The Criterion Collection

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by SammyJankis

Phoenix is better than all three of those things.

I think it having a place in the collection is fine. I don't think it is better than when Wes Anderson was at the top of his game, but everyone's opinion on him varies to different degrees.

[piebot56]

Originally Posted by hariseldon

Used for $20 vs new for $20 or less? I'm going to assume that most areas where there is an FYE probably have a B&N near as well or are FYE far more common in areas outside the SE?


Movie itself is excellent

The closest B&N is about 35-40 minutes which isn't too bad, but the FYE is about 10. But you're right, it would be wise to go with B&N. It wasn't something I really had my eye on, so I was thinking more in the manner of "If this is still here in like a month, should I grab it?"

[llj]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

I have "fallen in love" with female characters in films and felt that my connection/attraction to the film was heightened because of it, but never because of nudity or a specific steamy hot scene.

..and I agree with the above poster's buddies - Blue is the Warmest Color is one of the best films in recent memory. I fell in love with the Adele character. I think the actress is smoking hot, but that wasn't the reason why I connected with her. I wasn't turned on by the sex in the film either.

I don't doubt you're telling the truth, but I would like to add one thing--there are many films I like where I wasn't necessarily "turned on" by any obvious scene or girl, but nonetheless most definitely liked on a sex driven level. The act of voyeurism is in some ways sexual in and of itself, even without needing a "hard on" to verify it.

[SammyJankis]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

I think it having a place in the collection is fine. I don't think it is better than when Wes Anderson was at the top of his game, but everyone's opinion on him varies to different degrees.

I think Petzold's placement in the Collection is entirely deserved, and it makes me hopeful for more potential releases (Jerichow, please.)

[theater dreamer]

To expand your vocabulary, and enhance your command of the English language?

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

Admittedly, I did get a bit confused, but why use such a dumb big word that no one uses?

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by theater dreamer

To expand your vocabulary, and enhance your command of the English language?

Vocabuh..what now? We don't need no words that have more than 2 syllbulls in this here country

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by llj

I don't doubt you're telling the truth, but I would like to add one thing--there are many films I like where I wasn't necessarily "turned on" by any obvious scene or girl, but nonetheless most definitely liked on a sex driven level. The act of voyeurism is in some ways sexual in and of itself, even without needing a "hard on" to verify it.

Sure. I agree with all of that. The post you quoted, though, was in response to people saying that their love for a film is elevated or manifested entirely from being turned on sexually at some moment in the film. I fell in love w/ the Adele character and that wasn’t because she takes her clothes off. You can say that there is/was a sexual attraction, but the film wasn’t any better because of it.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by theater dreamer

To expand your vocabulary, and enhance your command of the English language?

yes - as I said in subsequent posts. keep reading, you'll get there.

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by joie

I didn't mean to dis the portmanteaus. I enjoyed both. The only criticism I could possibly come up with is that the last story in both seems weak in comparison with the previous stories. It could be that Jarmusch did that on purpose to get the audience to think about why the other stories are better.

Really? Is this a common opinion? I think the last part of "Night on Earth" is the best thing Jarmusch has ever done, and the runner-up wouldn't even be close, but I acknowledge that this opinion is colored by my having never clicked with Jarmusch's style overall.

[ShellOilJunior]

In the wrong hands a film like this could have easily devolved into cheap sentimentality and a preposterous denouement that insults smart viewers. Instead, Wim Wenders, Sam Shepard and L.M. Kit Carson deliver a tender slow burn with plenty of heart balanced with ample restraint. The restraint in the screenplay and most noticeably Harry Dean Stanton's performance elevates Paris, Texas to great.

[Scottie]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

In the wrong hands a film like this could have easily devolved into cheap sentimentality and a preposterous denouement that insults smart viewers. Instead, Wim Wenders, Sam Shepard and L.M. Kit Carson deliver a tender slow burn with plenty of heart balanced with ample restraint. The restraint in the screenplay and most noticeably Harry Dean Stanton's performance elevates Paris, Texas to great.

I've seen it about three or four times at this point and I'm going to say it's in my Top 5 films of all-time.

