The Criterion Collection

[metamorphic]

Originally Posted by jcs913

Frankly, no one will give a shit about Inception, Dark Knight or Benjamin Button 20 years from now, but releases like Kes, Solaris and Diabolique will stand the test of time for film lovers. These are the building blocks for most of the junk you see these days put out by the 'studios'.....

So simply because a film appears to be commercial, or more to the point is a big success financially, people are guaranteed to forget about them 20 years from now? So I suppose titles like Star Wars, Back to the Future, Gone with the Wind, Indiana Jones, etc. have all completely faded and dissolved into oblivion, haven't they? So basically by this argument, financial success of any kind would be a bane rather a boon for the lasting legacy of the films involved, yes? And said movies have no merit whatsoever due to the aforementioned commercial success, I suppose?

Originally Posted by Joe Dalek

Traffic. The Royal Tenenbaums. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. Che.

Going by your other valued prognoses, including your charming views on Wes Anderson's films or Steven Soderbergh's films (which I am sure the majority of critics would agree with, absolutely and which I am sure were unanimously regarded as massive commercial behemoths unbecoming of a "true" film aficionado's affections - god forbid!), it would seem that any film that has been released in the last decade and whichever film does not fit your sacred definition of what an important or great film should look like cannot hope to deserve a place on that hallowed shelf of yours. They should simply be tossed into a rubbish bin and forgotten about, right, because *shock horror* they dared to go against your current perception of what a classic or "great"/important film should look like and they dared to get some sort mainstream recognition! No film in the last 10 years are classics because well, they don't look like the films I watched from the 70s!

I guess this is kind of like how certain football fans (or fans of other sports as well) shudder to compare the stars of the current to the legends of yesteryear, lest it dare tarnish their image of a "legend". Too bad it's their opinion which will be forgotten about in 20 years, though, not the players.

[Benchman]

Originally Posted by Ray_Rogers

I agree with this posters post regarding this opinion/debate. My guess is many posters in this thread would be appalled by what I own on DVD, HD DVD and Blu-ray disc since it doesn't fit in their criteria for ownership. Well I am damn glad I do import quite alot and more so on DVD. Maybe I'd post a link for what I own as to what I've listed on DVDProfiler but I'd rather not waste anyones time.
Unless prodded or nudged for a request about it. Yes my wishlist is far greater on there compared to my wishlist on this site. Any takers?

I would like to see it. I love seeing what other people's tastes are especially if they are unique.

[SpiderBaby]

It's like a competition on here. 1, Criterion isn't the be-all of world cinema, so please stop using the films you saw on blu-ray for the 1st time as references. 2, Okay people, Nolan is awesome. Now go branch out a little. Criterion releasing on the blu-ray format sure has meshed some things. I thought it was funny seeing for the first time "this movie by this dude named Godard is a chick flick" is on the same forum that sells slipcovers to each other, because we all want cardboard over a movie.

Movies are different things to each and every person. Though you can't change someone's mind who likes say the films of Stan Brakhage and Jean Vigo to like Nolans' if they don't. There are some people who likes both things. Theres some who hasn't even heard of 1 Brazilian film, but jumps to a "fact" (which is an opinion) and can sit here and say "Pulp Fiction is the best movie ever!" and will be hard-headed enough to not open up to anything out of the U.S..

It's cool for some users on here and in the blu-world to discover films like Criterion puts out, but there are prob more that just collects them (doesn't watch them) because it's a "cool" thing to do. There are others who buys Pierrot le fou and jumps to a "Godard is pretentious" crap, because it's their 1st Godard and the cover looked cool.

I know I'm rambling here, but so has the past 3 pages, so I wanted to be involved I guess. Bottom line is, there are people who "take film seriously". There are people who will say Inception is the best movie ever. There are people who will buy a Criterion based off of the cover art and say it made their head hurt watching it or it's boring. There are some people who will dislike Bergman but likes Nolan. There are people who hasn't heard of these films until Criterion started blu-ray, and now runs this forum with "hope they release my fav movies like Jaws" posts. Then there are people who came here, said some stuff that was his opinion about a director's work he dislikes, which in turn, started a war on a blu-ray forum about one of the most known directors, kind of cooled down after that knowing he went into enemy territory with his comments, and now people still can't wait for that person to go on a rant because he prefers some films that will prob never see a blu-ray release and has the "snob" label put on him. Thing is......................WHO CARES!

