Originally Posted by IronWaffle (Post 5929202)

I haven't seen too much Tony Curtis, but he's never much interested me. I find him hammy in a sort of Shatneresque (or even Heston at his least restrained -- NOT to equate these actors!). In my opinion, this film's dark strokes and snappish dilaogue finds good use for this "speciality."

If Christopher Guest, who comes across as a very genial and genuine person, didn't get along with him I think that says quite a bit.

I had a big turnaround on Lancaster several years ago. Growing up in the '80s, I saw him as that old man in Tough Guys who wore a suit instead of acid wash jeans. At times I find him over-bearing but at his best that comes across as such a natural a thoroughbred it can't be disguised. He also made some great choices in his projects, whether producing or acting. The Swimmer is flawed but fascinating (and I'd love to see a *cough* non-barebones *cough* Criterion edition!). Brute Force is a solid prison movie that I think rises above is genre, his turn in From Here to Eternity is quite good, Birdman of Alcatraz is classic even if he cranks the earnestness too high in it, and The Killers is great noir. I really need to finally see The Leopard.

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl (Post 5929214)

I also never really like him either and I did see quite a few movies with him in it. Like Kirk Douglas, good actors that for some reasons just cannot reach me with their performances.

Originally Posted by BohemianGraham (Post 5929248)

Kirk is totally campy in a lot of stuff I've watched him in, and I think a lot of it has to do with SCTV. Joe Flaherty does a dead-on impersonation of him on the old SCTV shows, which causes me not to take Douglas serious enough, because he does have the tendancy to rage and talk through his teeth. :D Kirk Douglas and Tony Curtis never seem to merge into their roles for me, they're always Tony Curtis or Kirk Douglas, where as other actors, such a Henry Fonda or Spencer Tracy, become the characters they play. Jimmy Stewart manages to do that sometimes, but in several cases, I still always see him a Jimmy Stewart. Despite all that, Stewart is still one of my favourite actors.

Originally Posted by BohemianGraham (Post 5929237)

Yeah, Tony had issues from what I read. I mean, he did leave Janet Leigh to marry Christine Kaufmann, and was always going after "younger models." I still prefer many other actors, but The Sweet Smell of Success made me like him as an actor more than say, Spartacus, or The Great Race.

The Leopard is probably my second favourite Criterion release after Head (yes, those damn Monkees again! :p). It's quite incredible how they have an Irish-American play one of the last Sicilian aristocrats. :) I'd have to say one of my favourite Lancaster films is Elmer Gantry though, which TCM is currently touring theatres with. :)

Originally Posted by IronWaffle (Post 5929265)

Yes, Elmer Gantry is also great and deserves better than its current edition.

Well, that's another vote for The Leopard... and yet it feels like its years before I'll get around to it despite my library having a lonely copy.

If the Monkees' 33 & 1/3 can't turn you off from being a fan, this here may be the last thing that could pull off that coup. And I say that as someone with the limited edition soundtrack from Head on his shelf (but without a record player to listen to the single it included:angry:)

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl (Post 5929261)

I think it depend's on how we perceive them or not. I like Spencer Tracy, great actor. I also like Jimmy Stewart but it is true that he does a lot of the same type of thing in many of his role but like with John Wayne I was always able to overlook it. For other actors I just can't get pass it.

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl (Post 5929214)

I also never really like him either and I did see quite a few movies with him in it. Like Kirk Douglas, good actors that for some reasons just cannot reach me with their performances.

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl (Post 5929261)

I think it depend's on how we perceive them or not. I like Spencer Tracy, great actor. I also like Jimmy Stewart but it is true that he does a lot of the same type of thing in many of his role but like with John Wayne I was always able to overlook it. For other actors I just can't get pass it.

Originally Posted by IronWaffle (Post 5929291)

I love Jimmy Stewart and give him a total pass. This is no doubt because I was introduced to him really early. Even if he is basically Jimmy Stewart as "..." in most of his roles, his low-key, yet dignified nature is one that really appeals to me. I also like some of his later roles and how their grain runs against his persona. On the other hand, John Wayne I have a very hard time with because I associate him with bluster, a trait I find hard to overlook no matter how good the film or how solid his performance, pilgrim.