Speaking of Wenders, I watched Alice in the Cities the other night. Not really sure how I feel about the film. I definitely liked it, but I was also hoping for something more maybe? I don't really know. I think my expectations were a bit too high going in.

I'm going to watch Wrong Move this afternoon.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by thatguamguy

Really? Is this a common opinion? I think the last part of "Night on Earth" is the best thing Jarmusch has ever done, and the runner-up wouldn't even be close, but I acknowledge that this opinion is colored by my having never clicked with Jarmusch's style overall.

I can't recall exactly how I felt, but if memory serves me correct, the Gena Rowlands and Roberto Benigni episodes were definitely less entertaining. I think that the last episode was my 2nd favorite after the blind girl episode.

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by iScottie

I've seen it about three or four times at this point and I'm going to say it's in my Top 5 films of all-time.

Speaking of Wenders, I watched Alice in the Cities the other night. Not really sure how I feel about the film. I definitely liked it, but I was also hoping for something more maybe? I don't really know. I think my expectations were a bit too high going in.

I'm going to watch Wrong Move this afternoon.

Interesting.

I had the same reaction to Paris, Texas that you had to Alice In the Cities. And the same reaction to Alice In The Cities that you had to Paris, Texas.

In regards to Wrong Move, just remember that Nastassja Kinski was 12 years old at the time. So don't get any funny ideas mister. But damn she's cute in that movie.

Can't wait to see your reaction to Kings of The Road.

Especially...the scene.

[diskspinner]

Originally Posted by iScottie

I've seen it about three or four times at this point and I'm going to say it's in my Top 5 films of all-time.

Speaking of Wenders, I watched Alice in the Cities the other night. Not really sure how I feel about the film. I definitely liked it, but I was also hoping for something more maybe? I don't really know. I think my expectations were a bit too high going in.

I'm going to watch Wrong Move this afternoon.

I watched Kings of the Road recently...I borrowed it from library, which also has Wrong Move & Alice in the city...

There is definitely a lot to like, I really liked where

[Show spoiler]the man whose wife committed suicide said something like...there is only life (no death)...

and background music is haunting me for past few days...

Still I may prioritize some other single discs for this sale and pick it up during November sale and borrow the other 2 from library for now...will see...

I have same reaction for Kings of the Road, that you have regarding Alice in the Cities...While I was spellbound after my first watch of Paris, Texas (I have said a few time here that it is probably my favorite criterion disc, all around), I am kind of undecided on how much I like Kings of the Road...

[SkyAntoine]

Originally Posted by iScottie

I've seen it about three or four times at this point and I'm going to say it's in my Top 5 films of all-time.

Speaking of Wenders, I watched Alice in the Cities the other night. Not really sure how I feel about the film. I definitely liked it, but I was also hoping for something more maybe? I don't really know. I think my expectations were a bit too high going in.

I'm going to watch Wrong Move this afternoon.

Paris, Texas is #12 on my list. Fascinating characters. The mysterious journey. Harry Dean Stanton. An absolute masterpiece IMO.

But, I always have mixed feelings about Wenders' films. Visually, they are all amazing. Content-wise I've only been blown away by Paris. I was intrigued by the concept of Wings of Desire, but it's artsy-ness made it less ejoyable for me (just not my cup of tea). American Friend and Alice were very good...not great IMO. Pina was beautiful...again too artsy.

I have Kings of the Road to watch as soon as I can block out 3 hours. I'm going in with moderate expectations because I understand it is a very loose narrative.

[llj]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

Sure. I agree with all of that. The post you quoted, though, was in response to people saying that their love for a film is elevated or manifested entirely from being turned on sexually at some moment in the film. I fell in love w/ the Adele character and that wasn’t because she takes her clothes off. You can say that there is/was a sexual attraction, but the film wasn’t any better because of it.

Since I was the one who started the "sexual motivation in liking a film" branching topic, you were responding at least in part to me...and I wasn't just talking about being turned on sexually, but being sexually motivated in all senses even the non-hard-on ones.


