The Criterion Collection

[keldons]

Originally Posted by Volume11

I don't disagree about Godard, as I value his work less and less as I get older, but ANYONE can do what Malick has done since TTRL...taking slow and pretty shots of nature interposed with a hackneyed narrative isn't anything but weak story telling at it's best. Its a lot easier to take the psuedo-intellectual hands off approach he often employs with his films than it is to take pretty RELEVANT pictures to a story that actually has something to say outside refusing to say anything...

I don't like being force fed black and white logic screenplays but true masters can tell a story with a point without hitting you over the head with it and leaving certain aspects open while having great cinematography to boot...Malick only has one of those aspects down...

I think you just explained why he is hit or miss for many people. I really don't think you should go into Malick expecting a concrete or exceptionally cathartic storyline because it is obviously not his aim. The Thin Red Line in particular excels for me because it examines the different minds of the soldiers going into battle, rather than focusing on lame far fetched storylines or exploitation of violence. I'm looking at you, Saving Private Ryan. Yes there is no overtly obvious concrete storyline, but for me it is special due to the mix of feelings and tones present (is there any place that would have a broader spectrum of emotions than a battlefield?), rather than any sort of cathartic story.

And I would say the argument that he is "pseudo-intellectual" isn't particularly strong. His academic credentials are impressive. Not to say that his work is gospel because of his accomplishments in academia, but it adds a little bit of credit to his oeuvre.

I don't really care if you grow to enjoy his films or not, but hopefully that gives you some sort of alternative look at his stuff and wasn't a complete waste of your time to read

[fdm]

Originally Posted by Arkadin

well imo there really doesn't look to be much difference except for obvious different color timing.
the overall detail looks almost identical so I'm not sure Criterion wasn't more correct that some people are saying.
I certainly don't think the "richer" colors should cause people to immediately assume the "new" version is that much better.
I mean where are some people seeing a vast difference?
all these screenshots look very strong to me.

Just to weigh in, aside from the color timing, I see a little bit more clarity in the Fox/Pathe version in some of the screen caps, in particular the next to the last one with the posters - the Criterion one is somewhat blurry when looking at the poster text, the other is not; are they the same frame, they seem to be. The fourth set of captures, possibly a taste of EE going on there with the Criterion, but given they are not the same frame... could just as easily be another less sharp vs more sharp thing. And of course the Fox/Pathe has additional content both lhs and rhs. Just saying.

[fdm]

Originally Posted by Trekkie313

Man, Criterion didn't give a very good response about why their transfer looks like someone dug it out of a dumpster. No disrespect to the people who worked on it, but it looks like a DVD.
One thing we can say is that our QC staff thinks the Leopard may be the most beautiful Blu-ray we've ever made!

Oh, come on! Even though Criterion is practically unmatched when it comes to restoring important films, they should know better than to play "kiss-ass".

I'd say it is their DVD that looks like a DVD. Haven't seen the blu-ray, but come on, really? Maybe in movement they are drastically different, but the differences aren't all that great. How long has it been since you've acutally watched a DVD?

[s00perd00per]

People saying that the Criterion version looks like a DVD probably haven't seen the blu-ray themselves. I just popped in my copy to see the difference and while I'd say that the French version does look a bit sharper, the difference is marginal at best and that the screenshots make the Criterion version look a lot worse than it actually is. About the color, which is where the drastic difference comes in it's tough to say because while I think the color looks more natural with the French version I have to wonder if that's the intended look of the film since the Criterion version is supposed to be approved by Giuseppe Rotunno.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Trekkie313

You're whining to the mods because I made a comment about the transfer quality of one movie...really?

A comment? You said it looked like they dug it out of a dumpster.

If you're going to use silly hyperbole like that you can't get too indignant over a similarly silly response.

[catch_33]

Originally Posted by Volume11

I don't disagree about Godard, as I value his work less and less as I get older, but ANYONE can do what Malick has done since TTRL...taking slow and pretty shots of nature interposed with a hackneyed narrative isn't anything but weak story telling at it's best. Its a lot easier to take the psuedo-intellectual hands off approach he often employs with his films than it is to take pretty RELEVANT pictures to a story that actually has something to say outside refusing to say anything...

I don't like being force fed black and white logic screenplays but true masters can tell a story with a point without hitting you over the head with it and leaving certain aspects open while having great cinematography to boot...Malick only has one of those aspects down...

Granted I haven't seen "The New World", but it frustrates me that you have to determine what a good director should do. The fact that you maintain that a film should have a story in the first place is pretty ridiculous as film serves a countless amount of purposes other than to just present a narrative. Malick presents us with an elusive narrative purposely, which allows the viewer to bring their own experiences and their own interpretations to the film. Hence the polarity towards his films I assume. Your dislike of his films seem to be based upon his films not fitting in your particular criteria of what a film should be, which is completely in opposition to the design of a Malick film.

Malick's films are exercises in philosophical concepts, poetic structure and a sort of musical rhythm which approaches many consistent themes and ideas in a non-traditional format. But hey, that makes me a hipster then hmm.

