The Criterion Collection

[ambient_indie]

Random Thought, I wish Criterion would re-release the Handmade titles to blu-ray.

[blg]

Originally Posted by 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

I haven't watched every Criterion movie, but I can say that I didn't like (or even find interesting) the following titles:

A Christmas Tale -- Boring, overblown French soap opera
The Leopard -- I know it looks fantastic, but I fell asleep 3 different times trying to get through it.
The Secret of the Grain
Sisters
Straw Dogs -- Sorry, I thought this movie sucked
Fat Girl -- Was great until the terrible and pointless ending
Topsy-Turvy

There are probably a few others, but considering how many I have watched on both DVD and BLU, that's a pretty small list.

[jcs913]

Originally Posted by Joe Dalek

It could be worse. At least you're not a Twins fan.

[italy12]

Originally Posted by jcs913

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...

Hey now...I love baseball! But back to Criterion...

While it may come off that way when I said what I did...I actually meant that (and this is a good thing) Criterion can pick from those aforementioned "scraps" and pick out the gems that we would not normally see, if left to the companies to put these out themselves. I'm talking about the same films other members mentioned in prior pages, like Stagecoach, Ride With the Devil, Sweet Smell of Success, and even newer films in the collection, Cul-de-Sac, The Killing, etc.

WB has released a ton of catalogue films, and they will spend the big bucks on big name classic films, same with MGM (Sound of Music, etc.), so it is only fair to let CC rifle through what they don't want. That does not make these other films any worse as films because the companies don't want to spend the money on something they feel won't give them anything in return. They know, as well as Criterion knows, that once the CC picks it up, it has a much better chance of making money for them because of their history and dedication in putting out these "important" films, not necessarily "classic" films, but important films, old and new.

[jcs913]

Originally Posted by keldons

?? what did it say?

it sort of had a link to the origin of the film as a pilot for ABC. Probably a typical Criterion teaser. Link is below to the post. its from the th about a third down.

http://twitter.com/#!/Criterion

[jcs913]

Originally Posted by italy12

Hey now...I love baseball! But back to Criterion...

While it may come off that way when I said what I did...I actually meant that (and this is a good thing) Criterion can pick from those aforementioned "scraps" and pick out the gems that we would not normally see, if left to the companies to put these out themselves. I'm talking about the same films other members mentioned in prior pages, like Stagecoach, Ride With the Devil, Sweet Smell of Success, and even newer films in the collection, Cul-de-Sac, The Killing, etc.

WB has released a ton of catalogue films, and they will spend the big bucks on big name classic films, same with MGM (Sound of Music, etc.), so it is only fair to let CC rifle through what they don't want. That does not make these other films any worse as films because the companies don't want to spend the money on something they feel won't give them anything in return. They know, as well as Criterion knows, that once the CC picks it up, it has a much better chance of making money for them because of their history and dedication in putting out these "important" films, not necessarily "classic" films, but important films, old and new.

The other problem Italy is that the bigger studios will not license out many of the films that should be upgraded due to greed or stupidity. Hence they may never see any release....OOPS, getting bitter again, sorry...

[octagon]

Originally Posted by jcs913

The other problem Italy is that the bigger studios will not license out many of the films that should be upgraded due to greed or stupidity. Hence they may never see any release....OOPS, getting bitter again, sorry...

I don't have a problem with studios acting like businesses because, well, they are but this complaint I'm completely on board with. Sure, a lot of stuff will be in limbo (particularly considering both the economy and relatively low BD penetration rates) but you know tons of titles are in a definite 'when hell freezes over' pile and there's absolutely no reason not to farm those out.

[italy12]

Originally Posted by jcs913

The other problem Italy is that the bigger studios will not license out many of the films that should be upgraded due to greed or stupidity. Hence they may never see any release....OOPS, getting bitter again, sorry...

That's a whole other beast. The films that actually do get scooped up by CC are all important for one reason or another, and only Criterion knows their rationale and why said film is important enough to carry the Wacky C. The problem is that we can't all agree on those reasons, or that such and such a film actually deserves to be in the collection.

Everyone is getting caught up in the, "this film is important because I feel it is," or, "I don't like this director, so his films shouldn't be in the collection," or finally, "this director is too mainstream (action-oriented), so he has no place in the collection."

We all know we're not going to agree, so why argue. Let's just enjoy what Criterion does for us, and those of us that want to collect them ALL and watch them over time, or those of you who only buy the ones you deem worthy, well that's just fine and dandy. Let's all just focus on our own wants and needs and let Criterion do the rest.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that where this commendably calm debate started?

[italy12]

Originally Posted by Joe Dalek

Here's the specific tweet. They don't usually do that sort of thing unless it's related to one of "their" directors. Hmm...

It definitely appears Fassbinder's World On A Wire is a go now. Sam Smith's hint and now a Sam Smith designed poster for the Janus theatrical run that Criterion can't stop tweeting about (just like Kuroneko). That poster design might very well be the eventual BD/DVD cover.

This looks like something I would highly enjoy. imdb lists it as 205 minutes in two parts. Is this true? It also says 1973 TV near the title. Was this ever given a theatrical run? Or was it like a "mini-series"?

Has anyone seen it? How is it?

[aggienader08]

I know this is WAY off topic right now, but has anyone gathered information on the Criterion Collection sale at B&N that should be coming up quick?

[jcs913]

Originally Posted by Joe Dalek

Here's the specific tweet. They don't usually do that sort of thing unless it's related to one of "their" directors. Hmm...