[GunRanger]

Just watch the Director's Cut.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by metamorphic

So simply because a film appears to be commercial, or more to the point is a big success financially, people are guaranteed to forget about them 20 years from now? So I suppose titles like Star Wars, Back to the Future, Gone with the Wind, Indiana Jones, etc. have all completely faded and dissolved into oblivion, haven't they? So basically by this argument, financial success of any kind would be a bane rather a boon for the lasting legacy of the films involved, yes? And said movies have no merit whatsoever due to the aforementioned commercial success, I suppose?

If you want to figure out what the guy meant you might start with what he actually said.

The bottom line is that they are releasing films that no one is and generally these films are of a better overall quality than most of the junk the major studios are putting out.

That's obviously subjective but it's a pretty defensible claim. Most of what major studios put out is pretty ordinary. At best. That's true now, it's pretty much always been true. We could quibble about the word junk but the point would still stand.

And if people do forget about TDK, Inception or TCCoBB it won't be because they were commecially successful, it will be because at their heart they're ordinary movies in a sea of ordinary movies.

[frozenhamster]

I think the problem with the entire idea of "such and such film doesn't deserve to be in the collection" is that it's all subjective. I think The Dark Knight is an amazing film just like I think The Sweet Smell of Success is an amazing film. There are also Criterion films I don't care for. I recently watched Mon Oncle and found it trite and tedious for the most part. Then again, it covers some territory similar to Modern Times and that movie is also in the collection. What's nice about Criterion releasing Following is that Nolan has become an important and recognised director, but his first film is a tiny indie film in black and white that another company is unlikely to release on Blu-ray. If Criterion can help a small movie like that get released in the best possible quality then there should be no reason for any fan of film to complain about it.

[AreaUnderTheCurve]

Originally Posted by GunRanger

Well film noir and the notion of the "femme-fatale" are big influences on him and is in his work. That's not to say there aren't examples of women who are the moral center of the films: Swank in Insomnia and Rachel in the Batmans.

There's a reason why I think Insomnia is his best work: Swank's character is strong. She almost falters at the end and thank God she didn't. As for noir, I don't care about that, to be honest. He has done the same shit in almost every movie he's made. He needs to change it up.

[BohemianGraham]

There are tons of Criterion films I wouldn't touch with a 10-foot pole. They just don't appeal to me. I buy the ones that sound interesting from reviews here, and what the synopsis says. Or, if I've actually seen them. The sale Amazon had a few weeks ago, along with the subsequen price drop is a great thing, as I was able to do both: buy movies with nice restorations and special features at a decent price that I absolutely love, and find new movies to love. I'm addicted to Criterion Blu-Rays because of The Monkees. Yes, you read that correctly, The Monkees. My Monkees obsession compelled me to buy the BBS box set, as Head is my all-time favourite movie, and I really got to see what Criterion could do with Blu-Ray. I initially only bought the set for that one movie, with the intention of watching Five Easy Pieces and Easy Rider, and not really anything else in the set. I was wrong, the whole set is fantastic, even though I personally would not have sought out A Safe Place, or Drive, He Said if they were available for individual sale. The Last Picture Show and King of Marvin Gardens were incredible too. I had bought a used copy of Brazil on DVD, the single disc edition, which lacked in the way of special features, so I really couldn't tell how awesome Criterion was. I knew that they're seen as the kings of Special Features and quality HV releases, yet I've always been too cheap to pay 70 dollars for a single film. These new sale prices, combined with more accessible films have allowed me to seek out the more artsy, foreign films from Criterion's collection, because they look interesting, and are a high quality.

