The Criterion Collection

[RockyIII]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

I like the lousy gangster movie aspect of it.

Me too. The 'men in drags' jokes and twists after a while can get repetitive and redundant

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by koberulz

I didn't find Some Like it Hot to be all that funny, personally. The whole "men in drag" concept has no inherent humour to me, and once you lose that the rest of it just doesn't hold up.

It doesn't just rely on men in drag though. It's not like it's simply two hours of laughing at dudes in dresses stumbling around on high heels.

Curtis spends most of his time doing his Cary Grant impression, wooing Marilyn, which doesn't rely on the drag concept.

Lemmon's story arc where he is romanced by Joe E. Brown goes beyond the base humour of the drag concept.

But it could also be that in 1959, the general concept was much fresher than it is now.

I don't find it to be a laugh out loud funny movie either and it's not only not my favourite Wilder comedy, but I also think it's somewhat overpraised (i.e. being voted #1 comedy of all time by the AFI).

But I still think the movie holds up well, even if you don't laugh at the drag stuff.

[RockyIII]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

It doesn't just rely on men in drag though. It's not like it's simply two hours of laughing at dudes in dresses stumbling around on high heels.

Curtis spends most of his time doing his Cary Grant impression, wooing Marilyn, which doesn't rely on the drag concept.

Lemmon's story arc where he is romanced by Joe E. Brown goes beyond the base humour of the drag concept.

But it could also be that in 1959, the general concept was much fresher than it is now.

I don't find it to be a laugh out loud funny movie either and it's not only not my favourite Wilder comedy, but I also think it's somewhat overpraised (i.e. being voted #1 comedy of all time by the AFI).

But I still think the movie holds up well, even if you don't laugh at the drag stuff.

Gladly, there are other elements in the movie that more than make up for the tedious 'men in drags' punch lines

[kwr212]

Originally Posted by Jexes23

I argued multiple times about the eyes ability to detect the difference between 1080p and 4k.

[Show spoiler]At 9 feet which is the average viewing distance the screen needs to be around 140 inches for you to be able to tell the difference between 4k and 1080p and this is if your vision is 20/20. This is scientifically proven.

Now those how rebuked me told me it was more about the HDR, HDR+, Dolby Vision etc.... and the range of colors that a film presents in 4k. Now when you take a film and apply all these new elements to it who decides how and where? On Nolan’s films, Nolan did. On 2001, Nolan was also involved, and half this forum cried like little girls, even though he did a great job on the disc. The majority of 4k films are newer films. Yes some are old, but not many.

So... now insert Criterion. Ok so we’re not getting the benefit of the resolution until we all have 140 inch plus tv’s which isn’t happening anytime soon, so now we are going to apply these new HDR and Dolby Vision treatments to films where everyone involved in the production is dead. So who gets to say how these treatments are used?

Some people already have issues with how the coloring looked in Criterion’s Silence of the Lambs Blu Ray (it’s too blue). Now you want them to make a 4k disc where there are even more color variables. You’re probably just going to have half the Criterion crowd pissing and moaning. The big Studios are loaded so they don’t care.

At this point unless something major changes, Criterion has no reason to create 4k discs, and they are smart to continue not doing so.

I’m going to guess you don’t have a 4K setup. There’s a huge difference and it’s very obvious on a normal size screen. There is more than pure resolution at play, because the majority of elements on the screen are more than one pixel in size. The extra resolution plus larger disc size creates much less compression, better gradations (less banding), and more accurate colors, even before HDR is added. When you add HDR to the mix, which has been done successfully to many many catalogue titles without director involvement, you get a more filmic image that is truer to the source and much more visually appealing.

Also, that damn screen size/ability to detect resolution graph needs to stop being shared as “scientific evidence.” It’s from a Sony buyer’s guide intended to get people to buy larger TVs. You are not buying a TV to be able to discern the difference between two pixels. You are watching content, and when doing that, 4K HDR is an obviously superior format to 1080. Those who think Criterion is not getting into 4K are fooling themselves. My guess is Q4 2019, around Spine #1000.

[koberulz]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

It doesn't just rely on men in drag though. It's not like it's simply two hours of laughing at dudes in dresses stumbling around on high heels.

Oh, for sure. But if you find that inherently funny, it's a two-hour non-stop laugh riot. If you don't, the comedy is much more intermittent.

