The Criterion Collection

[Kolm14]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

Source? In my Studio Canal of Pierrot le Fou, prior to the movie starts there's a message that says the original negative has been destroyed and that this master was made from an interpositive. It looks pretty good if this is taken into consideration. I just watched it not too long ago and it holds up very well. So unless the original negative has been found, I don't see much of a point to a new restoration. I hate when studios do this - use their resources on films that already have perfectly fine presentations on blu ray when those resources could be used to restore other movies.

Ran, on the other hand, probably needs a restoration more than any other movie period, if we consider the movie's magnitude. If the current blu ray isn't a SD upscale, then it certainly isn't far off from being one.

Film Forum in NYC released their winter schedule and details new restorations for both. Pierrot Le Fou is for the 50th Anniversary and Rain is a new 4K one.

http://filmforum.org/pdf/ff2_cal109_...ampaign=buffer

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by Feiereisel

Not from me. Kill Bill is great, Inglourious Basterds might be perfect, and Pulp Fiction is an all-timer.

I go back and forth on Kill Bill.

Sometimes I think it's really cool, and other times I think it's shallow and derivative.

Haven't seen Lady Snowblood, but I do know that Tarantino ripped a lot of it off for Volume 1.

Or paid tribute to or homage of whatever you want to call it based on your own personal perspective.

[CriterionBlues]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

Haven't seen Lady Snowblood, but I do know that Tarantino ripped a lot of it off for Volume 1.

Or paid tribute to or homage of whatever you want to call it based on your own personal perspective.

Having seen Snowblood, I'd call it an homage or inspiration rather than a rip-off. It's hard to describe until you see the film (and I see it again).

If I were to accuse Tarantino of ripping someone off, I am skeptical of his denial of ever seeing Truffaut's The Bride Wore Black. That seems more of a lift than a ripoff since it has the structure of the entire KB plot.

Back on topic, I think Snowblood is more interesting because of Tarantino, although it stands on its own as a worthwhile film.

[shadedpain4]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

Fortunately, you bought the right one. There's also another release in Russia with a different cover, which apparently has no subtitles and is region locked:

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Andre...Blu-ray/40619/

Just a heads up. The first one, the one with English subtitles that you bought might be OOP.

The one I have has English subs but a different cover from both of those.

[jw007]

Tarantino: Does he have a place in the collection?

Of all films, I'd choose Pulp Fiction as the most eligible candidate for placement in Criterion.

EDIT: I just noticed this is available on Criterion LD. But who watches laserdiscs these days! Comeon, Criterion, I want this as an upgrade. Surely its on your radar, no?

[I KEEL YOU]

Jackie Brown is the most Criterionesque Tarantino movie. But seeing as there are 0 Lionsgate/Miramax movies released on blu ray by Criterion, there is pretty much no chance that it will get released.

The only Tarantino that even has a theoretical shot of being released by Criterion is Inglorious Basterds since it's a Universal movie and Universal are the only studio that have released a Tarantino movie that have done business with Criterion.

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

Jackie Brown is the most Criterionesque Tarantino movie. But seeing as there are 0 Lionsgate/Miramax movies released on blu ray by Criterion, there is pretty much no chance that it will get released.

The only Tarantino that even has a theoretical shot of being released by Criterion is Inglorious Basterds since it's a Universal movie and Universal are the only studio that have released a Tarantino movie that have done business with Criterion.

Don't really agree with this.

I think both Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction would make for the most amazing Criterion releases.

...I hope I get to see it in my lifetime.

[jw007]

Maybe in a few decades, if Criterion is still around, we'll have the Tarantino box set. Now that would be simply amazing.

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by jw007

Tarantino: Does he have a place in the collection?

Of all films, I'd choose Pulp Fiction as the most eligible candidate for placement in Criterion.
]

As would I.

The existing Blu-ray of Pulp Fiction looks spectacular, though, and I'm hard-pressed to imagine how it could be improved upon.

I'll never forget going to see Pulp Fiction on opening night back in 1994 when I was in college. I really wanted to see the movie, because I had enjoyed Reservoir Dogs so much, and a friend of mine went along knowing nothing about it. We were both blown away, although I had somewhat of an idea of what to expect because I was familiar with Tarantino's style through the previous film, and we pretty much spent the rest of our time in college quoting it.

Inglourious Basterds is a close second favorite of mine as far as Tarantino's stuff goes. It's like some flashy WWII pulp comic book come to life.

After that, I'll go with Reservoir Dogs and Death Proof (which I still need to upgrade to Blu-ray someday).

I like Tarantino's work a lot, but I've still got "Tarantino hangover" from watching his films so much back in the 1990s and early 2000s.

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by Snicket

Semi-Criterion related...

With Crimson Peak opening today, I have a theory about Del Toro. It seems like his English films are stripped of all his nuances and mystery (see Crimson peak) and something is not quite right about the dialogue and motivations.

So is something being lost in translation, or is he purposefully dumbing down his American films?

All I know is that I have zero interest in seeing Crimson Peak. The look of that movie in the preview seems wrong...all wrong. Computer-generated effects are just not scary, and computer-generated ghosts/zombies/whatever have no place in serious horror movies. Horror movies need to have some tangibility to them in terms of the look and the cinematography.

