The Criterion Collection

[mja345]

I watched "Jellyfish Eyes" on iTunes and profoundly disliked it. I can't fathom rating that film higher than "Dazed or Confused" or even "Frances Ha". As overexposed as "Dazed and Confused" has become over the years, it's still a damn good film.

I have to think Criterion and Janus went after the rights because Murikami is such a well-known artist, but the film is just unwatchable IMO. I think it's easily one of the worst films in the collection. Maybe if you're really into anime you may dig it. I don't know.

My least favorite Criterion films I've seen
-Jellyfish Eyes
-Tiny Furniture
-Border Radio
-A Safe Place
-The Night Porter
-The "I Am Curious" films

IMO those are just bad films. There are other films in the Collection that are objectively pretty good films that I didn't care for that much. "Pickpocket" (found it incredibly dull), "Broadcast News" (has its moments, but not my cup of tea), and some others. I thought "The Hit" was an incredibly mediocre film as well.

[filmmusic]

Originally Posted by mja345

Maybe if you're really into "a particular type of" anime you may dig it. I don't know.

Corrected for you!
I'm a big fan of anime, but not the pokemon, digimon etc. type, like what this seems to be!

Anyway, if we're talking about anime + Criterion, I really would hope they could release Angel's Egg which seems right on their territory.

[mja345]

Originally Posted by filmmusic

Corrected for you!
I'm a big fan of anime, but not the pokemon, digimon etc. type, like what this seems to be!

Anyway, if we're talking about anime + Criterion, I really would hope they could release Angel's Egg which seems right on their territory.

You're right on. I wouldn't call myself an anime fan, but I enjoy really well-done anime. But "Jellyfish Eyes" was more along the lines of Pokemon anime. I can honestly say that "Jellyfish Eyes" is the one movie in the collection my 10 year old niece would like more than I do. I just don't know who is really going to dig this film or buy copies of the BD. I mean, 95% of the people who are really into Criterion are probably going to loathe the film. I almost wonder if Peter Becker and some of the Criterion/Janus higher-ups watched this while tripping on acid or mushrooms, agreed to buy the rights, then saw it not under the influence of hallucinogens and then deeply regretted it, but it was too late.

I think 10-15 year olds would probably be the target audience for this movie, but how many kids are even aware of the Criterion Collection? Not many. The film has a lot of weird moments. But not weird in a mind-bending or interesting way (i.e. Jodorowsky or Lynch or Miike, etc.). Weird in a profoundly stupid way. I just don't know why Criterion would choose to put a truly piss poor film like this in the collection. I said before that I really disliked "Tiny Furniture" and "The Night Porter", but they're masterpieces compared to this. "A Safe Place" is better than this. "Border Radio" is the only Criterion film on par with "Jellyfish Eyes", but that's a DVD only release. And I can honestly say I liked "Border Radio" better than this.

[Bandit Tajomaru]

The target audience for Jelly Fish eyes probably can't read subtitles and watch the film at the same time and will be turned off because all the actors are Chinese. This film reminds me of the garbage Pokemon, Digimon, Yugioh, garbage type anime that I hate.

[Pyoko]

Perhaps there's something else in there to warrant its inclusion in the collection, but honestly it looks and sounds like the kind of typical garbage TV production that wouldn't have made it one step outside internet J-drama fandom if it didn't have Murakami's name attached to it.

[Polaroid]

Pretty sure Jellyfish Eyes was released more for the director/artist than the film itself.

[orbital]

Originally Posted by Martin_31

Today I watched On The Waterfront. Really, really good movie. The dialog is on point! And the music, too!

I recommend this one: http://store.intrada.com/s.nl/it.A/id.9197/.f – top-notch release.

[Scottie]

Criterion posted a photo of Mike Leigh and Roger Pratt on Instagram, which suggests that a Blu-ray release of High Hopes could be in the works.

[CriterionBlues]

Originally Posted by Polaroid

Pretty sure Jellyfish Eyes was released more for the director/artist than the film itself.

Went in with an open mind, have watched half so far and hate this film. I'll finish it later this afternoon before dismissing it altogether, but I can't see it getting much better.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by CriterionBlues

Went in with an open mind, have watched half so far and hate this film. I'll finish it later this afternoon before dismissing it altogether, but I can't see it getting much better.

Well, I know that will break Polaroid's heart, since he truly loves this film.

[Show spoiler]

[mja345]

Putting Adam Sandler's "Jack and Jill" in the collection makes about as much sense as "Jellyfish Eyes". It's that awful.

[BobbyMcGee]

Criterion.com typically provides informative essays that help expound on why a film has been added to their collection. Perhaps a read of the one provided with Jellyfish Eyes will help clear up any confusion as to why it is now a part of the Criterion Collection.

Link: https://www.criterion.com/current/po...-to-the-movies

[Ray Jackson]

I plopped down $60 for a UFC ppv last night night, only to see my beloved Jose Aldo get knocked out in 13 seconds.

I hadn't bought a ppv in several years.

It was a last minute impulse buy.

I could've bought 3 Criterions during the 50% off sale with that money.

...I feel sick right now.

[Martin_31]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

I plopped down $60 for a UFC ppv last night night, only to see my beloved Jose Aldo get knocked out in 13 seconds.

I hadn't bought a ppv in several years.

It was a last minute impulse buy.

I could've bought 3 Criterions during the 50% off sale with that money.

...I feel sick right now.

The same!!!!!!!! I couldn't believe it!!!!!!!

[joie]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

I plopped down $60 for a UFC ppv last night night, only to see my beloved Jose Aldo get knocked out in 13 seconds.

I hadn't bought a ppv in several years.

