The Criterion Collection

[BohemianGraham]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

I also never really like him either and I did see quite a few movies with him in it. Like Kirk Douglas, good actors that for some reasons just cannot reach me with their performances.

Kirk is totally campy in a lot of stuff I've watched him in, and I think a lot of it has to do with SCTV. Joe Flaherty does a dead-on impersonation of him on the old SCTV shows, which causes me not to take Douglas serious enough, because he does have the tendancy to rage and talk through his teeth. Kirk Douglas and Tony Curtis never seem to merge into their roles for me, they're always Tony Curtis or Kirk Douglas, where as other actors, such a Henry Fonda or Spencer Tracy, become the characters they play. Jimmy Stewart manages to do that sometimes, but in several cases, I still always see him a Jimmy Stewart. Despite all that, Stewart is still one of my favourite actors.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by BohemianGraham

Kirk is totally campy in a lot of stuff I've watched him in, and I think a lot of it has to do with SCTV. Joe Flaherty does a dead-on impersonation of him on the old SCTV shows, which causes me not to take Douglas serious enough, because he does have the tendancy to rage and talk through his teeth. Kirk Douglas and Tony Curtis never seem to merge into their roles for me, they're always Tony Curtis or Kirk Douglas, where as other actors, such a Henry Fonda or Spencer Tracy, become the characters they play. Jimmy Stewart manages to do that sometimes, but in several cases, I still always see him a Jimmy Stewart. Despite all that, Stewart is still one of my favourite actors.

I think it depend's on how we perceive them or not. I like Spencer Tracy, great actor. I also like Jimmy Stewart but it is true that he does a lot of the same type of thing in many of his role but like with John Wayne I was always able to overlook it. For other actors I just can't get pass it.

[IronWaffle]

Originally Posted by BohemianGraham

Yeah, Tony had issues from what I read. I mean, he did leave Janet Leigh to marry Christine Kaufmann, and was always going after "younger models." I still prefer many other actors, but The Sweet Smell of Success made me like him as an actor more than say, Spartacus, or The Great Race.

The Leopard is probably my second favourite Criterion release after Head (yes, those damn Monkees again! ). It's quite incredible how they have an Irish-American play one of the last Sicilian aristocrats. I'd have to say one of my favourite Lancaster films is Elmer Gantry though, which TCM is currently touring theatres with.

Yes, Elmer Gantry is also great and deserves better than its current edition.

Well, that's another vote for The Leopard... and yet it feels like its years before I'll get around to it despite my library having a lonely copy.

If the Monkees' 33 & 1/3 can't turn you off from being a fan, this here may be the last thing that could pull off that coup. And I say that as someone with the limited edition soundtrack from Head on his shelf (but without a record player to listen to the single it included)

[BohemianGraham]

Originally Posted by IronWaffle

Yes, Elmer Gantry is also great and deserves better than its current edition.

Well, that's another vote for The Leopard... and yet it feels like its years before I'll get around to it despite my library having a lonely copy.

If the Monkees' 33 & 1/3 can't turn you off from being a fan, this here may be the last thing that could pull off that coup. And I say that as someone with the limited edition soundtrack from Head on his shelf (but without a record player to listen to the single it included)

I love the crap out of that version of Tapioca Tundra that appears on that album, to be honest. I've had it for years.

33 1/3 was pretty bad, but Micky Dolenz's commentary, and the fact that you have Brian Auger, Jerry Lee Lewis, Fats Domino, and Little Richard playing pianos stacked on top of each other more than make up for it. Seriously, that piano bit is worth the price of admission alone. However, I must say though, Peter Tork looks like he's begging someone to shoot him when they're in the ape costumes, while Mike Nesmith looks as though he might "cut a biatch."

Edit: You really do need to seek out The Leopard. I have yet to watch the Americanised version, because it's supposedly horrid, but I will watch it just because I'm a bit of a completist.

[BohemianGraham]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

I think it depend's on how we perceive them or not. I like Spencer Tracy, great actor. I also like Jimmy Stewart but it is true that he does a lot of the same type of thing in many of his role but like with John Wayne I was always able to overlook it. For other actors I just can't get pass it.

Eaxctly, John Wayne is a classic example of a man who played the same character over and over again, but you can get past it. Jimmy Stewart was the same for me in that regard, although he manages to transcend that in some roles, such as Anatomy of a Murder. Others, like Tony Curtis and Kirk Douglas just can't for me.

[IronWaffle]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

I also never really like him either and I did see quite a few movies with him in it. Like Kirk Douglas, good actors that for some reasons just cannot reach me with their performances.

I can completely see that. Out of the Past and Ace in the Hole are the two films that turned me around on Kirk Douglas, but I personally find him an acquired taste. He feels like old school Hollywood with a touch of method, but not enough that he ever disappears into his roles. I feel like I can hear him say, "this is important!" whenever he speaks.

