The Criterion Collection

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by deepbreathsanddeath

Does anyone know the differences between the different versions of the documentary "Frank Capra's American Dream"?

-On Criterion's "It Happened One Night" release its listed as 96 minutes.
-On Warner's "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" release its listed as 109 minutes.
-IMDB lists it as 115 minutes.

Originally Posted by jmclick

That's interesting. I own it as a bonus feature on three different releases: the blu-ray editions of It Happened One Night (Criterion) and Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (Sony), and the DVD release of Capra's The Matinee Idol (also Sony, and also listed at 109 minutes).

I'm only hazarding a guess, but it could be that the Criterion version has been trimmed. That's going to be the case with the bonus documentary on the upcoming In a Lonely Place blu-ray: Criterion's publicity materials describe it as I’m a Stranger Here Myself, a 1975 documentary about director Nicholas Ray, slightly condensed for this release.

I have it on four different releases: the same three as jmclick, plus the Sony-released DVD set The Premiere Frank Capra Collection. The three Sony-released versions are the same: 109 minutes exactly (give or take a second or two). The Criterion version runs exactly 13 minutes shorter.

I never taken the time to compare the Criterion version against the Sony version. I just figured that if I had a hankering to watch the doc again, I had the full version available on another disc. My guess is that they cut out footage from films that they couldn't get the clearances for.

I'm not sure where IMDb got its 115 minutes run-time from. The doc was supposedly originally shown on AMC, which showed (and still does) commercials, so maybe that 115 minutes was the timeslot it ran in.

[pro-bassoonist]

Code Unknown Blu-ray REVIEW



A prophetic film, really, about a questionable experiment and awful decisions from European leaders that have had a profound impact on the lives of ordinary people. Michael Haneke remains one of World Cinema's most intelligent directors

NOTE: There is a mastering error on the Code Unknown release. There are a few small segments with skipped frames. Examples can be seen at 00:08:38 and 00:10:07. We have confirmed with Criterion that they appear on discs from the First Pressing, though we do not know how many discs that are already in the retail system are affected. If you believe that your copy is affected, you can contact Criterion for a replacement at mulvaney@criterion.com.

Pro-B

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by pedromvu

The movie is good not great in my book

And there we have the exact point that everyone forgets when it comes to the Oscars. They (and any other industry awards) are nothing more than a consensus of opinion from a bunch of people who have their likes and dislikes and biases just like we do.

[ShellOilJunior]

New Jack Fisk article is up:

https://www.criterion.com/current/po...with-jack-fisk

[bwdowiak]

have yet to see Spotlight, but I'm happy for McCarthy and hope to have a chance to see the film soon. he's made a handful of really nice films (e.g. The Station Agent, The Visitor... Win Win was a good watch, too.)

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by SlickDamian

Spotlight just won Best Picture. Nothing against it, but I don't understand how it beat The Revenant and Mad Max: Fury Road.

It's a well-earned Academy Award. Here is my write-up on Spotlight that I wrote after seeing it last week...


Spotlight, which tells the true story of the Pulitzer Prize-winning Boston Globe investigation and exposé of the cover-up of sexual abuse cases within the Catholic Church, was my movie choice for last night after my evening run. In recent months, I had dismissed this film as one of those "Oscar bait" movies that I usually avoid like the plague, but I am glad that I changed my mind and decided to give it a chance at long last.

Spotlight earns my admiration for eschewing heavy-handed emotional melodrama in favor of showcasing the gritty details of old-fashioned investigative journalism in the days before the ubiquitous use of Google searches. The film gives us a no-nonsense authentic representation of actual journalism work, complete with scene after scene of spreadsheets, dusty file rooms, metrics, door-to-door interviews, phone calls, and reporters persisting their way past administrative assistants of evasive information sources, without sacrificing any of its fast-paced dramatic momentum. The ensemble cast, featuring Mark Ruffalo, Michael Keaton, Rachel McAdams, Liev Schreiber, Brian d'Arcy James, and John Slattery, swings for the fences to hit one home run after another, while the low-key cinematography stays out of the way to let these actors work.

The repeated comparisons to the 1976 film, All the President's Men, are warranted. As much as I tend to scoff the current state of media for misinformation, godawful autoplay videos on news websites, and lazy reporting, I have to tip my hat and applaud stories like this for reminding us that a free press is an instrumental safeguard in our society, and that competent reporting saves lives.

[Fabs]

Originally Posted by iScottie

I don't understand why they included half the people they did and left off Zulawski, Haru, and Rivette.

I mean there were film critics, sound mixers, producers, editors, etc. that were listed that I'm sure most people have never heard of.

Because the Oscars never recognize the greatest directors, films, actors, actresses, scores, and cinematographers for awards. So to expect them to remember those people is just not realistic.

[ShellOilJunior]

The Oscars are a joke but they mean something to many people in the industry and movie fans. Some people view them as all knowing and some people use the nominations to determine which films to purchase on blu-ray.

To each their own. I disregard it altogether.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

The Oscars are a joke but they mean something to many people in the industry and movie fans. Some people view them as all knowing and some people use the nominations to determine which films to purchase on blu-ray.

To each their own. I disregard it altogether.

I watched the entire broadcast this year. It was an underwhelming show overall. I used to get chills and really get excited when I'd see the edited montage of all the great moments from the year in film (err... umm, 'movies,' for the most part.) this year I was content to look away from the screen.

