I was going to watch Theatrical cut along with all the extras followed by Director's Cut. Figure since I'm a fan of Ridley Scott I might as well.
Oh the BLADE RUNNER DVD Briefcase I never even touch.

If you want to figure out what the guy meant you might start with what he actually said.

That's obviously subjective but it's a pretty defensible claim. Most of what major studios put out is pretty ordinary. At best. That's true now, it's pretty much always been true. We could quibble about the word junk but the point would still stand.

And if people do forget about TDK, Inception or TCCoBB it won't be because they were commecially successful, it will be because at their heart they're ordinary movies in a sea of ordinary movies.

:shrug:

I think the problem with the entire idea of "such and such film doesn't deserve to be in the collection" is that it's all subjective. I think The Dark Knight is an amazing film just like I think The Sweet Smell of Success is an amazing film. There are also Criterion films I don't care for. I recently watched Mon Oncle and found it trite and tedious for the most part. Then again, it covers some territory similar to Modern Times and that movie is also in the collection. What's nice about Criterion releasing Following is that Nolan has become an important and recognised director, but his first film is a tiny indie film in black and white that another company is unlikely to release on Blu-ray. If Criterion can help a small movie like that get released in the best possible quality then there should be no reason for any fan of film to complain about it.

There's a reason why I think Insomnia is his best work: Swank's character is strong. She almost falters at the end and thank God she didn't. As for noir, I don't care about that, to be honest. He has done the same shit in almost every movie he's made. He needs to change it up.

There are tons of Criterion films I wouldn't touch with a 10-foot pole. They just don't appeal to me. I buy the ones that sound interesting from reviews here, and what the synopsis says. Or, if I've actually seen them. The sale Amazon had a few weeks ago, along with the subsequen price drop is a great thing, as I was able to do both: buy movies with nice restorations and special features at a decent price that I absolutely love, and find new movies to love. I'm addicted to Criterion Blu-Rays because of The Monkees. Yes, you read that correctly, The Monkees. My Monkees obsession compelled me to buy the BBS box set, as Head is my all-time favourite movie, and I really got to see what Criterion could do with Blu-Ray. I initially only bought the set for that one movie, with the intention of watching Five Easy Pieces and Easy Rider, and not really anything else in the set. I was wrong, the whole set is fantastic, even though I personally would not have sought out A Safe Place, or Drive, He Said if they were available for individual sale. The Last Picture Show and King of Marvin Gardens were incredible too. I had bought a used copy of Brazil on DVD, the single disc edition, which lacked in the way of special features, so I really couldn't tell how awesome Criterion was. I knew that they're seen as the kings of Special Features and quality HV releases, yet I've always been too cheap to pay 70 dollars for a single film. These new sale prices, combined with more accessible films have allowed me to seek out the more artsy, foreign films from Criterion's collection, because they look interesting, and are a high quality.

For me, I buy movies if I think they look interesting, and/or sound interesting from the title block. I usually try to see a few minutes of the film before I buy it. I haven't been burned too badly with my purchases, only once or twice on DVD, but then, I was buying the film out of the 5 dollar bin at the groccery store, and should have known that despite my interest in the film, there's sometimes a reason as to why movies are in the 5 dollar bin, and it's not a fluke pricing like the DVD Collector's Edition of Some Like it Hot was (at least I choose to belive Zellers in Masonville made that mistake). I sometimes watch movies to see what they hype is on the, i.e. if they won best picture, or are critically acclaimed. If I don't like it, I don't watch it again. If I do, I go buy it.

Regarding Nolan and Fincher: I can't say I'm a huge fan of either. I hated The Social Network, and Inception was meh. I get railed on all the time by a co-worker who thinks Inception is one of the greatest films ever. Yet, he usuallywon't watch any movie made before 1980, that's black & white, silent, and/or has subtitles. We've agreed to disagree on films. Personally, I think he's missing out on a lot of great stuff, and he thinks the same about me. It's all a matter of taste. BTW, Heath Ledger's actual last film, The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, was an ok film. It was one of the weakest films done by Gilliam though. I saw it in theatres, and was disappointed. I own it, as I did like some things about the film, but it's not one of Gilliam's films I watch frequently, like Fear & Loathing, or Brothers Grimm (one which most people think is his worst actually).