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

I think it depend's on how we perceive them or not. I like Spencer Tracy, great actor. I also like Jimmy Stewart but it is true that he does a lot of the same type of thing in many of his role but like with John Wayne I was always able to overlook it. For other actors I just can't get pass it.

I love Jimmy Stewart and give him a total pass. This is no doubt because I was introduced to him really early. Even if he is basically Jimmy Stewart as "..." in most of his roles, his low-key, yet dignified nature is one that really appeals to me. I also like some of his later roles and how their grain runs against his persona. On the other hand, John Wayne I have a very hard time with because I associate him with bluster, a trait I find hard to overlook no matter how good the film or how solid his performance, pilgrim.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by IronWaffle

I love Jimmy Stewart and give him a total pass. This is no doubt because I was introduced to him really early. Even if he is basically Jimmy Stewart as "..." in most of his roles, his low-key, yet dignified nature is one that really appeals to me. I also like some of his later roles and how their grain runs against his persona. On the other hand, John Wayne I have a very hard time with because I associate him with bluster, a trait I find hard to overlook no matter how good the film or how solid his performance, pilgrim.

John Wayne is the one that in general most people have a hard time. he really is the perfect example of "you either like him or you don't" I never seen much middle ground with him from most people. You are right that Stewart low key, humble performances probably make most people like him. he come's across as a uncle you just can't dislike

[BohemianGraham]

Speaking of Elmer Gantry, it's an United Artist pic, which technically falls under the MGM banner. Anyone think Criterion might release it, or is it too mainstream and popular, that another studio would be able to handle it, despite the neglect they gave to the current DVD release?

[BohemianGraham]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

John Wayne is the one that in general most people have a hard time. he really is the perfect example of "you either like him or you don't" I never seen much middle ground with him from most people. You are right that Stewart low key, humble performances probably make most people like him. he come's across as a uncle you just can't dislike

This. You either love Wayne, or you hate him for his larger than life screen presence. I think it's why I had such a huge problem with watching the new version of True Grit, is that even though the older version is lacking plotwise, I just couldn't see anyone else in the role by John Wayne, due to his bluster, and such.

[IronWaffle]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

John Wayne is the one that in general most people have a hard time. he really is the perfect example of "you either like him or you don't" I never seen much middle ground with him from most people. You are right that Stewart low key, humble performances probably make most people like him. he come's across as a uncle you just can't dislike

Well, you might be able to dislike that uncle when he stalks a woman then psychologically abuses and manipulates her until eventually throwing her off a belltower

Let alone yelling at Zuzu! Or the sort'a strange vibe the little girl's mother gets from him in Mr. Krueger's Christmas.

I recently re-watched Liberty Valance and was really caught up in Stewart & Wayne's performances and how my appreciation for each of them made it feel like some Twilight Zone episode where matter met antimatter in the Old West, and yet it works. I also think that The Shootist captures a sense of their off-screen friendship very well.

[IronWaffle]

Originally Posted by BohemianGraham

Speaking of Elmer Gantry, it's an United Artist pic, which technically falls under the MGM banner. Anyone think Criterion might release it, or is it too mainstream and popular, that another studio would be able to handle it, despite the neglect they gave to the current DVD release?

Criterion sold out and prefers mainstream titles, [Ed Wynn voice]haven't you heard?[/Ed Wynn voice]

That film really was treated shabbily by MGM/UA's DVD. I don't see it getting revisited.

[BohemianGraham]

Originally Posted by IronWaffle

Criterion sold out and prefers mainstream titles.

That film really was treated shabbily by MGM/UA's DVD. I don't see it getting revisited.

But, a lot of posters on here would consider it mainstream! That's the thing!

Also, Head was treated pretty shabbily by Rhino (fullscreen, so-so transfer, no commentary, and just a handful of trailers), but Criterion grabbed it and gave it a fantastic transfer, so maybe Criterion will rescue Elmer Gantry too.

[IronWaffle]

Originally Posted by BohemianGraham

But, a lot of posters on here would consider it mainstream! That's the thing!

Also, Head was treated pretty shabbily by Rhino (fullscreen, so-so transfer, no commentary, and just a handful of trailers), but Criterion grabbed it and gave it a fantastic transfer, so maybe Criterion will rescue Elmer Gantry too.

I heard you on the mainstreamness of the 60 year-old Gantry.

Yeah, Head has never had a good video track record. Others here would know better, but wasn't the BBS set originally going to be Sony, not Criterion? I'd love to think that Head could have been a Criterion standalone set, but one of the voices in my head thinks that the themed set was its ticket. Then again, maybe the venom has already reached my heart.

[BohemianGraham]

Originally Posted by IronWaffle

I heard you on the mainstreamness of the 60 year-old Gantry.

