The Criterion Collection

[Schonfelder]

I just can't understand why tere are endless pages of discussing Nolan and Fincher on the Criterion forum, when the films of those directors have their own threads (Batman, Social Network etc etc).
I mean, no problem in a little discussion on whether their films should or shouldn't be on the C catalog, but c'mon...

[italy12]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

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.

I hate to beat a dead horse, but this is your opinion regarding your comments about Inception being hard to stomach a second time. I've watched it twice now and am looking forward to a third time strictly because I enjoyed it that much. Same goes for Last Year at Marienbad, the film you use as its opposite in that regard.

Why would you expect everyone to think how you think and do what you do? Remember, these are our "personal" opinions and tastes.

I still don't get why there's page after page of people expressing their opinion only to have someone else argue their point as gospel. I mean if you want to catch up to the slipcover thread page count, have at it, but at least talk about something other than "this is what """"""I""""""" believe and it is the almighty word!

[octagon]

Originally Posted by JLTucker

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?

You thought the Swank character 'not faltering' was one of the strengths of the remake. I thought that same sequence was one of the weakest moments of the remake. I thought difference was an interesting point of conversation.

I see now that I was mistaken.

(btw, she didn't almost falter. She did falter.

[Show spoiler]She started to throw the casing away and Pacino stopped her

)

[SpiderBaby]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

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

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

Most of the time Ebert knows what he is talking about. Thanks. At first when I read your post I just saw "CG/SB will like this.....Out of The Blue", I thought there was going to be a re-release (which someone on Cforum told me at a showing last year one of the producers said he was looking for someone to re-release this on dvd.).

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by jcs913

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...

I am not so sure that Chaplin is such a money maker for big studios. The comedic elements of Chaplin are extremely message driven and most of it might not be so funny for the average audience of today. People today think of comedies as spoof or Seth Rogen stoner act or even worst the insert something here movies. I even had a few people asking me why I was buying Buster Keaton moveis, there is no sound and they are not funny.

[italy12]

Originally Posted by jcs913

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...

I don't know about you and your circle of friends, but I don't know many people that would consider NOlan a action film director. Memento, Following, Insomnia, The Prestige...not really your over the top overblown Michael Bay action extravaganza.

He should be in the collection (my opinion, not the word of all that is holy) because of his contribution to a medium that, as large and all encompassing as it is, defied what movie making was "supposed to be" (whatever that means) by making films such as Following and Memento at the start of his career...films that were not your typical Hollywood-fare.

[italy12]

Originally Posted by jcs913

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.

While true, I think even big name studios have limits on what they can do. At least we're getting full blown (expensive) restorations on classic films such as the Bond franchise (remastered meticulously years ago for DVD), The Ten Commandments, North By Northwest, Gone With the Wind, The Wizard of Oz, Once Upon a Time in Mexico, The African Queen, Ben Hur, Citizen Kane, Taxi Driver, The Bridge on the River Kwai, hell, even Alien and Aliens,etc.

The big name companies are, in ddition to duimping out hardly touched catalogue films, they do their own part in rematering the films that are important to them, while also choosing the ones that will also bring them top dollar...to some extent.

And Criterion gets a bunch of the rest...which is awesome.

[jcs913]

Originally Posted by italy12

I don't know about you and your circle of friends, but I don't know many people that would consider NOlan a action film director. Memento, Following, Insomnia, The Prestige...not really your over the top overblown Michael Bay action extravaganza.

He should be in the collection (my opinion, not the word of all that is holy) because of his contribution to a medium that, as large and all encompassing as it is, defied what movie making was "supposed to be" (whatever that means) by making films such as Following and Memento at the start of his career...films that were not your typical Hollywood-fare.

Italy, his output since those entry films have been nothing but Hollywood blockbuster type films. As cerebral as people think he is, what you see on the screen is no different than what has been seen for years from many others before. Whatever genre you want to put him in, Frankly IMO, his vision is not what Criterion is today. I am not saying that he is a bad director or has no merit, but for the sake of discussion and what Criterion is these days, he makes no sense.

