The Criterion Collection

[italy12]

Originally Posted by ccfixx

Dwight?

[SpiderBaby]

Yes. I loveeeeeeeee The Office. I always do that in my life now (the "do it now" crap).

CC, I have to tell you though, The Yards is "minor" James Gray.

[ShellOilJunior]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

I agree. The Vanishing was a good film but it underwhelmed me. Of course, the ending is shocking and effective. I liked the flawed nature of the "bad guy," but I didn't think the acting was particularly good. Overall, I thought it was a pretty good film but not particularly special. The soundtrack, as you point out, affects its ability to age well.

The feeling I had watching The Vanishing is akin to the feeling at the end of

[Show spoiler]The French Connection

.

[ccfixx]

Originally Posted by SpiderBaby

CC, I have to tell you though, The Yards is "minor" James Gray.

This, I do know. I rented the video when it first came out on home video back in 2000/2001 or something. I haven't seen it since then, so I'm ready to watch it again.

[ShellOilJunior]

Criterion should announce THE ROOM because it's definitely, without question--- major Wiseau.

[herzog4life]

Originally Posted by aggienader08

Did I miss a 50% off coupon for B&N?!

Yes indeed. I got Cronos, Videodrome, Topsy Turvy, Shock Corridor, YiYi, and the Von Sternberg DVD set.

[Hendershot737]

What are the chances of a Irreversible Criterion release?...I absolutely loved the film (which, please don't take the wrong way in thinking I am sadistic ) I still have yet to check out Noe's newest flick though...

[aggienader08]

Originally Posted by herzog4life

Yes indeed. I got Cronos, Videodrome, Topsy Turvy, Shock Corridor, YiYi, and the Von Sternberg DVD set.

So the coupon is no more? As in no chance of somebody posting a link? Or was it an actual 50% off sale? Because I asked those dooshes in the store when the next one was, about a week ago, and they said not for a while.

[italy12]

Originally Posted by aggienader08

So the coupon is no more? As in no chance of somebody posting a link? Or was it an actual 50% off sale? Because I asked those dooshes in the store when the next one was, about a week ago, and they said not for a while.

hahaha, he said dooshes. That actually made me laugh out loud at work.

The coupons that went around gave a customer the chance to get anywhere from 15 to 50% off. People on the forums posted the in-store version of the 50% one and lots of people printed them out and used them.

The next 50% off Criterion sale should be, if all goes as planned, in July. June usually features their Buy 2 Get 1 free sale, which my "contact" at B&N reminds me of constantly.

[italy12]

Originally Posted by SpiderBaby

Yes. I loveeeeeeeee The Office. I always do that in my life now (the "do it now" crap).

CC, I have to tell you though, The Yards is "minor" James Gray.

I saw an advanced screening of The Yards when I was in college at the local theatre...someone at my college was giving away free tix. I enjoyed it...thought it was a great little drama with great actors. I rented it years later and thought the same. Now, I'm afraid, with Echo Bridge's name attached to it, it will be complete and utter shite.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by keldons

I'm not arguing for Noe as a philosopher (his films are shallow in this regard) but anyone with any sort of technical appreciation of cinema can see how big of an achievement Enter the Void is. Not to mention: when was the last time you've seen a modern film this ballsy and completely audacious? Whether or not you like it is irrelevant, this is a film people will remember way longer than Fish Tank, a middle of the road coming of age story (that brought nothing interesting to the table), and Antichrist, Von Trier's worst film. Also funny that we are talking about shock value in Enter the Void.....since when was sex and drug use more exploitative than testicle smashing and clit-cutting? Antichrist is not exactly any more philosophically insightful than anything Noe's done.

I appreciate the technical aspect of Enter the Void, but that's where its positives end for me. There are a lot of modern films that are "ballsy" and "audacious" that bring far more to the table. Of course it's irrelevant whether I like it or not, in regards to its potential lasting value; that wasn't the basis of my argument at all.

How do you know this is a film people will remember longer than Fish Tank? That's right, you don't. And what people? The general population? It could certainly be argued that Fish Tank would be more memorable because it was more focused and had quality acting, two things that Void almost indisuputably lacked. It depends on who you ask. On the other hand, some people may prefer a blatant attempt at being shocking and an emphasis on the visual, over story-telling and themes.

