The Criterion Collection

[Egbert Souse]

Also, 35mm reduction elements would have been 2.35:1, which were presumably used for Mosfilm's restoration.

The only standard 65mm (Todd-AO/Super Panavision) film I know of that had a special optical reduction is 2001: A Space Odyssey, which was 2.20:1 even on 35mm prints.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by Egbert Souse

Also, 35mm reduction elements would have been 2.35:1, which were presumably used for Mosfilm's restoration.

Well, yeah, I know that. In fact, I said, "The only disappointment is that the restoration for it was done at the 2.35:1 A.R. instead of the original's 70mm A.R. of 2.20:1." My point was that I'd like to see a 2:20:1 transfer to be able to compare the framing. If there is no disc release with that ratio (without the stretching that Scholer mentions with regard to the RusCiCo DVD), then the point is moot. But the desire (at least on my part) is not.

[DaBargainHunta]

Samuel Fuller's 1959 film The Crimson Kimono begins with a stripper being murdered. On stage, she portrayed a geisha, which was patterned after a painting she commissioned and had hanging up. The two cops assigned to the case - Joe Kojaku (James Shigeta) and Charlie Bancroft (Glenn Corbett) - are best friends and war veterans. Kojaku is of Japanese descent but was born and raised in the U.S. Their first step, of course, is to look for the painter that inspired the stripper's act. Finding and getting close the artist, Chris (Victoria Shaw), leads to its own set of complications...

The murder mystery element of the story is fairly pedestrian. Truthfully, the case they're investigating is almost beside the point. What the movie is really interested is in the relationships with the two detectives have - with each other, the beautiful painter helping them solve the murder, racial issues, and the country as it was at that time.

The Crimson Kimono was ahead of its time when it came out in the late-1950s, not only in its exploration of race and identity, but by casting actual Japanese actors in these roles instead of, say, putting Mickey Rooney in embarrassing yellowface.

DaBargainHunta's Decree: Like Chris's painting, something is missing that prevents it from becoming a "great movie" - but it is a good and unique one that's worth watching.

[*DrStrangelove*]

Don’t know if this has been answered yet but is the new Army of Shadows worth picking up if you have the original release? Thinking of grabbing a copy to save my original. Is the original even worth anything? Like an original pressing of a record?

[Reddington]

Originally Posted by *DrStrangelove*

Don’t know if this has been answered yet but is the new Army of Shadows worth picking up if you have the original release? Thinking of grabbing a copy to save my original. Is the original even worth anything? Like an original pressing of a record?

Beaver sees more of a difference than Svet in his review on this site. I don't have the new release, but it seems any difference is likely marginal. And unfortunately, we're not in The Third Man territory here value-wise, as the original pressing is no longer as "collectible" given it is now back in print.

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film9/blu-r...ws_blu-ray.htm

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Army-...261057/#Review

[floor pie]

Originally Posted by jayembee

Poitier's career as a director was a mixed bag, seemingly declining from one to the next, other than Stir Crazy -- the only directorial effort of his to be released on Blu-ray -- being a definite step up from the USN/LDIA/APOTA threesome.

If Stir Crazy is a step up for him, then oh boy, he must be one terrible director! I recently watched it on Prime, and it really suffers from what was mentioned earlier with the unfunny bits dragging on way too long. And apparently he even encouraged Pryor and Wilder to improvise, with horrifying results. The scene in the jail with Wilder acting insane was especially painful. Real thin soup.

See No Evil Hear No Evil was pretty mediocre as well. I guess the films they made together, while successful financially, are actually quite bad. Unless I'm missing something.

[DaBargainHunta]

Originally Posted by floor pie

If Stir Crazy is a step up for him, then oh boy, he must be one terrible director! I recently watched it on Prime, and it really suffers from what was mentioned earlier with the unfunny bits dragging on way too long. And apparently he even encouraged Pryor and Wilder to improvise, with horrifying results. The scene in the jail with Wilder acting insane was especially painful. Real thin soup.

See No Evil Hear No Evil was pretty mediocre as well. I guess the films they made together, while successful financially, are actually quite bad. Unless I'm missing something.

Silver Streak is a genuinely fun movie with both Wilder and Pryor, but Pryor has only a small supporting role, so does that one really count? .

I blind-bought Stir Crazy because of Wilder-Pryor and a couple of positive recommendations, but I have yet to watch it.

