The Criterion Collection

[jw007]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

Don't do this to me bro.

I already have my list of five set in stone for the sale.

And I have vowed upon the lives of my unborn children to stick to that list.

...don't make this difficult.

Thrilled to have influenced you in a positive way to purchase this film.

Originally Posted by pedromvu

I have to second your recommendation, I don't usually purchase documentaries, but this, along with Hoop Dreams and Grizzly Man, are some of the best I have seen and deserve that everybody watch them.

Yes. Those are movies I also own on blu. There's no thin BLU line there!

Originally Posted by SkyAntoine

Thin Blue Line is great if you like the crime dramatizations you see on TV now (Dateline, 48 Hours, etc.). This film was the front-runner and Morris is the best at editing together a docudrama. However, it is so common today that some may not see it that earth shattering. IMO it's a must own.

It is a must own for any serious film collector. Even though it doesn't seem as riveting as today's overly violent crime docu-drama pieces you see on TV today, the fact that its so well edited, scripted and directed makes it the standard all other crime docu-drama pieces should look towards.

Originally Posted by tenia

I wasn't blown away by the movie (I found it slightly too static), but the work on the editing and the lighting was particularly exceptional.

The Criterion leaflet explains wery well the nuances of colours and I wouldn't have caught those entirely if it wasn't for this explanation.

Exceptional indeed. And the technical achievements of this "documentary" or "nonfiction" are enough to win minds over.

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

...and JW007's hyperbolic post? all justified. my #2 documentary of all time and has been for years... Hoop Dreams is my #1 doc, btw... and I'm w/ Pedro on Grizzly Man, too. really good stuff.

I'd highly recommend a documentary called The Imposter. Man on Wire is really good, too. those 2 are available on Netflix streaming

Finally, something we can agree on! As for writing hyperbolically, I guess I was crying out for attention...been feeling under-appreciated lately in this thread. Needed a comeback post.

By the way, I just watched Man on Wire again a few weeks ago after having seen Zemeckis' The Walk. Man on Wire is an amazing documentary film also (I originally saw it when it was briefly out in theaters).

[ShellOilJunior]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

How is it middling?

The photography, the acting, the dialogue and the editing are all outstanding imo.

...and that last shot is one of the most powerful last shots in movie history.

I've posted my argument in this thread in the past so I'll keep it short. The main problem with the film is it does not adequately cover small town life which the book does in great deal.

[Show spoiler]What makes the murders so shocking is not only how random they are but how they can happen to innocent, small town good-natured folks. The film is too concerned with the two killers

A missed opportunity by director Brooks. Same for Lord Jim which Brooks managed to screw up despite having Peter O'Toole and Freddie Young.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by jw007

Finally, something we can agree on! As for writing hyperbolically, I guess I was crying out for attention...been feeling under-appreciated lately in this thread. Needed a comeback post.

well, I think your post was no small achievement. it takes some genuine enthusiasm to go where you did. ...and I, for one, can say that the way you described it is dead on.

it is a sublime work. the film, that is.

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by jw007

Thrilled to have influenced you in a positive way to purchase this film.



Yes. Those are movies I also own on blu. There's no thin BLU line there!



It is a must own for any serious film collector. Even though it doesn't seem as riveting as today's overly violent crime docu-drama pieces you see on TV today, the fact that its so well edited, scripted and directed makes it the standard all other crime docu-drama pieces should look towards.



Exceptional indeed. And the technical achievements of this "documentary" or "nonfiction" are enough to win minds over.



Finally, something we can agree on! As for writing hyperbolically, I guess I was crying out for attention...been feeling under-appreciated lately in this thread. Needed a comeback post.

By the way, I just watched Man on Wire again a few weeks ago after having seen Zemeckis' The Walk. Man on Wire is an amazing documentary film also (I originally saw it when it was briefly out in theaters).

"Thrilled to have influenced you in a positive way to purchase this film. "

You basterd.

...you've ruined me.

[WinkDinkerson]

Originally Posted by shadedpain4

If it makes you feel any better you can get a really good deal on the Kubrick Masterpiece Collection on Amazon.ca today.

So, there's that.

Yes I know, and I've been contemplating it all day with the thoughts that perhaps the films will see a 4k transfer come the near future. I do like the cool, retro packaging. If I do get it, I doubt I'll watch half the box set for at least a year or two. I've grown tired of EWS on the basis of finding Nicole's whispered voice annoying to the ears regardless of her physical beauty. Fortunately, Sydney Pollack brings me back.

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by sc1957

That may be true, but.... once you've read In Cold Blood, the film lacks so much.

I just found the same to be true for The Hunt for Red October. I've always liked the film, but I just read the book which is so much better. I gave my coy of the film to my local library today.