[jcs913]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

I am not so sure that Chaplin is such a money maker for big studios. The comedic elements of Chaplin are extremely message driven and most of it might not be so funny for the average audience of today. People today think of comedies as spoof or Seth Rogen stoner act or even worst the insert something here movies. I even had a few people asking me why I was buying Buster Keaton moveis, there is no sound and they are not funny.

You are right Pat, and unfortunately, that is why his catalog is not out. It doesn't appeal to the masses, probably because he is not texting in his films...

[jcs913]

Originally Posted by italy12

While true, I think even big name studios have limits on what they can do. At least we're getting full blown (expensive) restorations on classic films such as the Bond franchise (remastered meticulously years ago for DVD), The Ten Commandments, North By Northwest, Gone With the Wind, The Wizard of Oz, Once Upon a Time in Mexico, The African Queen, Ben Hur, Citizen Kane, Taxi Driver, The Bridge on the River Kwai, hell, even Alien and Aliens,etc.

The big name companies are, in ddition to duimping out hardly touched catalogue films, they do their own part in rematering the films that are important to them, while also choosing the ones that will also bring them top dollar...to some extent.

And Criterion gets a bunch of the rest...which is awesome.

Basically you are saying, as this is the Criterion thread, that they get the scraps the studios do not believe are money makers. That is the sad part about it, as the studios pump out millions to projects that are useless, when they know all the money is in home entertainment. As dumb after dumb movie comes out every friday, quality catalog titles sit untouched, because they don't want to take a risk??

Anyways, I am just bitter and woke up on the wrong side as my Bulls went into the tank yesterday and I am left to watch the boring days of baseball...

[octagon]

Originally Posted by jcs913

You are right Pat, and unfortunately, that is why his catalog is not out. It doesn't appeal to the masses, probably because he is not texting in his films...

DVD libraries are probably another big obstacle. Most of us don't need to be convinced that older titles can look spectacular in HD but most people aren't quite there yet. Hell, a lot of BD fans aren't quite there yet.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by jcs913

Anyways, I am just bitter and woke up on the wrong side as my Bulls went into the tank yesterday and I am left to watch the boring days of baseball...

At least the Hawks gave us the whole regular season to come to terms with the possibility of a short post-season.

(and even at that, I still can't even think about Patrick Sharp having the series on his stick in that game seven OT power play without my head pounding)

[SpiderBaby]

Someone a few pages ago said it best, does Nolan need to be discovered or re-discovered right now?

[jcs913]

Originally Posted by octagon

At least the Hawks gave us the whole regular season to come to terms with the possibility of a short post-season.

(and even at that, I still can't even think about Patrick Sharp having the series on his stick in that game seven OT power play without my head pounding)

its better to think about that than Niemi beating them.

[SpiderBaby]

Criterion's Twitter on May 19th,

We're about 300 followers shy of 40,000. What should we do to celebrate?

NOTHING!

[jcs913]

Originally Posted by SpiderBaby

Criterion's Twitter on May 19th,



NOTHING!

CG, speaking of twitter, I saw a post on there about Mulholland Drive from Criterion. Now that would be a nice surprise...

[ambient_indie]

Its funny reading all these heated debates about popular Hollywood filmmakers and what films deserve to go into collection. Its further proof that Criterion is the only company in America who understands blu-ray.

The criticism here I think is the lack of specialty titles on blu-ray. And if they're available few are treated like a Criterion title. The company is one in a handful that produces specialty titles and does them justice. And they just don't release enough to meet every viciously passionate consumer needs.

Blu-ray would be more diverse if studios approached their catalog titles like Criterion does. Its great Warners is giving Citizen Kane, Casablanca, and Gone With the Wind the royal treatment, but what about a film like Badlands or Blow-up or an even deeper archive film?

Now, I will defend that Chris Nolan's hollywood films are historically and culturally important because they take up auditorium space from Cats and Dogs 2, Grown Ups, Shrek Forever Again and countless others. I think that deserves at least a plaque that says "Thank you for not polluting Hollywood."

[MPerry_2000]

Of course asking this opinion to ten people I will get ten different answers, but I am curious. I think most people probably tend to give the benefit of the doubt to movies that get the Criterion treatment. (In other words, it MUST be good if Criterion is backing a release). But if I'm being completely honest, the more I explore the Criterion catalog, the more I find it to be a hit and miss affair. Sometimes to the extreme.

Specifically, I just finished watching the Double Life of Veronique, and it was such a missed opportunity to me. There was an intriguing idea buried in there somewhere, but I'll be darned if the movie succeeded in engaging me enough to care about it. In reading some reviews, the Director apparently chose to cut almost two hours out of the film to pair it down to an hour and a half. Good God I was already going out of my mind by the end of this one as it was, I couldn't imagine another two hours plus.

Any way, so it got me to thinking about Criterion releases that folks out here would consider must haves for any serious film collector. (They can either be blu rays already in existence or former catalog items that should be on blu).

These are the criterions I have seen broken down by ranking. Full disclaimer - I own everything in the first two categories.

Brilliant - Absolute Must Haves:

Red Shoes, Broadcast news, Last Temptation , Sweet Smell of Success, Spartacus (praying for a Criterion blu) Paths of Glory, Seven Samruai, Yojimbo/Sanjuro, Revanche, Last Emperor (I have both Criterion versions), Brazil, Trouble in Paradise

Very good but not necessarily must owns

Kes, Breathless, Che, Modern Times, Thin Red Line, Curious Case, 8 1/2, Yi Yi, Shock Corridor , Stagecoach, Bottle Rocket , El Norte , Rashomon , Traffic, Hoop Dreams

O.K.

The Leopard, Days of Heaven , Charade (Any movie I can see the end coming a mile away I just can't rank highly no matter how much i like the actors), Seventh Seal, Bigger Than Life (would have ranked much higher were it not for the formulaic ending) , Repulsion, Gimme Shelter, M, Ride With the Devil, Paris, Chungking Express, Kagemusha, Mystery Train, Gomorrah, Merry Christmas Mr Lawrence Last Metro (same as bigger than life regarding ending), Third Man , Darjeeling Limited Make Way For Tomorrow, Ice Storm, Rushmore

Ones I have watched and didn't enjoy

Double Life, Le Circle Rouge, Fear and Loathing, Topsy Turvy, In the Realm of the Senses, Pierrot Le Fou, Wings of Desire (I'm sure this is heresy to some but I HATED this movie) , Playtime, Crumb Do The Right Thing, Homicide

So if anyone's made it through this list, again blu ray or not, what Criterion catalog issues haven't I seen yet that I am really missing out on. THX

[keldons]

Originally Posted by jcs913

CG, speaking of twitter, I saw a post on there about Mulholland Drive from Criterion. Now that would be a nice surprise...

?? what did it say?

[italy12]

Originally Posted by jcs913

Italy, his output since those entry films have been nothing but Hollywood blockbuster type films. As cerebral as people think he is, what you see on the screen is no different than what has been seen for years from many others before. Whatever genre you want to put him in, Frankly IMO, his vision is not what Criterion is today. I am not saying that he is a bad director or has no merit, but for the sake of discussion and what Criterion is these days, he makes no sense.

I agree 100% that his newer films, and even The Prestige, would make no sense. Following would be, in my opinion, a great fit into the collection. It was his first feature film, and was very creative in terms of its plot/storyline. I have not seen it in years, but it is one film (out of many) that I would love to revisit very soon. I couldn't think of a better way than on a Criterion BD.

Just because he is what he is today, doesn't mean he never was what he was when he began making films. Right?