranger and Killer Bait so it's actually a pretty solid collection.

I'm not taking sides on Malick but George Lucas' first three features were THX 1138, American Graffiti and Star Wars and he has zero credibility as a director.

I'm just saying...

If it is not too late...
 

Shelloiljunior' s top 10

New
The Magnificent Ambersons (1942)
Blue Velvet (1986)
Long Day's Journey Into Night (1962)
Wuthering Heights (1939)
Barton Fink (1991)

Blu Upgrades
The Fire Within
The Spirit of the Beehive
Ace in the Hole
Viridiana
Juliet of the Spirits

Thanks Octagon! I checked and saw that I added "The Woman in the Window" to my queue recently. I must have heard about Scarlet Street from one of you guys. ;)



I look forward to The Woman in the Window. :)

It's a Kino DVD, so I hope they eventually release it on blu...who knows...maybe they will release all of the noir films in that Lang noir collection.

Yeah...the picture in the NetFlix queue is from the cover of that collection...would be cool if Kino decided to release that boxset on blu! :)

Mono is not an artistic decision so much as a technological limitation, so I'm not sure what you mean by "intended" here. Personally, I have my AVR send a mono soundtrack to all channels so I can hear it better.

You never fail to amuse me. Those three films are widely considered among the best of their respective decades, according to innumerable critics. Lists are subjective, thereby making an actual number ranking irrelevant. A more generalized statement is much more effective at conveying the point. What about his last film? Did I mention it? Did I say it was a "best?" Nope. That was of your own invention, as is typical in your arguments.

As for your last sentence, who's "we?" And, assuming arguendo that you're referring to me, when have I ever given the film a "rating?" That's right, I didn't. The implication from my statements, which may or may not be over your head, is that the very little production that Malick has had and the quality he's produced almost universally among critics in his first three pictures warrants a degree of optimism (something you consistently have shown you lack) that his latest will be of a high quality.

That's a very fair point, but there's a major difference between the two. Lucas is considered very influential to cinema, but no one ever said he was a great director or writer in an artistic sense. Malick is nowhere near as well-known to the general public, but he's always been critically lauded for his directing and writing. But you make a fair point that a director's past certainly doesn't always translate to credibility, nor does it guarantee quality in upcoming films, but I think it's a case-by-case basis. At the end of the day, it's impossible to judge a film before it's released, but there's nothing wrong with looking forward to it and thinking it may continue along a trend of quality.

I can see playing a mono track through the L/R speakers.... but the surrounds??? The people on-screen would sound like they are in front of you, and behind you at the same time :confused: