The Criterion Collection

[Scottie]

Originally Posted by bonehica

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.

Man, I'd love Magnolia to get the C treatment.

[dvining]

Originally Posted by 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!

Howard Hawks, man.

His presence on Blu-ray is shockingly shallow, especially everything before Bringing Up Baby.

The Dawn Patrol would probably get released by WB, but I'd love to see somebody (Criterion? sure, why not?) get their hands on Today We Live, Twentieth Century, I Was a Male War Bride, or, most interestingly, Trent's Last Case which supposedly exists somewhere.

[dkelly26666]

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? ��

I do not think he is the best director in the world today, at all. That certainly IS debatable. But I like him, though.

Unlike a lot of others, I have the opposite opinion with regards to his work. I think he became a bit more interesting as he progressed. In the beginning, he was just ripping off the technical stylings of Scorsese and the storytelling stylings of Altman. With a good bit of De Palma thrown in. His stuff was flashy and entertaining, but very derivative. And oh-so-emotionally over the top characters.

By "Punch Drunk Love", I started to like him a bit better. His last two ("Inherent Vice" and "Phantom Thread") didn't really warrant rewatches from me, though, as of yet. I suppose "There Will Be Blood", "Punch Drunk Love", and "The Master" are my favorites of his. Even then, I don't rewatch them often.

I like him, but certainly don't consider him the best in the world today.

[dvining]

Originally Posted by dkelly26666

I do not think he is the best director in the world today, at all. That certainly IS debatable. But I like him, though.

It's Malick.

[Cremildo]

Lynch.

[SeanJoyce]

Originally Posted by dvining

Howard Hawks, man.

His presence on Blu-ray is shockingly shallow, especially everything before Bringing Up Baby.

Eh, I'll give you the bulk of his 30s films but most of his certified classics are on the format.

I'd really like to see Warner give us Air Force, we need Ball of Fire and I'm hoping the rumors are true that Criterion has The Big Sky.

[dvining]

Originally Posted by SeanJoyce

Eh, I'll give you the bulk of his 30s films but most of his certified classics are on the format.

I'd really like to see Warner give us Air Force, we need Ball of Fire and I'm hoping the rumors are true that Criterion has The Big Sky.

I watched Today We Live the other night for the first time (streamed from some site), and I was shocked at how good it was. It's reputation is horrible, but I found it to be a quiet, hard-edged romantic drama where people seemed to be expecting melodrama.

And do we only want "certified classics"? Is that what we're limiting ourselves to?

[Gacivory]

Would Criterion have access to, I Remember Mama?

[Shanghai Express]

My preorder of Merrily We Go To Hell has shipped. Cool.

[bwdowiak]

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've watched TWBB 3 times over the years and each time it has gotten better, so I've had the opposite experience. The Master also played a lot better on 2nd watch for me.

I don't really know how to defend PTA from Bates' critique other than to spit out the cliché that less is sometimes more. With TWBB, The Master, and Phantom Thread, he has, stylistically, struck a chord that resonates with me more so than his earlier films. I feel less inclined to return to those movies, although the time will come, I suppose, when the mood will strike.

So, it'd be either PTA or Hirokazu Koreeda right now. If we're talking about directors whose best work is far behind them, then I don't think some of Godard's work from the 60's can be touched.

[Vigojean]

Originally Posted by TV2693

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 mean, Anderson already won that war, according to They Shoot Pictures Don’t They. The Coens got all the Oscars in 2007 but Anderson got his revenge by having his film rank in the top 5 most acclaimed films of the 21st century. I don’t know how a period drama can be “dated.”

[dvining]

Originally Posted by Vigojean

I mean, Anderson already won that war, according to They Shoot Pictures Don’t They. The Coens got all the Oscars in 2007 but Anderson got his revenge by having his film rank in the top 5 most acclaimed films of the 21st century. I don’t know how a period drama can be “dated.”

I've never quite understood the "dated" critique. What I've gathered haltingly is this:

The attitudes of the film makes sense to me, like a movie from the 30s with a woman in a completely subservient role to a man, and it's just there without comment. I get that as "dated".

There's also filmmaking techniques that are set within a certain era, like big budget musicals that don't get made anymore. They're of a different time, so they can feel "dated".

I think it mostly means, "I'm not used to this kind of movie," though.