[jmclick]

Originally Posted by jayembee

I have it on four different releases: the same three as jmclick, plus the Sony-released DVD set The Premiere Frank Capra Collection. The three Sony-released versions are the same: 109 minutes exactly (give or take a second or two). The Criterion version runs exactly 13 minutes shorter.

I never taken the time to compare the Criterion version against the Sony version. I just figured that if I had a hankering to watch the doc again, I had the full version available on another disc. My guess is that they cut out footage from films that they couldn't get the clearances for.

I'm not sure where IMDb got its 115 minutes run-time from. The doc was supposedly originally shown on AMC, which showed (and still does) commercials, so maybe that 115 minutes was the timeslot it ran in.

It's on the Premiere Frank Capra Collection, too? Then I also have four copies of it! And I'm sure your astute comment about the Criterion version being edited due to problems with clearances is right on the money. That happens more often than we might like to think.

As far as the IMDb running time goes, I suspect that might be a data entry error. The IMDb is an invaluable resource, but I've found many instances in which their information is simply wrong.

[llj]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

The Oscars are a joke but they mean something to many people in the industry and movie fans. Some people view them as all knowing and some people use the nominations to determine which films to purchase on blu-ray.

To each their own. I disregard it altogether.

I don't care about it since the movies I like never win nor would they even have a chance to in most cases. Oscar Best Picture winners are usually for Social Message or historical drama films anyway.

In the animation category, only big studio films like Pixar or Dreamworks usually ever win, whether they even deserve it or not. Independent and foreign animation pretty much have no chance. Spirited Away's win seems more and more like a complete fluke in retrospect.

In the actor/actresses category, overacting and performances about suffering
get rewarded more often than not.

[diskspinner]

Originally Posted by llj

I don't care about it since the movies I like never win nor would they even have a chance to in most cases. Oscar Best Picture winners are usually for Social Message or historical drama films anyway.

In the animation category, only big studio films like Pixar or Dreamworks usually ever win, whether they even deserve it or not. Independent and foreign animation pretty much have no chance. Spirited Away's win seems more and more like a complete fluke in retrospect.

In the actor/actresses category, overacting and performances about suffering
get rewarded more often than not.

Very true...Suffering characters is what you need to play to increase your chances at oscar...Not too disregard the performances but they are very prone to giving awards to such characters...

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by WonderWeasel

No Abe Vigoda, either.

On a more positive note, glad to see Morricone finally win one, albeit for one of his weaker scores.

Has anyone ever won a competitive Oscar after having already been given an honorary one?

[ThatOneGuy]

Well I decided to add the Criterions I got during the sale to my Criterion account and Naked as well as The Graduate are both on backorder.

I guess there really wasn't an unlimited source of The Graduate. Everyone and their mother went for that one during the sale.

[jmclick]

Originally Posted by hariseldon

Henry Fonda did -- won his first and only Oscar in 1982 for On Golden Pond a year after being presented with an Honorary Lifetime Achievement Award.

Surely someone else has as well, but I can't remember another off the top of my head.

Paul Newman, who won for The Color of Money after receiving his Honorary Oscar the year before.

[Ausjdm]

Chris Rock's opening monologue was great and most of the recorded skits were also.

Was loving the middle of the show the Mad Max run. Gave me false hope tho..

I think Leo and Brie are fine actors but I'm still sticking with:

Tom Hardy > Leo
Jacob tremblay > Brie

They felt more integral to their respective films then the leads...

Great to see Ennio win and only in the Oscars a guy that wrote the other guys and anchorman can win an award lol

[SkyAntoine]

Not sure how Hoop Dreams has sat on my shelf for so long without me watching it. I finally sat down for 3 hours and caught it Saturday.

I'm a Kentucky basketball fanatic and follow the recruitment of high schoolers far more than most healthy obsessions. I see new groups of kids make a quick stop at UK and then move on to the NBA to become millionaires each year. So this was especially interesting for me to get a glimpse into what occurs with young men all over the country.

This is an incredible documentary and I'm debating where I place it in my all-time list. It definitely moves ahead of Man on Wire and it right there with Ken Burns' Civil War. 9/10

[mja345]

Originally Posted by jmclick

Paul Newman, who won for The Color of Money after receiving his Honorary Oscar the year before.

I rewatched "The Color of Money" recently and it's definitely a lot more middling than I remember it. It had been 4 or 5 years since I'd seen it. Solid film, but not one of Scorsese's finer efforts. Newman was infinitely better in "The Hustler", "Cool Hand Luke", "Hud" or many other films, but it was like the Academy said, "Well, we gotta give Newman the Oscar sometime." And Cruise's montage to "Werewolves of London" is just so Cruisey, if I may invent an adjective.

Dicaprio was fine in "The Revenant", but I thought he was much better in "The Wolf of Wall Street". But he didn't go through trauma in "The Wolf of Wall Street", so no Oscar. He was just an a-hole in that movie. The Oscars almost never reward actors for playing a-holes, perverts or psychos, no matter how well they do it. Javier Bardem in "No Country for Old Men" is a rare exception.

[Disturbed Blu 1]

I need some help. I ordered some Criterions during their flash sale, but they still haven't arrived. Does it normally take this long? It seems some people on here got theirs a couple days later, at most.

[Inlayreverse]

Originally Posted by Disturbed Blu 1

I need some help. I ordered some Criterions during their flash sale, but they still haven't arrived. Does it normally take this long? It seems some people on here got theirs a couple days later, at most.

I placed two orders. Got the first one on Friday, but have yet to receive a tracking number on the second one...