See No Evil, Hear No Evil is dreadful dog droppings. That also had an accomplished director, Arthur Hiller, who'd seen much better days. At least Wilder met his wife because of the film, so it wasn't a total loss (well, it still was for the poor viewing audience suckered into watching it!).

Edit: An excuse for me to post the terrible fake Criterion cover I once made for the movie - for inexplicable reasons I now can't recall.

[Reddington]

Originally Posted by floor pie

If Stir Crazy is a step up for him, then oh boy, he must be one terrible director! I recently watched it on Prime, and it really suffers from what was mentioned earlier with the unfunny bits dragging on way too long. And apparently he even encouraged Pryor and Wilder to improvise, with horrifying results. The scene in the jail with Wilder acting insane was especially painful. Real thin soup.

See No Evil Hear No Evil was pretty mediocre as well. I guess the films they made together, while successful financially, are actually quite bad. Unless I'm missing something.

Only that Stir Crazy is awesome!

[HaroldnMaude]

Originally Posted by DaBargainHunta

Ever since seeing The Main Event
SNIL
Unless I missed something, Babs's motivations are never explained - she remains a cipher throughout the film - but that ultimately doesn't matter. What really drives the movie are ch.

I always find it interesting to read reviews of classic films from people who are seeing them for the first time.
As for her motivation, what is Bugs Bunny's motivation in any cartoon? From the first moment she lays her eyes on him, as she is on the phone scamming a room service order -while crunching carrots - it is clear that she thinks he's cute & wants to bang O'Neal.

As for O'Neal's acting, I hope you have seen Paper Moon.

[DaBargainHunta]

Originally Posted by HaroldnMaude

I always find it interesting to read reviews of classic films from people who are seeing them for the first time.
As for her motivation, what is Bugs Bunny's motivation in any cartoon? From the first moment she lays her eyes on him, as she is on the phone scamming a room service order -while crunching carrots - it is clear that she thinks he's cute & wants to bang O'Neal.

As for O'Neal's acting, I hope you have seen Paper Moon.

What does "SNIL" mean? You inserted it when quoting me.

Your Bugs Bunny theory makes perfect sense, especially considering the name of the movie, lol.

I saw Paper Moon many, many, many years ago - and remember Tatum O'Neal being the standout - but my recollections are far too vague and distant for me to comment fairly on her father's performance. I would have to watch it again. Truthfully, it would probably be like watching it for the first time because it was that long ago that I saw it.

Luckily, it's on the Criterion Channel now, so I will eventually re-watch it.

[DimitriL]

Originally Posted by DaBargainHunta

I saw Paper Moon many, many, many years ago - and remember Tatum O'Neal being the standout - but my recollections are far too vague and distant for me to comment fairly on her father's performance. I would have to watch it again. Truthfully, it would probably be like watching it for the first time because it was that long ago that I saw it.

Luckily, it's on the Criterion Channel now, so I will eventually re-watch it.

Tatum is the stunner (and Madeleine Kahn), but subsequent viewings made me deeply appreciate how natural and absolutely committed Ryan O'Neal is in Paper Moon. It's the best performance of his career by a country mile.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by floor pie

If Stir Crazy is a step up for him, then oh boy, he must be one terrible director! I recently watched it on Prime, and it really suffers from what was mentioned earlier with the unfunny bits dragging on way too long. And apparently he even encouraged Pryor and Wilder to improvise, with horrifying results. The scene in the jail with Wilder acting insane was especially painful. Real thin soup.

Give credit where credit's due, Stir Crazy probably doesn't hold up as well as it did in 1980 when it was a huge hit, but the last time I saw it about 2-3 years ago there were still a lot of funny moments in it.

[floor pie]

Originally Posted by HaroldnMaude

As for O'Neal's acting, I hope you have seen Paper Moon.

I think O'Neal falls into the Tom Cruise category: they're both these perfect looking poster boys with limited acting abilities, but when used well – usually a little against type – they work. For O'Neal it's Barry Lyndon and The Driver. I think both of the characters he plays in these films are supposed to be blank and emotionless, so he's a perfect fit.

Getting back on Kurosawa for a bit. The Bad Sleep Well is not that underrated (although my avatar might say otherwise). Of the Kurosawa films that I've seen, it suffers the most from his excessive moralizing. For the same reason I could never count Ikiru among my favorites, although it's still very much a potent and moving film. Red Beard certainly might have the lead for most underrated Kurosawa film. I'd love to see it on bluray. That well scene was heart-wrenching (it almost made me well up).