I get the Guillermo del Toro could be going for the gothic vibe as opposed to an outright scary vibe, but still... The trailers for this movie do not quicken my pulse at all.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

All I know is that I have zero interest in seeing Crimson Peak. The look of that movie in the preview seems wrong...all wrong. Computer-generated effects are just not scary, and computer-generated ghosts/zombies/whatever have no place in serious horror movies. Horror movies need to have some tangibility to them in terms of the look and the cinematography.

I don't know man, the CGI in Silent Hill always creeped me out.

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

I don't know man, the CGI in Silent Hill always creeped me out.

Silent Hill is one of the better examples of a CGI-heavy horror film. It's still not quite there in terms of the look, but it makes an honorable effort.

Of course, I have soft spot for that flick because I loved seeing both Radha Mitchell and Laurie Holden on the screen together.

[Namuhana]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

All I know is that I have zero interest in seeing Crimson Peak. The look of that movie in the preview seems wrong...all wrong. Computer-generated effects are just not scary, and computer-generated ghosts/zombies/whatever have no place in serious horror movies. Horror movies need to have some tangibility to them in terms of the look and the cinematography.

I get the Guillermo del Toro could be going for the gothic vibe as opposed to an outright scary vibe, but still... The trailers for this movie do not quicken my pulse at all.

It's not meant to be a horror piece, I believe, but rather a gothic romance with some ghosts thrown in. The marketing, however, kind of emphasizes the ghosts and that's definitely misleading; I think there's even "Master of Terror" thrown in on the trailers, too, which seems odd to me.

I haven't seen the film yet, but I intend to next week.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

Silent Hill is one of the better examples of a CGI-heavy horror film. It's still not quite there in terms of the look, but it makes an honorable effort.

Of course, I have soft spot for that flick because I loved seeing both Radha Mitchell and Laurie Holden on the screen together.

Sounds fair.

I'm honestly getting hard-pressed to think of better examples where CGI actually works as horror. 1999's House on Haunted Hill freaked me out when I first saw it, but I think we all know it's kind of a bad film. The Ring was good, but it was never scary to me personally. Most other films, especially throughout the 00s, were pretty trashy with the CG.

Crimson Peak looks a bit like the same kinds of things that Pan's Labyrinth and The Devil's Backbone were - they all dealt with the paranormal and supernatural, but I never considered them all that scary. CP also looks like 1999's The Haunting to me...not sure how I feel about that. In any case, I think Del Toro is a capable director of good stories, even with bad CG.

I'll probably catch this movie next Tuesday at the Megaplex.

EDIT:
Well, now that I'm reading CP reviews and reactions, I may have spoken too soon about Del Toro's storytelling prowess.

[darkness2918]

Originally Posted by Namuhana

It's not meant to be a horror piece, I believe, but rather a gothic romance with some ghosts thrown in. The marketing, however, kind of emphasizes the ghosts and that's definitely misleading; I think there's even "Master of Terror" thrown in on the trailers, too, which seems odd to me.

I haven't seen the film yet, but I intend to next week.

Yea it's being marketed as a full on horror film which I think may disappoint some people. I've enjoyed every film Del Toro has directed so I'm sure I'll also enjoy Crimson Peak.

[Fabs]

Originally Posted by Infernal King

Ah yes, Kill Bill/Tarantino bashing. Figured I'd find it in the Criterion thread!

He's not a very good director. His films are basically a mish mash of ripped off themes, references, and ideas from older films.

[Infernal King]

Originally Posted by Bob Kramer

Tarantino is pretty great. Kill Bill is swill. Sorry if that ruins your easy reduction.

Thanks, I needed some more candidates for my ignore list!

Originally Posted by Fabs

He's not a very good director. His films are basically a mish mash of ripped off themes, references, and ideas from older films.

One man's rip off is another man's homage/inspiration.

[Snicket]

Originally Posted by Namuhana

It's not meant to be a horror piece, I believe, but rather a gothic romance with some ghosts thrown in. The marketing, however, kind of emphasizes the ghosts and that's definitely misleading; I think there's even "Master of Terror" thrown in on the trailers, too, which seems odd to me.

I haven't seen the film yet, but I intend to next week.

I have seen the film. And his apologetics confuse me.

I would describe it as a gothic thriller with ghosts, but the ghosts are pointless.

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by Fabs

He's not a very good director. His films are basically a mish mash of ripped off themes, references, and ideas from older films.

I don't think I agree with the first part of your statement.

It takes some talent to do what he does and be consistently successful over the course of more than two decades.

He's written and directed some classic scenes, but overall his movies lack any kind of depth or substance. I feel as though he's fallen into that Wes Anderson trap of basically making the same movie over and over again with slightly different characters and a slightly different story.

Is he a rip-off artist? That's tough to say. While he does tend to "borrow" quite a few scenes and story elements from other less-well-known movies, he usually manages to incorporate them into a final product that resembles his own Tarantinoesque voice.

To me he's like one of those contemporary painters that was enormously popular during their own lifetimes, but ultimately lacked the staying power of the greatest painters of all time. He's the opposite of Van Gogh in that sense.

I personally would not include him on a list of the greatest American directors of all time.

...but he has made a couple of films that I consider to be genuine classics.

[WonderWeasel]

Originally Posted by Feiereisel

If Thief looks "bad," blu-ray has really spoiled us for choice.

I just watched my copy of the Criterion release of Thief a couple of weeks ago on a 65" and it looked great.