Some films from books equal their sources, and some don't.

I've read the book.

I just think it's apples and oranges.

Films have inherent limitations that books don't.

Just because the film doesn't cover as much ground as the book doesn't mean it's not a great film.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

I've read the book.

I just think it's apples and oranges.

Films have inherent limitations that books don't.

Just because the film doesn't cover as much ground as the book doesn't mean it's not a great film.

Ding, ding, ding!

I was going to chime in but this isn't my discussion. Apples and oranges, it indeed is.

[belcherman]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

I've posted my argument in this thread in the past so I'll keep it short. The main problem with the film is it does not adequately cover small town life which the book does in great deal.

[Show spoiler]What makes the murders so shocking is not only how random they are but how they can happen to innocent, small town good-natured folks. The film is too concerned with the two killers

A missed opportunity by director Brooks. Same for Lord Jim which Brooks managed to screw up despite having Peter O'Toole and Freddie Young.

Agreed about the missed opportunity. I still think its a very good movie, but the book went into great detail about the Clutter family and their community, and you truly care about what happens to each of them. The movie gives that aspect of the book short shrift and is consequently less balanced.

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by belcherman

Agreed about the missed opportunity. I still think its a very good movie, but the book went into great detail about the Clutter family and their community, and you truly care about what happens to each of them. The movie gives that aspect of the book short shrift and is consequently less balanced.

I don't think they wanted to make a three hour movie.

...but I get what you're saying.

[Banned User]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

My favorite thing to spot is the musical cue telling you EXACTLY how you should be feeling right now.

That actually makes bad films good again. I know I get a chuckle at the over obvious musical cues practically screaming in your ear "You're suppose to be scared here!!!" or "This scene is sad"(enter sweeping violins).

A lot of the stuff is so over bearing in spelling things out to the 'dumb' audience members it borders on parody.

You know you've watched too much when you amaze everyone around you by guessing the complete plot at the start of the movie. Or like I mentioned earlier when they introduce a device or an action by a character that you immediately know will come back later because they over emphasize this object/action. Makes it blatantly obvious how that device or character 'skill' will come into play later.

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

I balance it out.

When I first started collecting Blu-rays, I fancied the idea of a "mature" collection that was solely devoted to thought-provoking cinematic masterpieces, in the vein of Vertigo, Last Year at Marienbad, Army of Shadows, The Third Man, Seven Samurai, L'Avventura, and such.

For every one of those critically-acclaimed masterpieces, though, I've also ended up owning films like San Andreas, Empire of the Ants, Friday the 13th: Part 4, Kinjite: Forbidden Subjects, Octopussy, My Tutor, or The Pom Pom Girls.

[/I]

Don't get me wrong I'm no film snob. I love my cheesy B movies, but a lot of the mainstream CGI fests with boring plots do nothing for me. I don't see a special effect now and go "Wow that was amazing". Or for example a typical scene like a camera flying fast & low on the ground across a vast CGI landscape to come swooping over the edge of a cliff for the reveal of some amazingly over done cgi city with the music swelling the whole time. Ugh.

I even prefer matte paintings to CGI. For instance our eye's can only really focus on one thing and many matte shots duplicated this idea with a main focus and blurring or even abstract edges. However with CGI the background is filled with animated bird's, rays of light shooting through the clouds, herds of animals running in the distaance, lens flares, rainbows etc etc etc. Too much going on. They both look fake for the most part so I can't understand why the CGI scenes like this drive me batty.

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by Banned User

I even prefer matte paintings to CGI.

I'm right there with you.

The matte painting of the power line barriers in Godzilla (1954) is a good example, as are the matte paintings in Black Narcissus.

[DaBargainHunta]

My picks would be somewhat different, but this is interesting...

The 19 Most Stunning Movie Covers By the Criterion Collection

http://www.indiewire.com/article/the...ction-20151104

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by DaBargainHunta

My picks would be somewhat different, but this is interesting...

The 19 Most Stunning Movie Covers By the Criterion Collection

http://www.indiewire.com/article/the...ction-20151104

Not having Kwaidan on that list is a joke imo.

[Reddington]

Originally Posted by Banned User

I think that is mainly a result of growing as a film lover. I know for me I've seen so many films that most mainstream movies leave me rolling my eyes. The flashy camera work, Same tracking shots & angles, Same over used blocking and tons of other techniques, that were at one time fresh, I've seen done a million times and now bore me to tears.

Movies for the mainstream, since the beginning, have played down to the audience. So many movies spell everything out for audience members and even then go beyond that to make every point and motivation blatantly obvious. through exhibition, narration and setting stuff up early on to pay off later in the most unsubtle ways.