Curtis spends most of his time doing his Cary Grant impression, wooing Marilyn, which doesn't rely on the drag concept.

I might have to re-watch it after watching some Cary Grant films, then...when I first watched it I'd probably only seen his Hitchcock appearances once each, and quite some time prior. Certainly wasn't familiar enough with Grant to pick up on that at the time, and may not even be now having only added The Philadelphia Story and His Girl Friday to my viewing history (although at least I'll know to look for it).

Lemmon's story arc where he is romanced by Joe E. Brown goes beyond the base humour of the drag concept.

As with the drag, though, it relies on an inherent humour that not only isn't funny to me, but is in fact actively unfunny.

But it could also be that in 1959, the general concept was much fresher than it is now.

This too. I really suck at the whole "Seinfeld is Unfunny" thing...I still find things like Citizen Kane entertaining, but the groundbreaking aspect of it is entirely lost on me.

I don't find it to be a laugh out loud funny movie either and it's not only not my favourite Wilder comedy, but I also think it's somewhat overpraised (i.e. being voted #1 comedy of all time by the AFI).

I found One, Two, Three funnier than either The Apartment or Some Like it Hot. Which I'm sure is at least partly a question of expectations; I went into the latter two expecting the funniest thing in the history of cinema and went into the former without even knowing it was a comedy.

But I still think the movie holds up well, even if you don't laugh at the drag stuff.

I'm by no means suggesting I regret the time I spent watching it, or that I wouldn't want to watch it again. Just that as you say, I don't put it in the upper echelon that most seem to.

[Banned User]

As many have pointed out its the performances and the witty script that makes Some Like it Hot such a great movie. Not to mention Monroe in one of her sexiest performances IMO. Usually I don't double dip on films I already own simply because without comparing them I'd likely never notice the differences, but in this case I'm willing to. Great film.

I think older comedies like this are sort of a acquired taste in the sense comedy of today is so different in many regards. Usually relying on vulgar jokes and situational ones and lacking any sense of subtlety . These older movies to me get funnier the more I watch them. Witty dialog, much of it with multiple meanings. Innuendo, something lost to films today, and the expressions however minuet of the actors. In this case both leads are excellent. Truly one of the best comedies ever made.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by koberulz

I found One, Two, Three funnier than either The Apartment or Some Like it Hot. Which I'm sure is at least partly a question of expectations; I went into the latter two expecting the funniest thing in the history of cinema and went into the former without even knowing it was a comedy.

I'll have to watch One, Two, Three again some time soon. I haven't seen it in about 20 years even though I own the blu-ray.

I recently watched a few other Wilder comedies though and my favourite of the bunch was The Fortune Cookie, which was funnier that I remember it being the first time I saw it.

You're right about expectations, it's hard going into a movie knowing it's been voted the greatest of all time and moreso if it's a comedy because humour is such a personal thing. I'm quite a stoic, deadpan guy in person and not the type of guy to laugh out loud very often, even though I do find lots of things funny or amusing. So when people say that something like Some Like It Hot gives them fits of laughter I'm expecting that to correlate with the same things that give me fits of laughter and that often doesn't happen, and it makes me wonder if people are just easily amused.

[Kyle15]

I didn't and still don't see Some Like it Hot as a "drag movie." That wasn't even the funny part about it to me.

It's a damn great movie so.

[koberulz]

I own The Fortune Cookie but haven't seen it yet. Ditto Irma La Douce. Have to get through I Could Go on Singing first, and having never heard of it I'm struggling to care enough.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by koberulz

I own The Fortune Cookie but haven't seen it yet. Ditto Irma La Douce. Have to get through I Could Go on Singing first, and having never heard of it I'm struggling to care enough.

Why do you have to get through it? Did you blind buy it for cheap or something?

I've seen it once. It's not without its merits but it's not a film I'd ever want to see again. You'd probably have to be a fan of late period Judy Garland to truly appreciate it.

[belcherman]

Originally Posted by Banned User

As many have pointed out its the performances and the witty script that makes Some Like it Hot such a great movie. Not to mention Monroe in one of her sexiest performances IMO. Usually I don't double dip on films I already own simply because without comparing them I'd likely never notice the differences, but in this case I'm willing to. Great film.