I think many films can be enhanced by a presence of an attractive actress, in that I do feel sex colors a person's opinion when it comes to nearly ANY film. How many great, classic movies out there featuring ugly women or men are there that are loved today in the same way an equivalent film with an attractive person? If Blue is the Warmest Color featured a fat, pimply faced butchy girl as the lead, would you be raving about it quite as much? On that note, how often does Criterion's "Fat Girl" get mentioned in this thread anyway?


With Mulholland Drive you have an already respected director doing a film featuring two attractive actresses with lesbian tendencies. If you already have a base level of "good", a little something spicy can turn something "good" to "great" for some people, even subconsciously.

I myself have elevated merely "good" films to "great" simply because of my sexual attraction to a lead actress. I didn't even have to be "turned on" to know it was my hormones forcing my hand, I knew because I found the lead attractive and if she were replaced by someone else (say, someone I was less attracted to) it's very possible I wouldn't love these films as much.

Cases in point: Leon Morin, Priest: By itself it is a good film, but without Emmanuelle Riva it wouldn't stand out for me, even if you replaced her with another good actress. Thus it's not even her acting that's essential for me, it's simply HER. Plus I've mentioned many times to anyone I know about how hot she was back in her day. So, that's my hormones talking and elevating a merely good film into something I find memorable. The film even dealt with some pretty heavy, thought provoking themes, too. But you know what? If you asked me about the film, the only thing that would pop up in my head would be hot smoking hot Riva was...and the scene where she talked to Belmont about how she got off with a wooden spoon...

[pedromvu]

Originally Posted by llj

Since I was the one who started the "sexual motivation in liking a film" branching topic, you were responding at least in part to me...and I wasn't just talking about being turned on sexually, but being sexually motivated in all senses even the non-hard-on ones.


I think many films can be enhanced by a presence of an attractive actress, in that I do feel sex colors a person's opinion when it comes to nearly ANY film. How many great, classic movies out there featuring ugly women or men are there that are loved today in the same way an equivalent film with an attractive person? If Blue is the Warmest Color featured a fat, pimply faced butchy girl as the lead, would you be raving about it quite as much? On that note, how often does Criterion's "Fat Girl" get mentioned in this thread anyway?


With Mulholland Drive you have an already respected director doing a film featuring two attractive actresses with lesbian tendencies. If you already have a base level of "good", a little something spicy can turn something "good" to "great" for some people, even subconsciously.

I myself have elevated merely "good" films to "great" simply because of my sexual attraction to a lead actress. I didn't even have to be "turned on" to know it was my hormones forcing my hand, I knew because I found the lead attractive and if she were replaced by someone else (say, someone I was less attracted to) it's very possible I wouldn't love these films as much.

Cases in point: Leon Morin, Priest: By itself it is a good film, but without Riva it wouldn't stand out for me, even if you replaced her with another good actress. Thus it's not even her acting that's essential for me, it's simply HER. Plus I've mentioned many times to anyone I know about how hot she was back in her day. So, that's my hormones talking and elevating a merely good film into something I find memorable. The film even dealt with some pretty heavy, thought provoking themes, too. But you know what? If you asked me about the film, the only thing that would pop up in my head would be hot smoking hot Riva was...

Well, Fat Girl doesn't count, even if not the lead, that movie does feature quite a lot of her sister

Somewhat agree although I think more than strictly the attractiveness of actresses it is more about the charisma some of the actresses\actors have, that can totally break a movie for me if they choose the wrong actor for certain role.

As for Mulholland Dr. though, the movie is great for a lot of things, lesbian sex scenes with hot actresses is certainly not on the top of my list of why I love it, although it doesn't hurt either

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

I have "fallen in love" with female characters in films and felt that my connection/attraction to the film was heightened because of it, but never because of nudity or a specific steamy hot scene.

Originally Posted by llj

Since I was the one who started the "sexual motivation in liking a film" branching topic, you were responding at least in part to me...and I wasn't just talking about being turned on sexually, but being sexually motivated in all senses even the non-hard-on ones.


I think many films can be enhanced by a presence of an attractive actress, in that I do feel sex colors a person's opinion when it comes to nearly ANY film. How many great, classic movies out there featuring ugly women or men are there that are loved today in the same way an equivalent film with an attractive person? If Blue is the Warmest Color featured a fat, pimply faced butchy girl as the lead, would you be raving about it quite as much? On that note, how often does Criterion's "Fat Girl" get mentioned in this thread anyway?