For me, I buy movies if I think they look interesting, and/or sound interesting from the title block. I usually try to see a few minutes of the film before I buy it. I haven't been burned too badly with my purchases, only once or twice on DVD, but then, I was buying the film out of the 5 dollar bin at the groccery store, and should have known that despite my interest in the film, there's sometimes a reason as to why movies are in the 5 dollar bin, and it's not a fluke pricing like the DVD Collector's Edition of Some Like it Hot was (at least I choose to belive Zellers in Masonville made that mistake). I sometimes watch movies to see what they hype is on the, i.e. if they won best picture, or are critically acclaimed. If I don't like it, I don't watch it again. If I do, I go buy it.

Regarding Nolan and Fincher: I can't say I'm a huge fan of either. I hated The Social Network, and Inception was meh. I get railed on all the time by a co-worker who thinks Inception is one of the greatest films ever. Yet, he usuallywon't watch any movie made before 1980, that's black & white, silent, and/or has subtitles. We've agreed to disagree on films. Personally, I think he's missing out on a lot of great stuff, and he thinks the same about me. It's all a matter of taste. BTW, Heath Ledger's actual last film, The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, was an ok film. It was one of the weakest films done by Gilliam though. I saw it in theatres, and was disappointed. I own it, as I did like some things about the film, but it's not one of Gilliam's films I watch frequently, like Fear & Loathing, or Brothers Grimm (one which most people think is his worst actually).

I'm probably rambling and have gone off topic, so I apologise.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by JLTucker

There's a reason why I think Insomnia is his best work: Swank's character is strong. She almost falters at the end and thank God she didn't. As for noir, I don't care about that, to be honest. He has done the same shit in almost every movie he's made. He needs to change it up.

I liked Nolan's Insomnia quite a bit but the Americanized 'just desserts' ending was probably the worst of the changes.

The original ends with

[Show spoiler]the female officer handling the partner's shooting offering the Skarsgard character the incriminating shell casing and him accepting it. She offers to let him off the hook and he says yes and there's no big drama to it. And I gotta say, that kind of ambiguity can be very refreshing

.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by SpiderBaby

Thing is......................WHO CARES!

That's the trouble in a forum, you have to accept that people will care and reply to what you said if they don't like it.

In a way I am a bit like you, there are time when I just go and it's one of the reasons I am staying out of the Star Wars thread now. Ok, ok to bring Star Wars in a Criterion thread is blasphemous. The thing is some of the things going on in the thread are just to silly. I am a hardcore Star Wars fans that is no secret but come one, certain people just make's things a bit to uncomfortable in there. It's the same silly argument about who is best, who is the best characters. I sort of step out of there after the 5-10 pages dicussion and serious name calling that was the argument over how much a lightsaber weight is.

My point is, I know that it's just a forum and it's all discussion and no one is right (even if some think they are). It's all about opinion. Me I like Criterion, Kino, BFI or Master Of Cinema because they releases movies that other studios just won't ever bother to release. Let's be honest and say that the chances of a Keaton (not Micheal Keaton by the way ) get's any type of major appeal for most people out there is rather slim. No sound, no CGI, no special efects, no explosions, how can they be expected to enjoy such a movie? I would have zero chances of getting movies like Alexander Nevsky if not for Criterion and the others. Yes like you I get frustrated by their releases sometimes, I am sure a lot of people do. We each have out favorites and would like to see these get releases. I also enjoy when they release something even more out of mainstream that I may have heard about or just never really seen. I may not buy the movie but again I get the chance to rent it and see it because they made a release, the chances of WB releasing some of these movies are a zero.

Where I differ with some people is I do not think certain directors and movies should be done by Criterion. To bring Nolan again and please don't kill me, I think he as enough popularity now that regular studios can release his movies and be very safe. It's the same for Spielberg and a lot of other directors of today. The mass media of today make's their name known for everyone. I understand why Criterion like having some of their movies, it does give them increase revenue and it's not a bad thing for them. I just feel that if they release a Nolan one month, a Anderson another month, Spielberg the next and so on, it's prevent the release of some movies that just would not be seen anymore. I would like to complete this by saying, it's only my opinion

[herzog4life]

Watched Le Cercle Rouge the other night for the first time, great film.

And I just skimmed a little of the debate about mainstream films and I would like to add that I enjoy the frak out of 2012. I had to tell somebody. Thanks.