I appreciate your argument, but it's pretty weak when it comes to Antichrist (which is a film I rarely defend). You're comparing the drug and sex use in Void to the mutilation in Antichrist? The two aren't remotely comparable, in addition to me never saying one was more shocking than the other. In Void, the drug and sex use isn't what's shocking--we've seen that before. It's the unnecessary and laughable sex scene (you know which one) among other scenes that was so completely unnecessary and a blatant attempt to be shocking, without any real point. Antichrist's mutilation scenes, while shocking, had a very real, distinct, thematic point to them. In fact, one could argue that those scenes were the epitome of what the film was about thematically. Remind me, did Void have themes? At all? Imo, no it did not. It was nothing but a self-indulgent, laughable attempt by a director to be shocking, knowing he has little ability to create any semblance of a meaningful or purposeful film.

[myka22]

Originally Posted by Hendershot737

What are the chances of a Irreversible Criterion release?...I absolutely loved the film (which, please don't take the wrong way in thinking I am sadistic ) I still have yet to check out Noe's newest flick though...

Seeing as Criterion passed on releasing Enter the Void, I doubt they would release Irreversible.

[ShellOilJunior]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

I appreciate the technical aspect of Enter the Void, but that's where its positives end for me. There are a lot of modern films that are "ballsy" and "audacious" that bring far more to the table. Of course it's irrelevant whether I like it or not, in regards to its potential lasting value; that wasn't the basis of my argument at all.

How do you know this is a film people will remember longer than Fish Tank? That's right, you don't. And what people? The general population? It could certainly be argued that Fish Tank would be more memorable because it was more focused and had quality acting, two things that Void almost indisuputably lacked. It depends on who you ask. On the other hand, some people may prefer a blatant attempt at being shocking and an emphasis on the visual, over story-telling and themes.

I appreciate your argument, but it's pretty weak when it comes to Antichrist (which is a film I rarely defend). You're comparing the drug and sex use in Void to the mutilation in Antichrist? The two aren't remotely comparable, in addition to me never saying one was more shocking than the other. In Void, the drug and sex use isn't what's shocking--we've seen that before. It's the unnecessary and laughable sex scene (you know which one) among other scenes that was so completely unnecessary and a blatant attempt to be shocking, without any real point. Antichrist's mutilation scenes, while shocking, had a very real, distinct, thematic point to them. In fact, one could argue that those scenes were the epitome of what the film was about thematically. Remind me, did Void have themes? At all? Imo, no it did not. It was nothing but a self-indulgent, laughable attempt by a director to be shocking, knowing he has little ability to create any semblance of a meaningful or purposeful film.

Can't say I disagree with any of this.

[Idioteque...]

I just watched Fish Tank, hated it it, it started off good but the plot just meddles throughout, it feels like a random bit of scenes and the the revelations are beyond predictable, I'm disappointed that it went through a predictable route and dare I say cliche?

The cinematography was great though and the use of some good rap songs was good but that's it. Very disappointing.

Does anyone want to trade Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (once it hits) for Fish Tank?

[stobbart]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

I appreciate the technical aspect of Enter the Void, but that's where its positives end for me. There are a lot of modern films that are "ballsy" and "audacious" that bring far more to the table. Of course it's irrelevant whether I like it or not, in regards to its potential lasting value; that wasn't the basis of my argument at all.

How do you know this is a film people will remember longer than Fish Tank? That's right, you don't. And what people? The general population? It could certainly be argued that Fish Tank would be more memorable because it was more focused and had quality acting, two things that Void almost indisuputably lacked. It depends on who you ask. On the other hand, some people may prefer a blatant attempt at being shocking and an emphasis on the visual, over story-telling and themes.

I appreciate your argument, but it's pretty weak when it comes to Antichrist (which is a film I rarely defend). You're comparing the drug and sex use in Void to the mutilation in Antichrist? The two aren't remotely comparable, in addition to me never saying one was more shocking than the other. In Void, the drug and sex use isn't what's shocking--we've seen that before. It's the unnecessary and laughable sex scene (you know which one) among other scenes that was so completely unnecessary and a blatant attempt to be shocking, without any real point. Antichrist's mutilation scenes, while shocking, had a very real, distinct, thematic point to them. In fact, one could argue that those scenes were the epitome of what the film was about thematically. Remind me, did Void have themes? At all? Imo, no it did not. It was nothing but a self-indulgent, laughable attempt by a director to be shocking, knowing he has little ability to create any semblance of a meaningful or purposeful film.