It was a last minute impulse buy.

I could've bought 3 Criterions during the 50% off sale with that money.

...I feel sick right now.

Do you have boxing movies?

[CriterionBlues]

Originally Posted by BobbyMcGee

Criterion.com typically provides informative essays that help expound on why a film has been added to their collection. Perhaps a read of the one provided with Jellyfish Eyes will help clear up any confusion as to why it is now a part of the Criterion Collection.

Link: https://www.criterion.com/current/po...-to-the-movies

Excellent essay and a good read, but doesn't change my opinion of the film. I do respect the artistry, effects and creativity, but it is a mess, all over the place, poorly written and poorly acted. I think it was overly ambitious. A much simpler film with the same type of effects would have been much more effective.

Edit: although I will admit that I'm not the target market for this type of film. Not into manga, video games, or popular anime (aside from Ghibli.)

[jw007]

Originally Posted by pedromvu

I was wondering what are your absolute worst movies that are available in the main Criterion line out in blu-ray, I know no one will make new friends by listing them since I am pretty sure someone probably loves what we hate but just for fun.

There are plenty on Criterion DVD that I've seen that I don't care for (Border Radio, Armageddon, Wild 90, etc.), but here are my top 5 worst movies I'VE SEEN (not necessarily own) on Criterion Blu-ray:

1. A Safe Place (Just about unwatchable in my opinion. There is nothing rewarding or redeeming at all about this film, and even Orson Welles can't save this one.)

2. Tiny Furniture (I just remember being extremely annoyed watching this film. I don't know if it was the characters or Lena Dunham's "directing", but this one was rubbish.)

3. Eating Raoul (I bought this curiosity and immediately sold it to a second hand record/video shop upon watching it. The film made me sick, despite being aware that it was all a black comedy.)

4. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (It was a sad and tragic film and frankly I'm not sure why and how this film belongs in the Criterion Collection. It's flawed, overlong and ponderous.)

5. Antichrist (Not an essential film by any means in anyone's collection. I nearly hated this film and I consider it one of Lars Von Trier's worst experiments. It was directed by a man in a very dark time of his life.)

I will probably add Jellyfish Eyes to the list soon enough after I watch it.

[mja345]

Originally Posted by CriterionBlues

Excellent essay and a good read, but doesn't change my opinion of the film. I do respect the artistry, effects and creativity, but it is a mess, all over the place, poorly written and poorly acted. I think it was overly ambitious. A much simpler film with the same type of effects would have been much more effective.

I thought that essay was very informative as well, but it really doesn't justify the inclusion of that film in the collection. It's like saying that "Tough Guys Don't Dance" deserves a Criterion release because Norman Mailer accomplished a great deal as a writer outside of film. And, honestly, "Tough Guys Don't Dance" looks like "Casablanca" compared to "Jellyfish Eyes".

It's really the only time I've had an issue with a film Criterion has released. I don't have a problem with them releasing "Armageddon" or "Border Radio", etc. because they somewhat fit into the overall zeitgeist of a particular time. "Jellyfish Eyes" is just an incredibly poor film. It's up to Criterion to release what they want, but I just hope no one wastes money buying this disc under the impression that because it's received the Criterion stamp of approval, it means it's quality. I would be livid if I blind bought this disc and went home and watched what would be literally my least favorite film in my entire collection.

[mja345]

Originally Posted by jw007

There are plenty on Criterion DVD that I've seen that I don't care for (Border Radio, Armageddon, Wild 90, etc.), but here are my top 5 worst movies I'VE SEEN (not necessarily own) on Criterion Blu-ray:

1. A Safe Place (Just about unwatchable in my opinion. There is nothing rewarding or redeeming at all about this film, and even Orson Welles can't save this one.)

2. Tiny Furniture (I just remember being extremely annoyed watching this film. I don't know if it was the characters or Lena Dunham's "directing", but this one was rubbish.)

3. Eating Raoul (I bought this curiosity and immediately sold it to a second hand record/video shop upon watching it. The film made me sick, despite being aware that it was all a black comedy.)

4. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (It was a sad and tragic film and frankly I'm not sure why and how this film belongs in the Criterion Collection. It's flawed, overlong and ponderous.)

5. Antichrist (Not an essential film by any means in anyone's collection. I nearly hated this film and I consider it one of Lars Von Trier's worst experiments. It was directed by a man in a very dark time of his life.)

I will probably add Jellyfish Eyes to the list soon enough after I watch it.

Good list. I enjoy "Eating Raoul", but I could see how someone could hate it. "Antichrist" is a tough watch, but it gets so profoundly insane in the second half, I honestly started laughing. The other three films, I completely agree. I hate "Benjamin Button". Easily Fincher's worst film IMO.

[Knaldskalle]

Originally Posted by mja345

I thought that essay was very informative as well, but it really doesn't justify the inclusion of that film in the collection. It's like saying that "Tough Guys Don't Dance" deserves an inclusion in the Criterion collection because Norman Mailer accomplished a great deal as a writer outside of film. And, honestly, "Tough Guys Don't Dance" looks like "Casablanca" compared to "Jellyfish Eyes".

I haven't seen Jellyfish Eyes, but the essay comes across as some sort of apologia to me. There is remarkably little about the film itself and the comparisons to Warhol and Schnabel are merely of the "other artists who've made movies" type, i.e. there's no real comparison. And what little the essay actually has to say about the movie seems remarkably non-specific (apart from the synopsis).

And then it tops it all off with a classic: "If you don't understand the movie it's because you're not supposed to understand it, not because it doesn't make sense". Oh really? And how do I tell the difference between a movie that doesn't make sense and a movie where I'm not supposed to be able to make sense of it?