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl (Post 5929311)

John Wayne is the one that in general most people have a hard time. he really is the perfect example of "you either like him or you don't" :) I never seen much middle ground with him from most people. You are right that Stewart low key, humble performances probably make most people like him. he come's across as a uncle you just can't dislike :)

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl (Post 5929311)

John Wayne is the one that in general most people have a hard time. he really is the perfect example of "you either like him or you don't" :) I never seen much middle ground with him from most people. You are right that Stewart low key, humble performances probably make most people like him. he come's across as a uncle you just can't dislike :)

Originally Posted by BohemianGraham (Post 5929312)

Speaking of Elmer Gantry, it's an United Artist pic, which technically falls under the MGM banner. Anyone think Criterion might release it, or is it too mainstream and popular, that another studio would be able to handle it, despite the neglect they gave to the current DVD release? ;)

Originally Posted by IronWaffle (Post 5929352)

Criterion sold out and prefers mainstream titles.

That film really was treated shabbily by MGM/UA's DVD. I don't see it getting revisited.

Originally Posted by BohemianGraham (Post 5929363)

But, a lot of posters on here would consider it mainstream! That's the thing! :p

Also, Head was treated pretty shabbily by Rhino (fullscreen, so-so transfer, no commentary, and just a handful of trailers), but Criterion grabbed it and gave it a fantastic transfer, so maybe Criterion will rescue Elmer Gantry too.

Originally Posted by IronWaffle (Post 5929380)

I heard you on the mainstreamness of the 60 year-old Gantry.

Yeah, Head has never had a good video track record. Others here would know better, but wasn't the BBS set originally going to be Sony, not Criterion? I'd love to think that Head could have been a Criterion standalone set, but one of the voices in my head thinks that the themed set was its ticket. Then again, maybe the venom has already reached my heart.

Originally Posted by BohemianGraham (Post 5929400)

Yes, it was originally going to be a Sony set, but I think Criterion taking it over was probably the best thing that happened to it. We still have people on this forum who balked against those long haired weirdos being included in the set, let alone the Criterion collection, because they're just a manufactured image, with no philosophies, after all. They probably all thought Criterion was smoking a few El Zumos to add this film. ;)

Originally Posted by IronWaffle (Post 5929422)

I may be naive, but if it had stayed with Sony I wouldn't have expected the extras to be so bountiful. I can see why folks would believe there's no merit to this set. After all, all belief possibly could be said to be the result of some conditioning. Thus, the study of [forums] is simply the study of one system of beliefs deposing another, and so on and so on and so on... A psychologically tested belief of our time is that the central nervous system, which feeds it's impulses directly to the brain (the conscious and subconscious) is unable to discern between the real, and the vividly imagined [1080p] experience.

This reminds me: I really need to pull the set off the shelf and devote as much time in it as I did money. Head is the only film I watched (when my brother came for a visit). What made the set a must for me was Five Easy Pieces, the only other film in the set I'd seen. I have little interest in Easy Rider and always find a reason to hold off on Last Picture Show. Reading this thread I've got a pretty good idea which of the others to dive into and which to, um, not to.

For to examine these [films] requires tremendous energy and discipline. To allow the unknown to occur and to occur requires clarity. And where there is clarity there is no choice. And where there is choice, there is misery.

Originally Posted by BohemianGraham (Post 5929464)

Hence me saying it's the best thing to happen to this set, it's no longer God's gift to the 8-year old, or paying tribute to Ringo Starr. ;) A Safe Place is the only film I'd avoid, unless you like mental torture, because the film is pretty white.

People think Criterion is plastic now, babe, but wait 'til they get through telling us how they do it, with this crop of current releases.

But then, why should I speak, since I know nothing?

Have we worn out the Head quotes yet? ;) I'm having fun, but I'm sure the others aren't. :D

Originally Posted by stobbart (Post 5928363)

I could care less about Anger or Lynch, you can like whoever you want.

Originally Posted by IronWaffle (Post 5929496)

Plastics and rubber souls. Sums it up.

All I've got left is Mike's "You're evil!" and "Sounds like a lot of supernatural baloney to me."

Switching to other Criterion news: Netflix has pulled Harold & Maude from Instant Streaming in the last few days. Has anybody heard any official reference to or explanation for the delay or the dropped extras, is there?