I think older comedies like this are sort of a acquired taste in the sense comedy of today is so different in many regards. Usually relying on vulgar jokes and situational ones and lacking any sense of subtlety . These older movies to me get funnier the more I watch them. Witty dialog, much of it with multiple meanings. Innuendo, something lost to films today, and the expressions however minuet of the actors. In this case both leads are excellent. Truly one of the best comedies ever made.

Everyone's sense of humor is different, of course. While I appreciate sophisticated comedy, I'm more likely to guffaw at The Three Stooges.

On the other hand, there are comedies that, while not laugh out loud funny (to me), make me smile all the way through and reward repeated viewings. For me, Some Like it Hot is one of those comedies.

[koberulz]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

Why do you have to get through it? Did you blind buy it for cheap or something?

I'm working my way through this monstrosity.

I've seen it once. It's not without its merits but it's not a film I'd ever want to see again. You'd probably have to be a fan of late period Judy Garland to truly appreciate it.

Not helping.

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by SammyJankis

There are so many reasons that transcend this gimmick, chief among them, for me, at least, is Tony Curtis doing Cary Grant. The film's operating on such a high throughout, but my god, this is what consistently gives me a smile and a laugh, no matter the dialogue.

Originally Posted by Kyle15

I didn't and still don't see Some Like it Hot as a "drag movie." That wasn't even the funny part about it to me.

It's a damn great movie so.

I’ve always been more of a Bosom Buddies fan myself.

I do not apologize for this.

...arguably the best work of Tom Hanks’ career.

[Show spoiler]

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by koberulz

I'm working my way through this monstrosity.

Not helping.

Sorry. At least it's only @90 minutes long.

[SeanJoyce]

Originally Posted by koberulz

I didn't find Some Like it Hot to be all that funny, personally. The whole "men in drag" concept has no inherent humour to me, and once you lose that the rest of it just doesn't hold up.

Yeah Some Like it Hot has always been a "lesser" Wilder to me and among his comedies, I'd take The Fortune Cookie every day of the week (I think that 'Whiplash Willie' is in rarefied air when it comes to comedic screen performances.)

That said, I'll probably splurge on Criterion's Blu-ray if/when I decide to renew my B&N membership (I own MGM's DVD, which I thought looked quite fantastic for that medium). If I can hold out for this sale, I'll have a pretty lengthy list of titles to cross off in July.

[Scottie]

I really hope 2019 brings us an upgrade of Le Notti Bianche. It's long overdue.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

I’ve always been more of a Bosom Buddies fan myself.

I do not apologize for this.

...arguably the best work of Tom Hanks’ career.

[Show spoiler]

And inarguably the best of Peter Scolari's.

[koberulz]

Y'all are making me hate working my way through that box set chronologically. I'm up to 32 and The Fortune Cookie isn't until 41.

I think I'll force myself to watch I Could Go on Singing tomorrow; I've taken a break from that box for a while and mostly caught up my unwatched Blu stack. Then I get Irma La Douce, The Great Escape, Mad Mad Mad Mad World, Pink Panther, Topkapi, and Fistful of Dollars all in a row before The Greatest Story Ever Told gets in the way of me watching Persona and starting to get an idea of where I stand regarding the Bergman set.

I actually hate having films I really look forward to, though, because it makes the preceding films seem even worse than they actually are as I just want to get them over with. It's capable of killing my interest in even some really good films, so ICGoS could be a real struggle by the sound of it.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

And inarguably the best of Peter Scolari's.

Newhart would beg to differ.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by koberulz

Y'all are making me hate working my way through that box set chronologically. I'm up to 32 and The Fortune Cookie isn't until 41.

I think I'll force myself to watch I Could Go on Singing tomorrow; I've taken a break from that box for a while and mostly caught up my unwatched Blu stack. Then I get Irma La Douce, The Great Escape, Mad Mad Mad Mad World, Pink Panther, Topkapi, and Fistful of Dollars all in a row before The Greatest Story Ever Told gets in the way of me watching Persona and starting to get an idea of where I stand regarding the Bergman set.

I actually hate having films I really look forward to, though, because it makes the preceding films seem even worse than they actually are as I just want to get them over with. It's capable of killing my interest in even some really good films, so ICGoS could be a real struggle by the sound of it.

And you think watching I Could Go On Singing is going to be a chore. At least it's short. The Greatest Story Ever Told is one of the most tedious films I've ever seen. At least there are lots of stars to look for.

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Newhart would beg to differ.

No more comments from the peanut gallery!