I know when I was younger I loved a lot of films I can't stand anymore. They are shallow and boring to me. On the flip side films I had no patience for or considered slow seem much deeper to me now. I don't need actions and motivations spelled out. Actually I prefer having to think and question characters intentions and motives. As in real life people are extremely complicated and almost always aren't cut and dry evil/good. The same goes for endings that are left open to interpretation which are usually far better then typical hollywood fair: good guy wins bad guy loses etc.

I think the more films you watch the more you learn to appreciate uniqueness and freshness. Hollywood gets one hit and tries to copy the same formula verbatim until audience members themselves grow tired and box office returns tank. Then its on to the next thing. There are so many standard camera moves/techniques in mainstream movies that just make me cringe everytime I see them and don't even get me started on the overuse of CGI. Most movies should have taglines "Leave intelligence at the door, no thought required"

I understand what you're saying, but there is no reason that a formulaic summer blockbuster can't coexist along side a Buñuel. And no reason why one can't enjoy both equally for entirely different reasons.

And criticizing Hollywood for being "mainstream" makes no sense whatsoever, when mainstream is exactly what it is, and always has been: A "Dream Factory" built on escapism and entertainment. One can of course argue that Hollywood "ain't what it used to be" what with interminable sequels, product placement, CGI, etc., but there is no denying it has produced some of the greatest and most influential films ever made: Films that in no way, shape, or form "played down to the audience."

Having said that, I'd absolutely agree that many Hollywood films demand little in the way of viewer intelligence. But equally one might say that many films beyond the mainstream - including some in the Criterion Collection - could easily carry the tagline: "Warning: Pretentious art-house noodling ahead."

[pedromvu]

Originally Posted by Reddington

I understand what you're saying, but there is no reason that a formulaic summer blockbuster can't coexist along side a Buñuel. And no reason why one can't enjoy both equally for entirely different reasons.

Well it depends on too many factors, there is quite a difference between let's say Jurassic Park and Jurassic World, also between the best Buñuel and his worst.

I guess my trouble is the word formulaic, maybe one can not notice it if they haven't seen that formula before, but the problem is the more movies you watch the more susceptible you get to notice those things, and think of movies that made the same things better, therefore ruining your enjoyment.

I am not denying Hollywood still makes some great movies, I really like some of them, but usually not the ones that just keep recycling stuff.

I guess I am too cynic now to just enjoy a summer blockbuster for what it is, which is part of the problem of watching too many movies , on the other side, my parents seem to still enjoy most movies they watch, so maybe it is something that will come back with the passing years

[Marlow27]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

Not having Kwaidan on that list is a joke imo.

I personally think the Paris, Texas cover was a little stiff to miss out.

[filmmusic]

Originally Posted by Reddington

I understand what you're saying, but there is no reason that a formulaic summer blockbuster can't coexist along side a Buñuel. And no reason why one can't enjoy both equally for entirely different reasons.

I agree and I feel lucky and I am glad that I can enjoy both eg. a Kieslowski film like The Double Life of Veronique and a Spielberg film like Raiders of the Lost Ark, or even something like Big Trouble in Little China.

But I admit I'm not a fan of recent action/fantasy/sci-fi etc. films either.
I don't like CGI.
I love practical effects.

[johnleyo]

nice

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by Reddington

I understand what you're saying, but there is no reason that a formulaic summer blockbuster can't coexist along side a Buñuel. And no reason why one can't enjoy both equally for entirely different reasons.

And criticizing Hollywood for being "mainstream" makes no sense whatsoever, when mainstream is exactly what it is, and always has been: A "Dream Factory" built on escapism and entertainment. One can of course argue that Hollywood "ain't what it used to be" what with interminable sequels, product placement, CGI, etc., but there is no denying it has produced some of the greatest and most influential films ever made: Films that in no way, shape, or form "played down to the audience."

Having said that, I'd absolutely agree that many Hollywood films demand little in the way of viewer intelligence. But equally one might say that many films beyond the mainstream - including some in the Criterion Collection - could easily carry the tagline: "Warning: Pretentious art-house noodling ahead."

I can't imagine confining myself to watching only "mainstream" films or only "art" films. Granted most newer films that play in the multiplexes suck, but there's a handful of them that come out every year that are worth watching.

I look at my bookshelf and I've got my Criterions and my indies and my older classics, but I've also got Star Wars and Friday the 13th and Hellraiser and Indiana Jones and stuff like that.

I think I'd probably kill myself if I watched nothing but Godard and Bergman films every night.

...can you imagine David Lynch watching The 40-Year-Old Virgin?

[Ray Jackson]

I can now cross The Devil's Backbone off my list.

Picked up a brand-new sealed copy on the Criterion seller's thread for $15 today.

I honestly can't imagine owning so many films that I have a couple dozen, unopened Criterions for sale that I've never even watched.

...that amazes me.