[AreaUnderTheCurve]

Originally Posted by octagon

I liked Nolan's Insomnia quite a bit but the Americanized 'just desserts' ending was probably the worst of the changes.

The original ends with

[Show spoiler]the female officer handling the partner's shooting offering the Skarsgard character the incriminating shell casing and him accepting it. She offers to let him off the hook and he says yes and there's no big drama to it. And I gotta say, that kind of ambiguity can be very refreshing

.

This will be harsh, but I don't take the opinions of those who compare originals to the remakes seriously, because I think they should be judged separately. Nolan wanted to do something different. Who cares if it's not the same as the original?

[ShellOilJunior]

Originally Posted by jcs913

right, but Wayne was already a superstar when The Searchers came out. That was a no-brainer release for Warner. They would never take a chance on Stagecoach, as it may not seemed profitable to them. It doesn't have the following for Wayne. I am sure Criterion had to beg to get this film, as it pretty much made Wayne a star. Sooner or later someone would have realized that this film could make them money and would have done a poor restoration. Looks like the studios waited for 'True Grit' to come out to capitalize on his popularity. Again, they have no gumption to release films, too much of a gamble. They needed a hook....

OK. So you just agreed with me

[ShellOilJunior]

Originally Posted by BennyBlu

I don't think a lot of the "audience" that like The Dark Knight like Transformers also. Personally I love the Dark Knight because it was unlike any "comic book" movie ever made. It was dark and atmospheric and had great characters. I honestly don't think Ledger's death added anything to his performance, it's simply one of the best portrayals of a villain ever. Why does everyone here like to hate on great directors? Just because he's popular doesn't mean Nolan isn't one of the best filmmakers working today.

The fact he's popular means a lot of people have seen his films, thus there's more criticism for them in the media. I enjoyed The Dark Knight and have seen it a few times and will probably watch it again.

On the other hand, his latest film Inception does not hold up under repeat viewings. Since Nolan's films tend to be heavily plot/gimmick driven it makes it very hard to stomach them again. Inception is just not as clever as fans make it out to be and in fact, Nolan explains TOO MUCH. The second time I'm watching the film I don't care to know the rules of inception again-- it's boring. This is the difference between INCEPTION and a film like LAST YEAR AT MARIENBAD--- a film that doesn't try to explain. It shows and conveys feeling and allows us the viewer to think subjectively about it. Nolan's films just don't have this degree of sophistication.

[Banned User]

Originally Posted by Ray_Rogers

In fact I've been on a very lazy search for the three Hitchcock releases on DVD which are OOP, Spellbound, Notorious and Rebecca, are easy purchases for myself. For The Lady Vanishes, The 39 Steps among many other stil in-print titles I'd much rather wait for an eventual release in a future Blu-ray disc formate "wave".

Speaking of Hitchcock. I've mentioned this in the Birds thread, but it would be awesome if Criterion could work with BFI to get the Hitchcock 9 Restorations http://www.bfi.org.uk/saveafilm.html
It would make a awesome boxset. I'd pay a ton of money to see these restorations on Bluray. Especially after the DVD days of countless awful public domain releases.

Originally Posted by BennyBlu

I see what your saying but it just seems like a trend here to say "oh Fincher is so overrated" and "Nolan really isn't as good as everyone thinks" but they usually don't back up their opinion, they just agree to fit in. I'm all for having an opinion but I just like to get some insight on way they say that

I get that impression too sometimes. Although I don't think I've every read 'Kurosawa is overrated' on this forum before . Techinically I think fincher is one of the best directors working today. As far as Nolan I find his movies fresh. In a world where 90% of releases are overused fast cut CGI popcorn flicks I'm glad someone takes some chances. Even if they don't always pan out completely.

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

Nolan explains TOO MUCH. The second time I'm watching the film I don't care to know the rules of inception again-- it's boring. This is the difference between INCEPTION and a film like LAST YEAR AT MARIENBAD--- a film that doesn't try to explain. It shows and conveys feeling and allows us the viewer to think subjectively about it.

I agree I hate exibition in all films. I can't stand the long ending scene in Psycho, but in general studios consider American's too dumb to accept complicated scripts. This has been going on since the existence of Hollywood.