I'm probably rambling and have gone off topic, so I apologise.

I liked Nolan's Insomnia quite a bit but the Americanized 'just desserts' ending was probably the worst of the changes.

The original ends with .

That's the trouble in a forum, you have to accept that people will care and reply to what you said if they don't like it. ;)

In a way I am a bit like you, there are time when I just go :rolleyes: and it's one of the reasons I am staying out of the Star Wars thread now. Ok, ok to bring Star Wars in a Criterion thread is blasphemous. The thing is some of the things going on in the thread are just to silly. I am a hardcore Star Wars fans that is no secret but come one, certain people just make's things a bit to uncomfortable in there. It's the same silly argument about who is best, who is the best characters. I sort of step out of there after the 5-10 pages dicussion and serious name calling that was the argument over how much a lightsaber weight is.

My point is, I know that it's just a forum and it's all discussion and no one is right (even if some think they are). It's all about opinion. Me I like Criterion, Kino, BFI or Master Of Cinema because they releases movies that other studios just won't ever bother to release. Let's be honest and say that the chances of a Keaton (not Micheal Keaton by the way ;)) get's any type of major appeal for most people out there is rather slim. No sound, no CGI, no special efects, no explosions, how can they be expected to enjoy such a movie? :D I would have zero chances of getting movies like Alexander Nevsky if not for Criterion and the others. Yes like you I get frustrated by their releases sometimes, I am sure a lot of people do. We each have out favorites and would like to see these get releases. I also enjoy when they release something even more out of mainstream that I may have heard about or just never really seen. I may not buy the movie but again I get the chance to rent it and see it because they made a release, the chances of WB releasing some of these movies are a zero.

Where I differ with some people is I do not think certain directors and movies should be done by Criterion. To bring Nolan again and please don't kill me, I think he as enough popularity now that regular studios can release his movies and be very safe. It's the same for Spielberg and a lot of other directors of today. The mass media of today make's their name known for everyone. I understand why Criterion like having some of their movies, it does give them increase revenue and it's not a bad thing for them. I just feel that if they release a Nolan one month, a Anderson another month, Spielberg the next and so on, it's prevent the release of some movies that just would not be seen anymore. I would like to complete this by saying, it's only my opinion :)

Watched Le Cercle Rouge the other night for the first time, great film.

And I just skimmed a little of the debate about mainstream films and I would like to add that I enjoy the frak out of 2012. I had to tell somebody. Thanks.

This will be harsh, but I don't take the opinions of those who compare originals to the remakes seriously, because I think they should be judged separately. Nolan wanted to do something different. Who cares if it's not the same as the original?

OK. So you just agreed with me ;)

The fact he's popular means a lot of people have seen his films, thus there's more criticism for them in the media. I enjoyed The Dark Knight and have seen it a few times and will probably watch it again.

On the other hand, his latest film Inception does not hold up under repeat viewings. Since Nolan's films tend to be heavily plot/gimmick driven it makes it very hard to stomach them again. Inception is just not as clever as fans make it out to be and in fact, Nolan explains TOO MUCH. The second time I'm watching the film I don't care to know the rules of inception again-- it's boring. This is the difference between INCEPTION and a film like LAST YEAR AT MARIENBAD--- a film that doesn't try to explain. It shows and conveys feeling and allows us the viewer to think subjectively about it. Nolan's films just don't have this degree of sophistication.

Speaking of Hitchcock. I've mentioned this in the Birds thread, but it would be awesome if Criterion could work with BFI to get the Hitchcock 9 Restorations http://www.bfi.org.uk/saveafilm.html
It would make a awesome boxset. I'd pay a ton of money to see these restorations on Bluray. Especially after the DVD days of countless awful public domain releases.