People always tend to say that when defending the "graphic" parts of movies they like.

And who are you to say whether or not a films content has a point or not? Or that one is more "thematically viable" or just shocking for shockings sake.

I'm not here to argue the merits of one film against another, but you are taking the stance that just because you enjoy one film over another it has more of a point, or is doing something special, where as the other is just shock value. Movies by both of these directors are made with the intention of producing emotions in the audience. And it seems like both of them have achieved that with you. Just because you had a stronger connection to one film does not discredit the other.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by stobbart

People always tend to say that when defending the "graphic" parts of movies they like.

And who are you to say whether or not a films content has a point or not? Or that one is more "thematically viable" or just shocking for shockings sake.

I'm not here to argue the merits of one film against another, but you are taking the stance that just because you enjoy one film over another it has more of a point, or is doing something special, where as the other is just shock value. Movies by both of these directors are made with the intention of producing emotions in the audience. And it seems like both of them have achieved that with you. Just because you had a stronger connection to one film does not discredit the other.

I think you missed the part where I said I don't like either film, whatsoever. Thus, I have no bias towards one of the films--I'm simply calling it the way I see it and my opinion is hardly in the minority.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by stobbart

People always tend to say that when defending the "graphic" parts of movies they like.

And who are you to say whether or not a films content has a point or not? Or that one is more "thematically viable" or just shocking for shockings sake.

I'm not here to argue the merits of one film against another, but you are taking the stance that just because you enjoy one film over another it has more of a point, or is doing something special, where as the other is just shock value. Movies by both of these directors are made with the intention of producing emotions in the audience. And it seems like both of them have achieved that with you. Just because you had a stronger connection to one film does not discredit the other.

In regards to the bolded part, isn't that what commenting on a film is all about? Conveying one's subjective belief? It seems as though you'd prefer no comments to be made about films in general.

[keldons]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

I appreciate the technical aspect of Enter the Void, but that's where its positives end for me. There are a lot of modern films that are "ballsy" and "audacious" that bring far more to the table. Of course it's irrelevant whether I like it or not, in regards to its potential lasting value; that wasn't the basis of my argument at all.

How do you know this is a film people will remember longer than Fish Tank? That's right, you don't. And what people? The general population? It could certainly be argued that Fish Tank would be more memorable because it was more focused and had quality acting, two things that Void almost indisuputably lacked. It depends on who you ask. On the other hand, some people may prefer a blatant attempt at being shocking and an emphasis on the visual, over story-telling and themes.

I appreciate your argument, but it's pretty weak when it comes to Antichrist (which is a film I rarely defend). You're comparing the drug and sex use in Void to the mutilation in Antichrist? The two aren't remotely comparable, in addition to me never saying one was more shocking than the other. In Void, the drug and sex use isn't what's shocking--we've seen that before. It's the unnecessary and laughable sex scene (you know which one) among other scenes that was so completely unnecessary and a blatant attempt to be shocking, without any real point. Antichrist's mutilation scenes, while shocking, had a very real, distinct, thematic point to them. In fact, one could argue that those scenes were the epitome of what the film was about thematically. Remind me, did Void have themes? At all? Imo, no it did not. It was nothing but a self-indulgent, laughable attempt by a director to be shocking, knowing he has little ability to create any semblance of a meaningful or purposeful film.

I would say the huge (mostly young) audience that has popped up around Enter the Void is a pretty good estimate of how much lasting appeal it will have. I know plenty of people that saw it based on word of mouth that otherwise have no interest in "art house" cinema whatsoever. I would be surprised if it didn't end up with cult status.

Stobbart had it right, we can argue over which film had more substance, that goes no where and leaves everyone where they started, so I'm not going to bother responding to most of this. I still find it hard to believe that

this

is taken seriously by anyone, but to each his own.

[Rhylliam]

Here are my current Criterions...

BLU:
criterionblus2011april.JPG

DVD:
criteriondvds2011april.JPG

[SlickDamian]

Originally Posted by Rhylliam

Here are my current Criterions...

BLU:
Attachment 31717

DVD:
Attachment 31718

Nice.