[ShellOilJunior]

CG/SB will like this. It's from Ebert on OUT OF THE BLUE. He called it an unsung treasure in independent cinema:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...201010301/1023

[BohemianGraham]

Holy crap! I ordered Psycho, Topsy-Turvy and Howard's End on Blu from Amazon US Wednesday, and it's on a UPS truck coming from freaking Truro to my mom's house right now! Standard International Shipping selected too! I whole-heartily approve of Amazon switching from DHL to UPS, as my Black Narcissus is still sitting in Ontario, and I ordered it almost a week and a half ago. It took less time to get this than a freaking book I ordered from the Canadian site in Ontario! Fingers crossed that Bigger Than Life, Au Revoir Les Enfants, The Secret of Kells shows up just as quick.

Edit: Because I just ordered them today instead of waiting for next week.

[jcs913]

Originally Posted by octagon

If you want to figure out what the guy meant you might start with what he actually said.



That's obviously subjective but it's a pretty defensible claim. Most of what major studios put out is pretty ordinary. At best. That's true now, it's pretty much always been true. We could quibble about the word junk but the point would still stand.

And if people do forget about TDK, Inception or TCCoBB it won't be because they were commecially successful, it will be because at their heart they're ordinary movies in a sea of ordinary movies.

That is my point, as the concept has been revisited many times before. Frankly, IMO Nolan will always be known as a director of 'action' movies, just like Bay is. Why he is even being discussed as a director that needs to be in the CC baffles me. His movies will always be big-budget hollywood extravaganzas folks, so lets get over him and take him for what he is- entertaining...

[jcs913]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

OK. So you just agreed with me

Of course I agree Shell, but my point was why can't a major studio take a chance on Stagecoach too? This is why so many classic quality films will never see a restored blu-ray release. The studios care more about money than the films themselves. Understandable, but not acceptable IMO.

[jcs913]

Originally Posted by Joe Dalek

Erm, do you have me confused with someone else? Or did you misinterpret something I posted? I have no problem with Anderson or Soderbergh, other than I think more time should pass before they are anointed as master filmmakers. I love "Rushmore." I don't recall directly slagging either director off anyway.

And to give you some insight into my world, I will be watching the Jason Statham epic "The Mechanic" tonight. Half of my Blu-ray collection is sci-fi/fantasy stuff from the past 15 years. Just because I've watched it a dozen times does not mean I think "The Dark Knight" should be a Criterion title. I'd rather Criterion spend their resources elsewhere and let WB handle that one. That is my argument, not that the film sucks.

I don't see what is so offensive about holding the opinion that a film should gestate in the culture for a while before it starts getting called a "classic." In my posts I took care to narrow my comments to big studio Hollywood directors, because I would not omit something like "Hunger" from the collection. You could assume that means I don't like some of Nolan's or Fincher's films, but you would be incorrect. It's not to say those films don't have value, but to suggest that we see how they look in 10 or 20 years.

There are plenty of blockbusters, critical darlings and award winners from the past that are laughed at now, and other films that were commercial and/or critical bombs that have proven to be influential and ultimately misunderstood.

Joe, that is a perfect synopsis of my thoughts too. There are plenty of 'entertaining' directors out there, but to say that their work 'needs' to be in a collection that frankly doesn't mirror what they put out is foolish dreaming. They are entertaining and that is why Warner and Universal, etc.. can handle their movies fine. But to almost sound like 'sour grapes' that they are not in the current collection is silly.

Criterion release films that are not like those people are ranting about. Their current model is one that is exciting to me. They release foreign and homegrown films, past and present, that like I said, most studios do not have the balls to release because it will not generate revenue for them.

Frankly, the thing that baffles me the most and I hope others see this and think, how are all the Chaplin films not out on blu-ray in the US yet?? My assumption is that any major studio believes that the restoration is too expensive and the sales will not equal profit. They may possibly be right, but we will never know. Chaplin is known as possibly the greatest comedic actor of all time. Unfortunately, we have to slowly wait for one company to pony up the funds to put them out one at a time, when frankly, a major studio has plenty of funds and resources to put them all out quickly and with quality transfers if they wanted...