It definitely appears Fassbinder's World On A Wire is a go now. Sam Smith's hint and now a Sam Smith designed poster for the Janus theatrical run that Criterion can't stop tweeting about (just like Kuroneko). That poster design might very well be the eventual BD/DVD cover.

I know, that is why it interested me. I also remember ramblings about Criterion and Lynch not getting along anymore, which adds to the mystique. Maybe they made nice... Man, that would be great as I love my SC region B edition, but a Criterion release would be worth a double dip.

[jcs913]

Originally Posted by aggienader08

I know this is WAY off topic right now, but has anyone gathered information on the Criterion Collection sale at B&N that should be coming up quick?

You are the best aggie, this is exactly how this thread gets back on track. Now, all we need is a question about cases or torn artwork and all will be well...

[jacobb1313]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

The reason they got those films was during the LD days the major studios didn't see that format as lasting and ultimately not cost-effective. They had nothing to lose by licensing out those films.

Interesting point. I am a bit too young to see it that way ; LD was long gone by the time I started caring about movies. And I skew towards an archival perspective.

Originally Posted by Joe Dalek

I think that's valid. Listen, I'm not advocating for the total ignorance of Hollywood films, especially classics, from the collection. I'm just saying the mission -- Criterion names 20 directors as their "foundation," BTW -- shouldn't be to polish the middling obscure work of a contemporary Hollywood director of mixed reputation (honestly, some people aren't Nolan fans, deal with it) over something that has developed a reputation over decades, whether it's The Wizard of Oz or Weekend.

Point well taken. I actually DO enjoy seeing the middling obscure work of a contemporary Hollywood director (Aronofsky's PI would be nice on Criterion; Cronos , I thought, was an amazing addition, even if the movie a shade better than OK; I could go for any Cronenberg's: Dead Ringers, Shivers, Scanners; we can reach for a decent Criterion blu of Miller's Crossing; let's go crazy: how about Stanley Tucci's vastly underrated Big Night?!), so as you can see, I'm biased there too. But I totally see where you're coming from. I'm not a Nolan fan either.

[keldons]

Originally Posted by Joe Dalek

Here's the specific tweet. They don't usually do that sort of thing unless it's related to one of "their" directors. Hmm...

It definitely appears Fassbinder's World On A Wire is a go now. Sam Smith's hint and now a Sam Smith designed poster for the Janus theatrical run that Criterion can't stop tweeting about (just like Kuroneko). That poster design might very well be the eventual BD/DVD cover.

I got the impression that Sam Smith's hint in the Solaris article was hinting at another Tarkovsky film.

[ShellOilJunior]

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...

That would be freaking awesome!

[MPerry_2000]

Originally Posted by blg

I haven't watched every Criterion movie, but I can say that I didn't like (or even find interesting) the following titles:

A Christmas Tale -- Boring, overblown French soap opera
The Leopard -- I know it looks fantastic, but I fell asleep 3 different times trying to get through it.
The Secret of the Grain
Sisters
Straw Dogs -- Sorry, I thought this movie sucked
Fat Girl -- Was great until the terrible and pointless ending
Topsy-Turvy

There are probably a few others, but considering how many I have watched on both DVD and BLU, that's a pretty small list.

Thanks for the response.

I didn't even realize Straw Dogs was a criterion. Totally agree with you on that one and Topsy Turvy. The Leopard was one I really wanted to like but found to be pretty medicore, espcially at three hours and change. Haven't seen any of the other ones you listed but seeing that we almost completely agree on the three we both did, the others probably won't be making my watch queue any time soon.

Can you think of any "must views" that I didn't list?

[retask]

Originally Posted by Harry Caul

And not to forget large parts of the Godfather I and II are very clearly influenced by Visconti's Gattopardo.

In what way?

[rkish]

Originally Posted by jcs913

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...

Sorry John...at least you're not a Mets fan.

[jcs913]

Originally Posted by rkish

Sorry John...at least you're not a Mets fan.

They are even worse than the Twins...

On a side note before I leave for a little: If anyone is interested in a copy of The Third Man, digibook packaging, but no booklet, send me a PM. I got a good deal on a backup a while ago, but need to thin out the collection a little. I think you can still get a replacement booklet from Criterion for $5 or so, you have to inquire with them. They seem to sell for about $80+, so I think $60 shipped within the US is fair.

[painted_klown]

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 actually agree with this 100%.

To be quite honest here, regarding Nolan, I LOVE, and do mean LOVE "The Dark Knight". Then, when "Inception" came out, and received all of the buzz it did, I immediately snapped up the BD release of it (not sure why I never made it to the theater for this one as I was heavily anticipating it's release).

I have to admit, I was really dissapointed in Inception. I thought it was OK at best and didn't find the story to be all that entertaining.

A couple of things I liked about it was that its "dream logic" makes sense with how dreams really are, especially in regards to the passage of time and how you build the world as you experience it. That is how you know you are at work or home or wherever, even though it doesn't look like it does in real life...

I also liked that fact that it never veered into a surreal/nightmare type of movie. It could easliy have went that direction (ala Lynch) but never did. It stayed true to form as a full blown adventure/action film.

Still though...I found little reason to CARE about why everything was happening or what happened to any of the characters. I like movies that cause me to emote in some way. This one didn't.

I will give Nolan props for releasing something unique though. That is why I had said I felt it would be a nice addition to the Criterion collection...my personal opinion doesn't matter so much when you take a look at the impact this film had and the acclaim it received. Just because I was underwhelmed, doesn't mean it was an insignifigant release...it certainly was (signifigant) to a LOT of people.