The Criterion Collection

[Cinemach]

Originally Posted by Cocophone

I agree on that. I can't decide if I should get the "Warner DVD made to order" for $18.95 or wait for a possible bluray upgrade.

I'd just go ahead and get the Warner Archive DVD - I can't recall any of those titles being upped to blu thus far, and they certainly are not priorities for Warner's to do such.

You can pick up Warner Archive titles cheaper at ImportCDs and Deep Discount. Also WBShop does present opportunities from time to time to get it cheaper than this $18.95 price, too.

[alenecw]

Best Buy dropped the price on Heaven's Gate to $26.99 for Blu, why isn't Amazon following suit?

For those planning on ordering from Best Buy, it's backordered for a 2-4 week period.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by drbikeshorts

Count me as a big fan. I'll happily upgrade when it turns up on blu-ray.
As usual, if you're unsure, try before you buy.

Then i can finally have my The American / Solaris double feature in HD! Awesome films.

[Scottie]

Wasn't there a rumor that Paul Thomas Anderson's "Hard Eight", would be released by Criterion?

[jrmac2000]

Originally Posted by iScottie

Wasn't there a rumor that Paul Thomas Anderson's "Hard Eight", would be released by Criterion?

Vague rumors if I remember correctly, I think punch drunk love was the title most were expecting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[retablo]

Originally Posted by Lutz

From memory in the remake they never explained that the visitors were being sent because the ocean was studying humanity.

Which seems like kind an important detail to omit?

Different movie, different rules.

[Bateman84]

Originally Posted by alenecw

Best Buy dropped the price on Heaven's Gate to $26.99 for Blu, why isn't Amazon following suit?

For those planning on ordering from Best Buy, it's backordered for a 2-4 week period.

I just checked amazon and it is that price

[blkhrt]

Originally Posted by iScottie

Wasn't there a rumor that Paul Thomas Anderson's "Hard Eight", would be released by Criterion?

I posted this a few months ago, which is probably what you are thinking of:

Originally Posted by blkhrt

Posted on Twitter (and retweeted by Ryan Gallagher):

"Cigarettes&RedVines ‏@cigsandredvines

A reader at the ATP festival passed along that @Criterion is looking into releasing HARD EIGHT. Nothing official but it's "being discussed." "

I have never seen Hard Eight, but it would fit in with the recent-ish trend of releasing early films by current directors. And, with The Master in theaters now, Criterion might be able to time the release with the blu-ray release of The Master.

[OrchidClub]

Perhaps this has already been discussed, but whatever happened to Y Tu Mama Tambien? It was supposed to have been released this year but it hasn't even been officially announced yet.

[RiFiFi1955]

Originally Posted by retablo

For someone who doesn't particularly like remakes you seem to own quite a few: The Departed, The Fly, Dragon Tattoo, The Man Who Knew Too Much (55), Heat, Last House on the Left, Maltese Falcon, Man on Fire, My Bloody Valentine, Piranha, Scarface, The Thing, True Grit... and you might even say Last Man Standing, loosely.

Solaris is a better remake than a lot of those you own. In some ways, it outdoes the original, but both films have their merits IMO.

Originally Posted by RiFiFi1955

alright Thanks, yeah I am sure I will check it out. Do you not mind remakes in general? Yeah that's probably the biggest reason that I have had the inclination to pass it by, I really am not the hugest fan of re-makes or re-adaptation of films that have already done it perfectly IMO of course. Every now and then though I find one enjoyable if I just sit back and not try to compare it to its counterpart. But some films I just won't even dare, like the Psycho remake, yeah I am not going anywhere near that one.

I am not a re-make hater, I just feel some films are perfect in every way that it renders a re-make unnecessary. To me there is a huge difference in remaking Piranha vs remaking/re-adapting Solaris or Psycho.

[Monty70]

Originally Posted by Nielsb90

Got my copy of Paths of Glory in the mail today and watched it right away.. I can't even fathom how good this looks - it's truly incredible! Same goes for the sound!

The film itself is now one of my all-time favorites and also my favorite Kubrick film. It literally gave me goosebumps - absolutely amazing! Probably my best purchase this year.. Everyone should own this film..

I agree with your opinion of Paths of Glory. Criterion gave us a special edition worthy of such a powerful film.

[TheHighRoller]

Originally Posted by ElliesDad

Came across this a month or so ago in the middle of a cable telecast and hung in for five or ten minutes hoping for some Donna Summers. Quickly came to the conclusion that I was totally disinterested in spending any more time than that with any of characters on screen, and bailed. Not much basis to offer any kind of a valid opinion but there it is. Can't honestly say that I saw anything in that short span that would cause me to want to revisit it. If you loved it, kindly disregard the foregoing.

I said I *liked* it. And I don't really see any replay value in it anytime soon. Like I said, they could have chosen much better music to represent the era.

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

Or better yet, The 90's.

Did you notice the Out of place vehicles. I can imagine Whit Saying " let's get a really wide shot", only to be screwed in the editing room.

I noticed that! And in one of the final scenes when Steinway gets into a Taxi, one modern taxi passes by before he gets in, and when his 70s taxi is about to pull away, another modern taxi leads the 70s taxi!

Wtf?

Originally Posted by BohemianGraham

See, I was lucky with that one as I saw it before I bought it. Also, if I get like 6 films at a time and read all the booklets, there's a chance I won't get to the film right away and won't remember details of the essay until after I watch.