[Vigojean]

Originally Posted by dvining

I've never quite understood the "dated" critique. What I've gathered haltingly is this:

The attitudes of the film makes sense to me, like a movie from the 30s with a woman in a completely subservient role to a man, and it's just there without comment. I get that as "dated".

There's also filmmaking techniques that are set within a certain era, like big budget musicals that don't get made anymore. They're of a different time, so they can feel "dated".

I think it mostly means, "I'm not used to this kind of movie," though.

As far as I’m concerned, every movie is a product of its time and can never be dated. Is the original Scarface dated? What about 1983 Scarface? The only way a movie can avoid being “dated” is to do what they did in Pulp Fiction and Royal Tenenbaums—that is, throw every decade on the screen. The hairstyles and fashion in those movies range from 1930s-1990s. That’s it.

[ogjongray]

I think you've hit it. Movies about teenage boys tricking girls into losing their virginity and calling other men "f@g$" already feels dated. But I've heard people talk about The Departed feel "dated" because of the phones they use to communicate. So in addition to not being used to that kind of movie, some people just can't be bothered to live in a world that doesn't match the one they experience every day.

Originally Posted by dvining

I've never quite understood the "dated" critique. What I've gathered haltingly is this:

The attitudes of the film makes sense to me, like a movie from the 30s with a woman in a completely subservient role to a man, and it's just there without comment. I get that as "dated".

There's also filmmaking techniques that are set within a certain era, like big budget musicals that don't get made anymore. They're of a different time, so they can feel "dated".

I think it mostly means, "I'm not used to this kind of movie," though.

[dvining]

Originally Posted by ogjongray

I think you've hit it. Movies about teenage boys tricking girls into losing their virginity and calling other men "f@g$" already feels dated. But I've heard people talk about The Departed feel "dated" because of the phones they use to communicate. So in addition to not being used to that kind of movie, some people just can't be bothered to live in a world that doesn't match the one they experience every day.

I don't have a problem with the label of "dated", but when it gets thrown around as an actual critique I find it silly.

"This is so dated."

"Well, how good is it? Because you've told me nothing about whether it is good or bad."

[dkelly26666]

Originally Posted by dvining

It's Malick.

I love Malick, too. His "The Tree of Life" was my choice as the best film of the past decade.

I don't know that I have just one favorite currently, I have several.

It's like when someone asked Scorsese what his favorite film of all time was, he responded, "They Are Legion".

All of these people started trying to look up a film called, "They Are Legion", LOLOL....

[bwdowiak]

I think the OP who said There Will Be Blood hasn't aged well probably meant to say that it didn't hold up for repeat viewings.

There are a lot of things that can make a film seem dated, so I certainly think that's a thing. ..and yes, I think I agree that period pictures are mostly immune to being dated.

A film that takes the prize for coming off as dated is Woman of the Year. I definitely support the modern sentiment for woman's equality in the workplace, but I'm very far from what anyone would call a social justice warrior. The end of WOTY actually made me nauseous and angry, though, it was so ridiculous. But yeah, a product of its time.

[Vigojean]

Originally Posted by dvining

It's Malick.

I stopped watching Malick after Tree of Life. What am I missing? I liked everything I’ve seen of his. I just suddenly stopped watching.

[dvining]

Originally Posted by dkelly26666

I love Malick, too. His "The Tree of Life" was my choice as the best film of the past decade.

I don't know that I have just one favorite currently, I have several.

It's like when someone asked Scorsese what his favorite film of all time was, he responded, "They Are Legion".

All of these people started trying to look up a film called, "They Are Legion", LOLOL....

I was tongue in cheek, of course, but yeah, I've adopted Scorsese's attitude.

When I was in my very early 20s, I came up with a Top Ten for all time. I agonized for weeks over that thing. It's there. I'm happy with it. I still love all ten, but I'll never modify it or add to it. There's no point. I've seen thousands more movies since, and hundreds more that I've loved, and dozens more that I've adored to the point where I might consider them some of the best ever.

Do I need to spend my time putting them in a meaningless competition with each other so that I can come up with a list just so that I have one? Nope. I'll spend my time exploring more, finding more to enjoy, and just getting more out of new movies (to me) than anything else.

[Gacivory]

Originally Posted by dvining

It's Malick.

I’m with you!

But I’m also torn. I don’t want to claim one person being the best Director working. There’s so many different directors doing different things.