I get that impression too sometimes. Although I don't think I've every read 'Kurosawa is overrated' on this forum before :D. Techinically I think fincher is one of the best directors working today. As far as Nolan I find his movies fresh. In a world where 90% of releases are overused fast cut CGI popcorn flicks I'm glad someone takes some chances. Even if they don't always pan out completely.

I agree I hate exibition in all films. I can't stand the long ending scene in Psycho, but in general studios consider American's too dumb to accept complicated scripts. This has been going on since the existence of Hollywood.

CG/SB will like this. It's from Ebert on OUT OF THE BLUE. He called it an unsung treasure in independent cinema:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...201010301/1023

Holy crap! I ordered Psycho, Topsy-Turvy and Howard's End on Blu from Amazon US Wednesday, and it's on a UPS truck coming from freaking Truro to my mom's house right now! Standard International Shipping selected too!:eek: I whole-heartily approve of Amazon switching from DHL to UPS, as my Black Narcissus is still sitting in Ontario, and I ordered it almost a week and a half ago. It took less time to get this than a freaking book I ordered from the Canadian site in Ontario!:rock: Fingers crossed that Bigger Than Life, Au Revoir Les Enfants, The Secret of Kells shows up just as quick.

Edit: Because I just ordered them today instead of waiting for next week.

That is my point, as the concept has been revisited many times before. Frankly, IMO Nolan will always be known as a director of 'action' movies, just like Bay is. Why he is even being discussed as a director that needs to be in the CC baffles me. His movies will always be big-budget hollywood extravaganzas folks, so lets get over him and take him for what he is- entertaining...

Of course I agree Shell, but my point was why can't a major studio take a chance on Stagecoach too? This is why so many classic quality films will never see a restored blu-ray release. The studios care more about money than the films themselves. Understandable, but not acceptable IMO.

Joe, that is a perfect synopsis of my thoughts too. There are plenty of 'entertaining' directors out there, but to say that their work 'needs' to be in a collection that frankly doesn't mirror what they put out is foolish dreaming. They are entertaining and that is why Warner and Universal, etc.. can handle their movies fine. But to almost sound like 'sour grapes' that they are not in the current collection is silly.

Criterion release films that are not like those people are ranting about. Their current model is one that is exciting to me. They release foreign and homegrown films, past and present, that like I said, most studios do not have the balls to release because it will not generate revenue for them.

Frankly, the thing that baffles me the most and I hope others see this and think, how are all the Chaplin films not out on blu-ray in the US yet?? My assumption is that any major studio believes that the restoration is too expensive and the sales will not equal profit. They may possibly be right, but we will never know. Chaplin is known as possibly the greatest comedic actor of all time. Unfortunately, we have to slowly wait for one company to pony up the funds to put them out one at a time, when frankly, a major studio has plenty of funds and resources to put them all out quickly and with quality transfers if they wanted...:confused:

I just can't understand why tere are endless pages of discussing Nolan and Fincher on the Criterion forum, when the films of those directors have their own threads (Batman, Social Network etc etc).
I mean, no problem in a little discussion on whether their films should or shouldn't be on the C catalog, but c'mon...

I hate to beat a dead horse, but this is your opinion regarding your comments about Inception being hard to stomach a second time. I've watched it twice now and am looking forward to a third time strictly because I enjoyed it that much. Same goes for Last Year at Marienbad, the film you use as its opposite in that regard.

Why would you expect everyone to think how you think and do what you do? Remember, these are our "personal" opinions and tastes.

I still don't get why there's page after page of people expressing their opinion only to have someone else argue their point as gospel. I mean if you want to catch up to the slipcover thread page count, have at it, but at least talk about something other than "this is what """"""I""""""" believe and it is the almighty word!

You thought the Swank character 'not faltering' was one of the strengths of the remake. I thought that same sequence was one of the weakest moments of the remake. I thought difference was an interesting point of conversation.

I see now that I was mistaken.

(btw, she didn't almost falter. She did falter. )