[Alkaline]

Ohhh criterion thread, you'll be the death of me!

[greekak229]

Originally Posted by Alkaline

Ohhh criterion thread, you'll be the death of me!

Amen.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Beta Man

Many would disagree [that Critrion's quality is unmatched]..... I'm not one of them..... but many would.

EDIT:

Their 'consistency' is fantastic in my opinion.

I would disagree with that. The quality of their releases are rarely surpassed but I think these days it would be fair to say it is often matched.

That's not a knock. It's just that other releases can be extremely good as well. Sony, Warner, Kino, Studio-Canal - excellent catalog releases are nowhere near as uncommon as they were in the DVD era. The bar is pretty is pretty high these days and even 'mediocre' catalog entries are often very good.

In a way, you could even say they've been a victim of their own success considering how much they did to set that bar in the first place.

Consistency is definitely one of their greatest assets though.

I cringe at spending more than $15-20 on something I know I like let alone blind buys but I give them a lot more room because I know even if I don't care for a particular film it will be worth watching (likely more than once).

[greekak229]

Criterion releases the best Blu-rays. Hands down. In both picture quality, and the quality of the films themselves.

[Arkadin]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Strevlac

[]

Are you for real? What, are you looking at the pics on a Iphone or something? With that one post you have completely eradicated any credibility you might have once had. Get your eyes checked.
Sheesh.

Oh Brother!
clearly maturity is not your strong suit.
trust me I could f***ing care less about any so-called "credibility" you think I once had, could have, did have, etc. etc.
I've made over 13,000 posts on 2 different forums over the past 4 years, and I can guarantee you I've made just as many totally inane comments as worthwhile comments.
who gives a rat's ass.
maybe as a new member, try and be a little more respectful.
just a thought.

[Strevlac]

[QUOTE=Arkadin;4099361]

Oh Brother!
clearly maturity is not your strong suit.
trust me I could f***ing care less about any so-called "credibility" you think I once had, could have, did have, etc. etc.
I've made over 13,000 posts on 2 different forums over the past 4 years, and I can guarantee you I've made just as many totally inane comments as worthwhile comments.
who gives a rat's ass.
maybe as a new member, try and be a little more respectful.
just a thought.

Listen up: It's "couldn't" care less. To say you could care less implies that you do, in fact, care.

As far as making 13,000 posts in which half are totally inane, I absolutely believe you.

Posts such as yours do a disservice because someone might actually take your word for it without looking at the shots themselves. It is obvious to anyone with halfway decent eyesight that the difference between the two releases is major, and not just in color timing. To say otherwise is mindless Criterion boosterism, plain and simple.

This is coming from someone who appreciates that a company such as Criterion exists. It's just the blind following exhibited in this thread is tough to stomach. I mean really, how many does a thread need?

[Pyoko]

I'm loving the "there's a wacky C on the cover so it deserves to be bought for $40 regardless of what's on the disc" mentality.

There are about a dozen other Criterion titles I could really whine about but I won't, I'll just say that from a videophile standpoint they are nowhere near as perfect as some people would like to believe. I only knock The Leopard specifically because they had the opportunity to make it look like the French disc but decided it wasn't necessary. If Criterion are so good they should pass on the savings by making the SRP $19.99 the next time they're going the cheap route on a release.

[P@t_Mtl]

Thread is very hostile this evening.

Just completed The Last Emperor. I had the DVD but never gotten around to make the change to the Blu-ray, the last B&N made me decided to get the Blu-ray. It had been quite a few years since I had watch the movie so it was fun to see it once more and this time on Blu-ray.

Anyone watch the bonus feature with Ian Buruma? Extremely interesting historical bonus which give's more info and background the the events in the movie.

[jacobsever]

Nobody has mentioned anything on the topic of aspect ratio's between the two releases. Criterion's seems to cut a lot off the sides.

[lDlisturb3d]

I just watched The Night of the Hunter and i think it barely ok but i think its because i missed the message. Some one help me out.

[42041]

Originally Posted by jacobsever

Nobody has mentioned anything on the topic of aspect ratio's between the two releases. Criterion's seems to cut a lot off the sides.

The old transfer uses the original 2.20:1 aspect ratio of the 70mm prints. Since the aspect ratio on the Super Technirama negative is 2.55:1, a good bit of it would be cut off. Not sure why it was opened up for the new restoration.

[greekak229]

Originally Posted by lDlisturb3d

I just watched The Night of the Hunter and i think it barely ok but i think its because i missed the message. Some one help me out.

Message? Murdering is bad.

[Alkaline]

Originally Posted by greekak229

Message? Murdering is bad.

And on top of that, the material is incredibly prescient. "50 years from now, unimaginative hipsters will assimilate these love/hate knuckle tattoos and claim them as their own."

[ccfixx]

Originally Posted by greekak229

Message? Murdering is bad.

Haha. I agree. American-made films aren't meant to have a "message". Where did he come up with that idea? American films are for entertainment purposes only. There is only a "message" when viewers and critics feel the need to justify to their friends and colleagues why they like a particular film.

CC