I've been tempted to read the booklets (or in the case of TLDoD, a pamphlet) first before seeing something. But I noticed that the experience is better when you read the booklets after seeing a Criterion.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by RiFiFi1955

I am not a re-make hater, I just feel some films are perfect in every way that it renders a re-make unnecessary. To me there is a huge difference in remaking Piranha vs remaking/re-adapting Solaris or Psycho.

Well, okay, but how can you quantify that difference? I don't see a difference.... a remake is, factually, a remake, no matter what the film is. You just said you didn't care for remakes in general, that's all. Not trying to rip on anything you said, just pointing it out.

I don't think any cinematic art is so holy that you can't, or shouldn't, remake it. I mean, it's just a movie. Psycho is one of my favorite films, and the remake was pretty ridiculous, but the original still remains and is still more revered, so who cares? I also don't think Solaris is spectacularly groundbreaking -- if so, then I'd credit the novel for that -- but it's a good film. Soderbergh's version stripped it down to it's core, and, like I said, in many ways I prefer the newer film. But it's all a matter of taste.

[ElliesDad]

Originally Posted by retablo

[Show spoiler]Well, okay, but how can you quantify that difference? I don't see a difference.... a remake is, factually, a remake, no matter what the film is. You just said you didn't care for remakes in general, that's all. Not trying to rip on anything you said, just pointing it out.

I don't think any cinematic art is so holy that you can't, or shouldn't, remake it. I mean, it's just a movie. Psycho is one of my favorite films, and the remake was pretty ridiculous, but the original still remains and is still more revered, so who cares?

[Show spoiler] I also don't think Solaris is spectacularly groundbreaking -- if so, then I'd credit the novel for that -- but it's a good film. Soderbergh's version stripped it down to it's core, and, like I said, in many ways I prefer the newer film. But it's all a matter of taste.

One way to qualify the difference would be exclude from any potential list those remakes that are, or would likely be, 'pretty ridiculous'.

'Holy' cinematic art. Where would one begin?? "Gone With the Wind"? "To Kill a Mockingbird"? "The Red Shoes?" "Ben Hur"? Veronique. Maybe "Lawrence of Arabia"~ although the CGI arab armies massing for the march to the coast would look really cool...On the other hand "The Fly", "The Thing", "True Grit"? Why not?

Someone did a remake of The Maltese Falcon? Really?

[RiFiFi1955]

Originally Posted by ElliesDad

Someone did a remake of The Maltese Falcon? Really?

The Maltese Falcon with Bogart from 41' was actually the remake. The orginal was from 31'. There might even be one in the middle of those two making three versions total but I am not positive on that.

[RiFiFi1955]

Originally Posted by retablo

Well, okay, but how can you quantify that difference? I don't see a difference.... a remake is, factually, a remake, no matter what the film is. You just said you didn't care for remakes in general, that's all. Not trying to rip on anything you said, just pointing it out.

I don't think any cinematic art is so holy that you can't, or shouldn't, remake it. I mean, it's just a movie. Psycho is one of my favorite films, and the remake was pretty ridiculous, but the original still remains and is still more revered, so who cares? I also don't think Solaris is spectacularly groundbreaking -- if so, then I'd credit the novel for that -- but it's a good film. Soderbergh's version stripped it down to it's core, and, like I said, in many ways I prefer the newer film. But it's all a matter of taste.

Oh I didn't think you were ripping on me or anything and I know where you're coming from. There really is no true way or rationale of figuring out whether or not a film should be deemed remake worthy or not. It just my opinion, some films I just love and don't care to see another version of and some films I enjoy another telling, no real logic. I do like though as you mentioned that remakes can open a door for the original and give life to a whole new audience.

[ElliesDad]

Originally Posted by RiFiFi1955

The Maltese Falcon with Bogart from 41' was actually the remake. The orginal was from 31'. There might even be one in the middle of those two making three versions total but I am not positive on that.

My point exactly! I was referring to the 1931 classic...

[Show spoiler]

[brandon_260]

Picked up Qatsi Trilogy, Rosemary's Baby, Following, and Brazil today. The prices down here in the States are unreal compared to back in Canada. Hoping to grab Salo and maybe something else when B&N starts their sale this week.

[Cinemach]

Originally Posted by RiFiFi1955

The Maltese Falcon with Bogart from 41' was actually the remake. The orginal was from 31'. There might even be one in the middle of those two making three versions total but I am not positive on that.

The Maltese Falcon is indeed the third film based on the same source material: there was a picture called Satan Met a Lady in your above specified interim.

I do see your point in qualifying 'remakes' - ie, films such as The Maltese Falcon (1941), The Departed or Scarface (1983) have come to stand so much on their own that they've become their own entity, divorced from their predecessors and even their status as remakes*. I grant that this is an entirely separate class, for example, than the pitiful Total Recall remake thrown upon us earlier this year.

But the truth is, 'remakes' - however one qualifies or looks at them - have been prevalent throughout the history of cinema: much more films came out 'back then' that weren't remakes precisely because much more films in the aggregate [studio] were being produced.

*I would even add another class of 'remake': the reinterpretation. The Coen's True Grit is not a remake of the 1969 film but a reinterpretation of the original source novel, for example

[runnersdialzero]

True, the Coen's even said they never saw the John Wayne version.

Psycho on the other hand, Van Sant said they would watch the DVD of the Hitchcock version to make sure the shots were similar.