The Criterion Collection

[brake]

I've never really been too fond of critcs - Except the ones that analyse without bias - afterall it is just one person's opinion and should be taken with a gain of salt. But, it is sad to hear that he - and anyone for that matter - has passed away. RIP.

I just remember his review of Haneke's Cache (Hidden) and he claimed to pinpoint an exact moment that reveals who sent the tapes, but he didn't mention any further, which frustrated a lot of people!

On another note, does anyone happen to know when B&N have the bi-annual Criterion 50% off sale? I seem to recall it being in July and November but I can't recall.

I have emailed B&N asking them but they just said they will email me when it's on, but I know its on at set times!

Thanks guys!

[Hawkguy]

Originally Posted by brake

On another note, does anyone happen to know when B&N have the bi-annual Criterion 50% off sale? I seem to recall it being in July and November but I can't recall.

You're correct.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by brake

I've never really been too fond of critcs - Except the ones that analyse without bias - afterall it is just one person's opinion and should be taken with a gain of salt. But, it is sad to hear that he - and anyone for that matter - has passed away. RIP.

I don't understand this whole stance. There are as many bad "critics" as there are good ones, if not more. Forget Stars, thumbs, scores and aggregates, what ultimately matters is the quality of writing. Like the great Jon Rosenbaum has said, "weigh your biases against mine."

Look at Ebert's review of Django Unchained. It was easily his most eliquently written review of last year (or even the last several years) and yet several commenters still asked for an arbitrary star grade. People are too antsy for the final word/bottom line/hyperbolic praise or damnation.

[Hawkguy]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

I don't understand this whole stance.

I usually understand it in threads for terrible films---where people are upset that critics hate it and go on about how they never listen to them because of that.

[Page14]

R.I.P. Roger Ebert

I suppose my biggest thrill involving Roger Ebert was attending a viewing of Casablanca at Colorado University in Boulder back in the 1980s. He provided live commentary ... stopping and starting the film to explain certain aspects of the making of the film (... much like the audio-commentary he provided for the bluray).

[metaridley]

Originally Posted by Fellini912

All these "pseudo-moderators" keep popping up, with a false sense of entitlement. It's getting old pretty fast.

Wow, where else are they? Perhaps I'm visiting the wrong threads. Didn't realize I had a false sense of entitlement but hey, maybe you're just misapplying the phrase. Anything else I can do to make your day just a little bit worse?

[metaridley]

Originally Posted by Fellini912

Like I mentioned before, if someone does not like a topic or post, they can easily ignore the post.

Try taking your own advice sometime.

[Fellini912]

Originally Posted by Page14

R.I.P. Roger Ebert

I suppose my biggest thrill involving Roger Ebert was attending a viewing of Casablanca at Colorado University in Boulder back in the 1980s. He provided live commentary ... stopping and starting the film to explain certain aspects of the making of the film (... much like the audio-commentary he provided for the bluray).

I heard that he would go frame by frame, and have a group discussion. I would of like to participated in one of his screenings of a classic film.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by CoopFilm

I usually understand it in threads for terrible films---where people are upset that critics hate it and go on about how they never listen to them because of that.

I still don't understand this them. There are tons of schlocky critics that really haven't seen anything before they were born. Example, Brad Bevret said he never would have seen Breathless if it wasn't for his job...

I do think its a failure to engage with the critic's stance. Many "fanboys" and the like turn away from reviews because they have ultimately nothing better to say other than express their crude "peanut butter in the ass tastes." Oh, man, I'm starting to sound like Armond White (I've read about 15 of his reviews today)

[ElliesDad]

Originally Posted by Arkadin

also very sad about the death of RE.
I remember watching Siskel and Ebert on wgn way before they became "stars" and thought it was just the coolest show. It was so terrible when Siskel died, and I feel even worse today.

[Show spoiler]I used Ebert's "Great Movies" books as one of my first resources when I began seriously trying to collect great cinema on dvd, and became determined to get every single film in all 3 volumes. I still highlight the title in its respective volume when I acquire a new one. RIP Roger Ebert--movie fans will never forget you.

Just read the news here and was surprised and saddened by it, even though I knew he was not well. For one reason or another I didn't often agree with him (a point of utter inconsequentiality) but he was such a part of the cultural landscape and such a part of every movie lover's reality that he will be sadly missed. Never missed an episode of Siskel and Ebert (was it on Saturday nights?) and nothing could put a smile on your lips and in your heart faster than hearing that familiar, happy, comforting jingle. The banter between the two men was as entertaining as their analysis and each complimented the other beautifully. You could take it to the bank that when both strongly recommended a movie it was going to be worth seeing.

Originally Posted by drbikeshorts

Is it even possible to exaggerate how great Army of Shadows is? Amazing film.

You would ask that on this site?! It's actually remarkably in the realm of possibility to exaggerate the 'greatness' of any number of movies and this happens here in fact more often than not. Not quite sure why, but "Head" pops to mind, probably because I carelessly exposed myself to the first achingly painful ten minutes of it on TCM the other night.

On the subject, there is at least one comment on the 'Only God Forgives' trailer news item that might require a Criterion fan response...

[metaridley]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

I still don't understand this them. There are tons of schlocky critics that really haven't seen anything before they were born. Example, Brad Bevret said he never would have seen Breathless if it wasn't for his job...