With Mulholland Drive you have an already respected director doing a film featuring two attractive actresses with lesbian tendencies. If you already have a base level of "good", a little something spicy can turn something "good" to "great" for some people, even subconsciously.

I myself have elevated merely "good" films to "great" simply because of my sexual attraction to a lead actress. I didn't even have to be "turned on" to know it was my hormones forcing my hand, I knew because I found the lead attractive and if she were replaced by someone else (say, someone I was less attracted to) it's very possible I wouldn't love these films as much.

Cases in point: Leon Morin, Priest: By itself it is a good film, but without Emanuelle Riva it wouldn't stand out for me, even if you replaced her with another good actress. Thus it's not even her acting that's essential for me, it's simply HER. Plus I've mentioned many times to anyone I know about how hot she was back in her day. So, that's my hormones talking and elevating a merely good film into something I find memorable. The film even dealt with some pretty heavy, thought provoking themes, too. But you know what? If you asked me about the film, the only thing that would pop up in my head would be hot smoking hot Riva was...and the scene where she talked about how she got off with a wooden spoon...

But we're talking about attraction... And I said that nudity doesn't enhance the general sentiment towards a film. I don't know on which point you are disagreeing with me about.

Would I like Blue as much if she was an ugly hobo? Maybe not, but I already stated that "falling in love" with the character heightened my appreciation. See above.

Actors and actresses are cast to be likeable even if outward physical beauty isn't one of their assets. One of the other characters I fell in love with was the Zooey Deschanel character in All The Real Girls. She's ok looking, IMO. Another one - Setsuko Hara in Tokyo Story. Empathy for the character... Ability to relate.

Leon Morin is a masterpiece and although Riva is a nice looking woman, the thought had never even crossed my mind before now.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by pedromvu

Well, Fat Girl doesn't count, even if not the lead, that movie does feature quite a lot of her sister

Somewhat agree although I think more than strictly the attractiveness of actresses it is more about the charisma some of the actresses\actors have, that can totally break a movie for me if they choose the wrong actor for certain role.

As for Mulholland Dr. though, the movie is great for a lot of things, lesbian sex scenes with hot actresses is certainly not on the top of my list of why I love it, although it doesn't hurt either

Right- it doesn't hurt. Remember, though, that I responded not long after someone said it is a "big part" of why the film is so revered. And then, IMO, we proceeded to objectify women by posting cleavage shots and drooling like we've never noticed such things before.

[llj]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

But we're talking about attraction... And I said that nudity doesn't enhance the general sentiment towards a film. I don't know on which point you are disagreeing with me about.

But I wasn't talking about "obvious" sexuality like nudity. I think there's a lot of confusion about what I originally meant in the Mulholland Drive post I started. I was talking that those elements--lesbos, female masturbation--may not be "turn ons" by themselves, but for some people help "elevate" the film on a certain level beyond if it hadn't had those elements.

You said that you liked "Blue is the Warmest Color" but were NOT turned on by the sex or nudity, therefore your liking it so much is NOT motivated by sex. What I'm suggesting is that you don't have to have a hard-on when watching a film to still be motivated by sexual desire in "liking" something. Sometimes we're not even conscious of when sex is motivating us individually, and yet it is obvious to everyone else. That's the point I was making.

I'm not saying this is YOU. I don't know you personally, or how you think, nor would I attempt to. I was just saying, that from a general sense, this is how sexual motivation can also work when it comes to this subject (or anything else, really).

Edit: For the record, I liked "Blue is the Warmest Color" too (though not as much as its ardent fans), and I could dissect in detail exactly why its sex scenes are ineffective as porn. And I can't say I had many hard-ons while watching it (okay, well, the restaurant scene at the end kinda turned me on). But yet, there is an undeniable positive sexual effect for me in perceiving the film. Even if not tangibly turned on, the sexual effect is still aesthetically pleasing and that definitely colors the film positively for me, so that can be considered sexual motivation in my "liking" the film.