The Criterion Collection

[BohemianGraham]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

I might get flack for it but Jaglom has no place in the collection.

I agree, although I've only ever watched A Safe Place. However, I'm sure someone loves him because he's American Arthouse, and he has made quite a few films.

[dlevine]

A Safe Place really struck me as the huge weak link in that set. I even actually liked Drive, He Said, but A Safe Place was like watching paint dry to me.

My real reason for stopping by though was to say that Hunger was brilliant. With Shame being talked about so much, I thought I had to see Hunger finally and it did not disappoint.

[nametag]

Originally Posted by dlevine

A Safe Place really struck me as the huge weak link in that set. I even actually liked Drive, He Said, but A Safe Place was like watching paint dry to me.

My real reason for stopping by though was to say that Hunger was brilliant. With Shame being talked about so much, I thought I had to see Hunger finally and it did not disappoint.

I saw Shame at the London Film Festival and for my money, Hunger was the better film, though Fassbender was equally brilliant. An Oscar nomination has got to be in the bag.

[ShellOilJunior]

Originally Posted by BohemianGraham

I agree, although I've only ever watched A Safe Place. However, I'm sure someone loves him because he's American Arthouse, and he has made quite a few films.

A SAFE PLACE is Joglam trying to imitate European art films and failing miserably. At least Tuesday Weld looks nice in HD.

[BohemianGraham]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

A SAFE PLACE is Joglam trying to imitate European art films and failing miserably. At least Tuesday Weld looks nice in HD.

I was being polite. Don't post those things on IMDB, they will eat you alive, it's scary, this cult following Jaglom has.

The nerdy guy in ASP was a member of Firesign, and ended up playing Phil and Lil's dad on Rugrats. Also, the crying hippie girl was Suleen from Nashville.

[Hawkguy]

Originally Posted by nametag

I saw Shame at the London Film Festival and for my money, Hunger was the better film, though Fassbender was equally brilliant. An Oscar nomination has got to be in the bag.

I can't wait to see it when it is released here. I have yet to watch Hunger, but I just bought it and will watch it this weekend, most likely.

[Illy Scorsese]

Bergman Fans/Fellow Criterion Watchers...

I've never seen "Fanny and Alexander" before(have been waiting on an HD release).

Which should be watched first/Which is the prefered version...

The TV Version or the Movie version?????

Thanks for your time.

[themp3000]

I managed to watch Salo on blu-ray this morning. It was not as bad as I was expecting. It did still make me a little nauseous and it mentally and physically drained me. I do not regret the blind buy or experience. Long story short, it is a masterpiece. It's ugly, unsettling but essential and a required watch.

Afterwards, I watched Dazed and Confused. Never saw it before until now. It was not bad. At all. I definitely see why lots of people like or love it.

[rkish]

Originally Posted by BohemianGraham

I was being polite. Don't post those things on IMDB, they will eat you alive, it's scary, this cult following Jaglom has.

The nerdy guy in ASP was a member of Firesign, and ended up playing Phil and Lil's dad on Rugrats. Also, the crying hippie girl was Suleen from Nashville.

The nerdy guy is none other than Phil Proctor of Firesign Theater. He did a bit of TV along with some film roles and a LOT of voice-over work. Some of you oldsters may remember him as the young insurance agent from an "All in the Family" episode.

[Harmonoff]

Originally Posted by Illy Scorsese

Bergman Fans/Fellow Criterion Watchers...

I've never seen "Fanny and Alexander" before(have been waiting on an HD release).

Which should be watched first/Which is the prefered version...

The TV Version or the Movie version?????

Thanks for your time.

Well the truncated movie version is great and I must have seen four or five times before I ever saw the TV version. That being said, the TV version is superior and it is the way Bergman intended for this movie to be watched. You might as well just begin with the TV version since it is the definitive version.

[gpn]

Originally Posted by BillyJack

Is it just me, or is Charles Laughton's acting a bit on the feminine side?

It's discussed either in the commentary or the interview with David Skal; or maybe both.

[DLizzle]

Originally Posted by Illy Scorsese

Bergman Fans/Fellow Criterion Watchers...

I've never seen "Fanny and Alexander" before(have been waiting on an HD release).

Which should be watched first/Which is the prefered version...

The TV Version or the Movie version?????

Thanks for your time.

Not having seen Fanny and Alexander, I tend to default to the shorter version in these situations. I find it more satisfying to watch a version with more content than the last time I watched it, than to watch a version with material excised from my previous viewing.

I'd only watch the TV version first if I planned to only watch the TV version, but I think I'd be doing myself a disservice (maybe I'll like the movie version better).

[dwane5]

Originally Posted by DLizzle

Not having seen Fanny and Alexander, I tend to default to the shorter version in these situations. I find it more satisfying to watch a version with more content than the last time I watched it, than to watch a version with material excised from my previous viewing.

I'd only watch the TV version first if I planned to only watch the TV version, but I think I'd be doing myself a disservice (maybe I'll like the movie version better).

i agree. i always watch the lesser version. and then it makes the 2nd viewing all the better.

[italy12]

Is the 5+ hour version of F&A one straight movie? Or does it have "parts", a la Carlos, or a break/intermission?

[Hawkguy]

Originally Posted by italy12

Is the 5+ hour version of F&A one straight movie? Or does it have "parts", a la Carlos, or a break/intermission?

The TV version is in 4 (I think it's 4) separate parts, and the shorter version is straight-through 3 hours

[Monty70]

Review for 12 Angry Men is up at the Beaver.

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdreview2/12angrymen.htm

[DionJP]

Originally Posted by Monty70

Review for 12 Angry Men is up at the Beaver.

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdreview2/12angrymen.htm

[Hawkguy]

Originally Posted by Monty70

Review for 12 Angry Men is up at the Beaver.

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdreview2/12angrymen.htm

That seriously looks AMAZING!

[melo4mvp]

Originally Posted by Monty70

Review for 12 Angry Men is up at the Beaver.

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdreview2/12angrymen.htm

Sounds great. Can't wait to watch this movie again.

[kndy]

Originally Posted by DLizzle

Not having seen Fanny and Alexander, I tend to default to the shorter version in these situations. I find it more satisfying to watch a version with more content than the last time I watched it, than to watch a version with material excised from my previous viewing.

I'd only watch the TV version first if I planned to only watch the TV version, but I think I'd be doing myself a disservice (maybe I'll like the movie version better).

If you really want to experience "Fanny and Alexander", I highly recommend watching the TV version.