The Criterion Collection

[Gacivory]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

We'll agree to disagree about The Third Man. It's always been a favorite of mine.

Barry Lyndon is another all time fav of mine, but the fact that it was made by an American, to me, only makes it tangentially British.

I don't think, though, that the UK has ever been hurting for talented filmmakers.

Alfred Hitchcock was also born in and worked in the UK for the first 20 years of so of his career, so there's that. ..and Nicolas Roeg and Ealing Studios, etc.

Love Roeg! One of my favorites!

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by Vigojean

I like Lawrence of Arabia and Kes and if... but I wouldn’t rank any of them above Brazil, Clockwork Orange or Barry Lyndon. What really surprises me is when The Third Man gets ranked #1. It always put me to sleep.

That's what makes horse races.

Me, I'd rank Lawrence of Arabia over Brazil or Barry Lyndon, but not over A Clockwork Orange. And The Third Man is sublime.

[Gacivory]

Originally Posted by jayembee

That's what makes horse races.

Me, I'd rank Lawrence of Arabia over Brazil or Barry Lyndon, but not over A Clockwork Orange. And The Third Man is sublime.

Me I’d rank Lawrence over Brazil & Clockwork. I’d put Barry Lyndon on the same level as it. Agree about Third Man! Love Carol Reed!

[Shanghai Express]

Criterion Channel has a Mitchell Leisen retrospective coming up. I hope that means they have Midnight (1939)

[Vigojean]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

Barry Lyndon is another all time fav of mine, but the fact that it was made by an American, to me, only makes it tangentially British.

I don't think, though, that the UK has ever been hurting for talented filmmakers.

Alfred Hitchcock was also born in and worked in the UK for the first 20 years of so of his career, so there's that. ..and Nicolas Roeg and Ealing Studios, etc.

So I think all that matters is who FINANCED. For example, Leon the Professional is a French film because it was financed by a French company, even though it takes place in America with mostly American actors. That’s what I’ve been led to believe.

Anyway, don’t forget Lynne Ramsay. She’s my favorite British director, behind only Hitchcock

[dressedtokill]

Originally Posted by Shanghai Express

Criterion Channel has a Mitchell Leisen retrospective coming up. I hope that means they have Midnight (1939)

Its pretty much an open secret that Criterion has it. The KLI has shot it down several times over the years as being with another label, since I can't see any other label releasing, I would say it's a given it's with Criterion. Much like other titles they have licensed, Criterion are sitting on it, probably waiting for Universal to perform a restoration.

[Vigojean]

What Paul Thomas Anderson movie do you want to see in the collection? And are we all in agreement that he’s the best director in the world today, or is that gonna cause a debate? ��

[tatterdemalion]

Originally Posted by Vigojean

What Paul Thomas Anderson movie do you want to see in the collection? And are we all in agreement that he’s the best director in the world today, or is that gonna cause a debate? ��

It's Kore-eda Hirokazu for me. My favorite American living director would be Terrence Malick.

This kind of stuff is very much on a personal level. There's directors that are talked about on this thread that don't click with me at all, like P. T. A., Wes Anderson, Wong Kar-wai, David Lynch, Quentin Tarantino, Frances Ford Coppola...(yep, lots of US directors don't click with me ) I'm into older art house films but heck, even quite a few Godard films leave me flat (especially the one with the ever constant airplane's flying by noises...I'm blanking on the title at the moment. Damn you Godard! )

Anyway, I always let the people who are fans of that particular director talk it out and I'll join when someone I like comes up. We all have different tastes and being an idiot troll just makes one an idiot troll.

[mmarczi]

I'll out myself and admit that I haven't seen any Paul Thomas Anderson films yet, though I own most of them.

[Vigojean]

Originally Posted by mmarczi

I'll out myself and admit that I haven't seen any Paul Thomas Anderson films yet, though I own most of them.

Whoa you own them but don’t watch them? I couldn’t do that with any director. Anyway let me blow some smoke up Anderson’s butt and say he was voted the best director in the world in 2012 by The Guardian and Peter Travers of Rolling Stone called him “the foremost filmmaking talent of his generation. Anderson is a rock star, the artist who knows no limits." To be fair, critics went a little crazy after There Will Be Blood and The Master came out. Anderson killed his previous masters (Scorsese, Altman) and completely changed his filmmaking style after having adopted two new masters (Kubrick, Ophuls), which he continues to mimic. He is the Radiohead of filmmaking. And yes, Radiohead is the best band in the world

As far as Gen X directors go (Tarantino is a Boomer), Anderson is so ahead of everyone else he might as well be in Australia. Just my opinion.

[bonehica]

Originally Posted by mmarczi

I'll out myself and admit that I haven't seen any Paul Thomas Anderson films yet, though I own most of them.

You need to pull one of those bad boys off the shelf and give it a spin, and right quick. Any one of them will do. You will not be disappointed.

[Member-682067]

Originally Posted by mmarczi

I'll out myself and admit that I haven't seen any Paul Thomas Anderson films yet, though I own most of them.

In my opinion, like Chris Nolan, he became a progressively less interesting director as he went on. Hoping for a rebound soon.

[Member-682067]

"Cache" from Michael Haneke needs treatment from boutique label. The artificial eye BD from 13 years ago is overpriced.

[mmarczi]

Originally Posted by Vigojean

Whoa you own them but don’t watch them? I couldn’t do that with any director. Anyway let me blow some smoke up Anderson’s butt and say he was voted the best director in the world in 2012 by The Guardian and Peter Travers of Rolling Stone called him “the foremost filmmaking talent of his generation. Anderson is a rock star, the artist who knows no limits." To be fair, critics went a little crazy after There Will Be Blood and The Master came out. Anderson killed his previous masters (Scorsese, Altman) and completely changed his filmmaking style after having adopted two new masters (Kubrick, Ophuls), which he continues to mimic. He is the Radiohead of filmmaking. And yes, Radiohead is the best band in the world

As far as Gen X directors go (Tarantino is a Boomer), Anderson is so ahead of everyone else he might as well be in Australia. Just my opinion.