But to me his most underrated film is Kagemusha. When written about, it often seems to be unfairly dismissed with the caveat that it was something Kurosawa made as "a dress rehearsal" for Ran. Even good old moanin' George Lucas (financing the comeback of his hero!) had to go whine in the special features about how would've preferred Shintaro Katsu in the lead role. Even without the clash of egos on set, I don't think he would've worked. Granted, I might be tainted by finishing the Zatoichi set not too long ago, but it just feels real weird to imagine him in a Kurosawa film.

I think it might be even better than Ran, at least in a purely aesthetic sense. The colors are so vivid, and it's got such a surreal and dreamlike quality (and not just in the dream sequence). Plus the staging and shot composition, it's like he's working in a whole plane of his own. Shin’ichirō Ikebe's score is amazing as well.

I've yet to see Dodes'ka-den and Dersu Uzala, but it feels like Kagemusha was a big turning point for him. With that threesome with Ran and Dreams, he really elevated his visual style to a whole new level. It's really wild how he had two very different chapters in his career. I wonder if there's anyone else with a similar trajectory, and not in the Altman sense that he made a comeback but kept making the same kind of films.

[FragnitoM]

Originally Posted by floor pie

I think O'Neal falls into the Tom Cruise category: they're both these perfect looking poster boys with limited acting abilities

I think Cruise is a pretty good actor. he’s a movie star And does a lot of genre films, but he’s done some terrific work too (Magnolia, Born on the 4th of July) ...he also has a ton more screen charisma than O’Neal, who I’ve never been impressed with

[floor pie]

Originally Posted by FragnitoM

I think Cruise is a pretty good actor. he’s a movie star And does a lot of genre films, but he’s done some terrific work too (Magnolia, Born on the 4th of July) ...he also has a ton more screen charisma than O’Neal, who I’ve never been impressed with

Ok, maybe it's a little unfair to lump him in with O'Neal. I didn't say either was bad, just that they're limited. But Magnolia is the perfect example of what I was talking about going against type. I hope that Cruise, once he gets too old to do M:I movies, starts doing roles like that again.

And O'Neal's not that bad either...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3fqR0yuWoU

[ravenus]

Originally Posted by DaBargainHunta

Silver Streak is a genuinely fun movie with both Wilder and Pryor, but Pryor has only a small supporting role, so does that one really count?

Pryor does come late in the movie, but once he's in he steals the show in most scenes.

[acroyear2]

Criterion's 30% off sale extended to the end of May.

[HaroldnMaude]

Sorry, that was a typo. Supposed to say SNIP, to show I was cutting off the rest of the longer quote.

Originally Posted by DaBargainHunta

What does "SNIL" mean? You inserted it when quoting me.

Your Bugs Bunny theory makes perfect sense, especially considering the name of the movie, lol.

I saw Paper Moon many, many, many years ago - and remember Tatum O'Neal being the standout - but my recollections are far too vague and distant for me to comment fairly on her father's performance. I would have to watch it again. Truthfully, it would probably be like watching it for the first time because it was that long ago that I saw it.

Luckily, it's on the Criterion Channel now, so I will eventually re-watch it.

[Professor Echo]

Originally Posted by FragnitoM

I think Cruise is a pretty good actor. he’s a movie star And does a lot of genre films, but he’s done some terrific work too (Magnolia, Born on the 4th of July) ...he also has a ton more screen charisma than O’Neal, who I’ve never been impressed with

I think Cruise’s best performance by far is in MAGNOLIA, maybe because he was playing someone not so unlike himself? Otherwise, I’ve never been impressed with him as an ACTOR, not in the least. But as the strong, silent type in action thrillers, he’s very good and I think he’s finally found his niche. It’s no sin to have limited acting ability when the camera loves you. The history of film is loaded with such performers.

As for Ryan O’Neal, I agree with the post above which cited THE DRIVER and BARRY LYNDON as his best performances. It takes just as much talent to play a seemingly emotionless enigma as any character loaded with depth and obvious (often too obvious) substance.

[Ray Jackson]

I’m worried about Jon Mulvaney.

I emailed him three days ago to ask when the Zatoichi set might be back in stock and I haven’t heard back.

We’ve had our issues over the years, but aside from the restraining order he filed for, it was never personal.

I’m concerned.

Hopefully he’s safe and sound and locked down in his mother’s basement...binge-watching Tiger King and working on the newsletter clue for Weekend at Bernies.