I do think its a failure to engage with the critic's stance. Many "fanboys" and the like turn away from reviews because they have ultimately nothing better to say other than express their crude "peanut butter in the ass tastes." Oh, man, I'm starting to sound like Armond White (I've read about 15 of his reviews today)

If I had to be brutally honest, I'd say I wouldn't give critics the time of day and Armond White is a professional troll. Sometimes I've gleaned useful information/ways of looking at a film from reviews but more often than not, I think you need a "false sense of entitlement" (eh? eh??) to be a critic. It's one thing to have an opinion but to have a job/get paid to evaluate someone else's work when you don't have the talent to produce your own? Lame. All in my opinion, of course.

[SammyJankis]

My greatest Ebert memory would have to be last year, when I went to his film festival with a friend. I didn't expect to meet him or anything. He looked pretty weak and needed help standing up. It was the third day of the festival and I just walk down an aisle and see him sitting in a chair with his wife. I run to go buy a copy of "Ebert on Scorsese" and make my way back to him. I was hesitant to approach him (I get starstruck easily). I wanted to tell him how much I admire his writing, how long I've been reading him for, etc - but I didn't. I just handed him the book, talked to his wife a little, and walked away. Oh well.. I'm sure he hears that constantly. At least I got the book signed.

On a side note, going back to the festival with my friend in two weeks. They're screening Days of Heaven and the cinematographer will be there afterwards for a Q&A. Can't wait, although I imagine the festival will now be more of a tribute to him than anything else.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by metaridley

If I had to be brutally honest, I'd say I wouldn't give critics the time of day and Armond White is a professional troll. Sometimes I've gleaned useful information/ways of looking at a film from reviews but more often than not, I think you need a "false sense of entitlement" (eh? eh??) to be a critic. It's one thing to have an opinion but to have a job/get paid to evaluate someone else's work when you don't have the talent to produce your own? Lame. All in my opinion, of course.

Wow! There are tons of great writers out there producing great challenging essays on films. One does not need to look further than the booklets included with each Criterion release.

I can list attests a dozen film intelligent, witty and engaging critics working today that are well worth following

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by SammyJankis

On a side note, going back to the festival with my friend in two weeks. They're screening Days of Heaven and the cinematographer will be there afterwards for a Q&A. Can't wait, although I imagine the festival will now be more of a tribute to him than anything else.

You Chicagoans are so lucky!

[Hawkguy]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

I still don't understand this them.

Basically it translates to: people that don't agree with me don't know what they're talking about

[Fellini912]

Originally Posted by SammyJankis

My greatest Ebert memory would have to be last year, when I went to his film festival with a friend. I didn't expect to meet him or anything. He looked pretty weak and needed help standing up. It was the third day of the festival and I just walk down an aisle and see him sitting in a chair with his wife. I run to go buy a copy of "Ebert on Scorsese" and make my way back to him. I was hesitant to approach him (I get starstruck easily). I wanted to tell him how much I admire his writing, how long I've been reading him for, etc - but I didn't. I just handed him the book, talked to his wife a little, and walked away. Oh well.. I'm sure he hears that constantly. At least I got the book signed.

On a side note, going back to the festival with my friend in two weeks. They're screening Days of Heaven and the cinematographer will be there afterwards for a Q&A. Can't wait, although I imagine the festival will now be more of a tribute to him than anything else.

I am curious, which one Haskell Wexler or Nestor Almendros? There is a big controversy about who contributed the most on the film.

[Snicket]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

I still don't understand this them. There are tons of schlocky critics that really haven't seen anything before they were born. Example, Brad Bevret said he never would have seen Breathless if it wasn't for his job...

That's a bit of a half truth, Brad did not grow up wanting to be a critic. In fact he did not cover film exclusively on his site for some time. Once he got serious about it he dived into older films.

I actually like Brad and think he definitely rises above the mediocrity of modern film journalism.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by CoopFilm

Basically it translates to: people that don't agree with me don't know what they're talking about

Definitely. For example I was listening to the Cinephiliacs podcast and Keith Uhlich was making some radical statements: his disdain for latter Soderbergh, Nolan (which I agree with), and even Andrew Haig's Weekend and most modern gay films, but he made his points with such intelligence that I could not help but reexamine my own stance.

By the way the podcast is excellent, Peter Lebuza discusses a wide variety of issues with several notable critics (mostly).

[SammyJankis]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

You Chicagoans are so lucky!

I actually don't live in Chicago, my friend does. It's more of an excuse to see him than anything else. All of these films are just a bonus. I'm most excited for Days of Heaven, of course. I haven't seen The Ballad of Narayama yet, which they're also screening. Also really looking forward to In the Family, as I've heard nothing but great things.

My town never screens classics, as much as I'd love them to. Whenever I go to NYC I always make it a priority to check out the local theaters that screen classic films.

Originally Posted by Fellini912

I am curious, which one Haskell Wexler or Nestor Almendros? There is a big controversy about who contributed the most on the film.

Wexler. Yeah, I'm really hoping he addresses that. If not, I'll ask him.. if I get the balls to do that.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

Wow! There are tons of great writers out there producing great challenging essays on films. One does not need to look further than the booklets included with each Criterion release.

I can list attests a dozen film intelligent, witty and engaging critics working today that are well worth following

Max Kellerman is a very good boxing commentator. He can't box? So what? I'm not paying to see him box, I'm paying to watch him talk about boxing and he's very good at it.

The whole 'well if you're so smart why aren't you making movies' gambit is lame enough in internet threads. Applying it to people who actually know what they're talking about and can express themselves in a coherent, entertaining manner is kinda silly.