Yeah, I'm quite confident that he'll climb pretty high up the list of my favorite active directors once I get a chance to view his work. I've only had a serious interest in film for about 5-6 years so I'm perpetually playing catch-up. I buy a lot of stuff I know I'm not going to get around to watching for a while when I find them for good deals during sales and things like that, and I try to balance streaming (which comes with expiration dates) and discs (which obviously doesn't). Sometimes the balance is more streaming than I'd like just to fit in everything I was hoping to get a chance to see, which are often things that are either not on blu ray or which I wouldn't blind buy. The upside of this is that I have a constantly expanding cache of great movies I can discover for the first time whenever I feel like--and a part of me definitely also likes knowing that I still have so many movies I have reason to believe will become favorites, waiting for me down the road when the mood strikes me to put the disc in. I did marathon a few dozen westerns on disc last month, though. I could have a mini Anderson marathon later on this month.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by TV2693

In my opinion, like Chris Nolan, he became a progressively less interesting director as he went on. Hoping for a rebound soon.

Like egotistic Nolan, PTA became more interested in being obtuse and circumventing any sort of clear narrative in favor of trying to be artistic for art's sake, not because it benefits the film. His original script for The Master told a much clearer story with better characters, but he let his actors just improv and threw our narrative and left us with characters that have no purpose and never change, not move to any sort of climax, leaving them dull and completely uninteresting (yet masked by the actor's performances, which some people misinterpret as "good characterization).

It's too bad he became more interested in himself and trying to be edgy over telling great stories, because his first three films are all classics. Everything after that (including There Will Be Blood, which has a great first half before devolving into a meaningless wank job with no real ending and no characters that actually learn anything) is fun to look at but not to watch.

[Member-682067]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

Like egotistic Nolan, PTA became more interested in being obtuse and circumventing any sort of clear narrative in favor of trying to be artistic for art's sake, not because it benefits the film. His original script for The Master told a much clearer story with better characters, but he let his actors just improv and threw our narrative and left us with characters that have no purpose and never change, not move to any sort of climax, leaving them dull and completely uninteresting (yet masked by the actor's performances, which some people misinterpret as "good characterization).

It's too bad he became more interested in himself and trying to be edgy over telling great stories, because his first three films are all classics. Everything after that (including There Will Be Blood, which has a great first half before devolving into a meaningless wank job with no real ending and no characters that actually learn anything) is fun to look at but not to watch.

"The Master" felt like an episode of 'Seinfeld': not much happens and there is little point but it's a lot of fun. Except 'The Master' wasn't fun.

Saw "There Will Be Blood" last year and it hasn't aged well and it came out in 2007(!). I think "No Country" and "Zodiac" will hold up as the big future classics from that year. Even a bitter sleeper like '4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days' from 2007 is preferable to 'Blood'.

[andantelise]

Originally Posted by TV2693

"The Master" felt like an episode of 'Seinfeld': not much happens and there is little point but it's a lot of fun. Except 'The Master' wasn't fun.

Saw "There Will Be Blood" last year and it hasn't aged well and it came out in 2007(!). I think "No Country" and "Zodiac" will hold up as the big future classics from that year. Even a bitter sleeper like '4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days' from 2007 is preferable to 'Blood'.

There Will be Blood is one of my favorite films, though. I would say that it has potential to be considered a masterpiece someday.

[BamaDullard]

Originally Posted by andantelise

There Will be Blood is one of my favorite films, though. I would say that it has potential to be considered a masterpiece someday.

It already is considered one.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

Like egotistic Nolan, PTA became more interested in being obtuse and circumventing any sort of clear narrative in favor of trying to be artistic for art's sake, not because it benefits the film. His original script for The Master told a much clearer story with better characters, but he let his actors just improv and threw our narrative and left us with characters that have no purpose and never change, not move to any sort of climax, leaving them dull and completely uninteresting (yet masked by the actor's performances, which some people misinterpret as "good characterization).

It's too bad he became more interested in himself and trying to be edgy over telling great stories, because his first three films are all classics. Everything after that (including There Will Be Blood, which has a great first half before devolving into a meaningless wank job with no real ending and no characters that actually learn anything) is fun to look at but not to watch.

Originally Posted by TV2693

"The Master" felt like an episode of 'Seinfeld': not much happens and there is little point but it's a lot of fun. Except 'The Master' wasn't fun.

Saw "There Will Be Blood" last year and it hasn't aged well and it came out in 2007(!). I think "No Country" and "Zodiac" will hold up as the big future classics from that year. Even a bitter sleeper like '4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days' from 2007 is preferable to 'Blood'.

I couldn't quite see what was so great about The Master when I saw it either but expectation can sometimes cloud my feelings about a film. I've been meaning to give it another go before I write it off for good.

I thought Inherent Vice was great but it actually took me reading the novel before I watched the film for a second time to crack that nut because there are certain things that aren't made clear in the film that reading the book helps with. I'm a fan of detective movies, particularly ones set in the 70s, so that made me more invested in the film than something like The Master.

Phantom Thread was a fascinating film to me, very elegant and interesting but it's one where you really have to pay attention right through to the very end to know fully what is going on, and I liked that. It's probably not a movie I'll be driven to revisit any time soon though.

[Gacivory]

The Master is my favorite PTA and I love Inherent Vice (haven’t read the book).

To get this back to Criterion. I hope they start releasing more Claire Denis films!