Yeah, Head has never had a good video track record. Others here would know better, but wasn't the BBS set originally going to be Sony, not Criterion? I'd love to think that Head could have been a Criterion standalone set, but one of the voices in my head thinks that the themed set was its ticket. Then again, maybe the venom has already reached my heart.

Yes, it was originally going to be a Sony set, but I think Criterion taking it over was probably the best thing that happened to it. We still have people on this forum who balked against those long haired weirdos being included in the set, let alone the Criterion collection, because they're just a manufactured image, with no philosophies, after all. They probably all thought Criterion was smoking a few El Zumos to add this film.

[IronWaffle]

Originally Posted by BohemianGraham

Yes, it was originally going to be a Sony set, but I think Criterion taking it over was probably the best thing that happened to it. We still have people on this forum who balked against those long haired weirdos being included in the set, let alone the Criterion collection, because they're just a manufactured image, with no philosophies, after all. They probably all thought Criterion was smoking a few El Zumos to add this film.

I may be naive, but if it had stayed with Sony I wouldn't have expected the extras to be so bountiful. I can see why folks would believe there's no merit to this set. After all, all belief possibly could be said to be the result of some conditioning. Thus, the study of [forums] is simply the study of one system of beliefs deposing another, and so on and so on and so on... A psychologically tested belief of our time is that the central nervous system, which feeds its impulses directly to the brain (the conscious and subconscious), is unable to discern between the real and the vividly imagined [1080p] experience.

This reminds me: I really need to pull the set off the shelf and devote as much time in it as I did money. Head is the only Blu I watched (when my brother came for a visit). What made the set a must for me was Five Easy Pieces, the only other film in the set I'd seen. I have little interest in Easy Rider and always find a reason to hold off on Last Picture Show. Reading this thread I've got a pretty good idea which of the others to dive into and which to, um, not to. For to examine these [films] requires tremendous energy and discipline. To allow the unknown to occur and to occur requires clarity. And where there is clarity there is no choice. And where there is choice, there is misery.

[BohemianGraham]

Originally Posted by IronWaffle

I may be naive, but if it had stayed with Sony I wouldn't have expected the extras to be so bountiful. I can see why folks would believe there's no merit to this set. After all, all belief possibly could be said to be the result of some conditioning. Thus, the study of [forums] is simply the study of one system of beliefs deposing another, and so on and so on and so on... A psychologically tested belief of our time is that the central nervous system, which feeds it's impulses directly to the brain (the conscious and subconscious) is unable to discern between the real, and the vividly imagined [1080p] experience.

This reminds me: I really need to pull the set off the shelf and devote as much time in it as I did money. Head is the only film I watched (when my brother came for a visit). What made the set a must for me was Five Easy Pieces, the only other film in the set I'd seen. I have little interest in Easy Rider and always find a reason to hold off on Last Picture Show. Reading this thread I've got a pretty good idea which of the others to dive into and which to, um, not to.

For to examine these [films] requires tremendous energy and discipline. To allow the unknown to occur and to occur requires clarity. And where there is clarity there is no choice. And where there is choice, there is misery.

Hence me saying it's the best thing to happen to this set, it's no longer God's gift to the 8-year old, or paying tribute to Ringo Starr. A Safe Place is the only film I'd avoid, unless you like mental torture, because the film is pretty white.

People think Criterion is plastic now, babe, but wait 'til they get through telling us how they do it, with this crop of current releases.

But then, why should I speak, since I know nothing?

Have we worn out the Head quotes yet? I'm having fun, but I'm sure the others aren't.

[IronWaffle]

Originally Posted by BohemianGraham

Hence me saying it's the best thing to happen to this set, it's no longer God's gift to the 8-year old, or paying tribute to Ringo Starr. A Safe Place is the only film I'd avoid, unless you like mental torture, because the film is pretty white.

People think Criterion is plastic now, babe, but wait 'til they get through telling us how they do it, with this crop of current releases.

But then, why should I speak, since I know nothing?

Have we worn out the Head quotes yet? I'm having fun, but I'm sure the others aren't.

Plastics and rubber souls. Sums it up.

All I've got left is Mike's "You're evil!" and "Sounds like a lot of supernatural baloney to me."

Switching to other Criterion news: Netflix has pulled Harold & Maude from Instant Streaming in the last few days. Has anybody heard any official reference to or explanation for the delay or the dropped extras, is there?

[SpiderBaby]

Originally Posted by stobbart

I could care less about Anger or Lynch, you can like whoever you want.

I know you had different reasons for telling me off, but isn't this the reason why it started? Anyways, let's get over it, it's done.

Thanks ROclockCK, BohemianGraham, P@t_Mtl, rkish, rock, stone (I have "mellowed" for you actually so we can all get along on here), and anyone else I missed.

[BohemianGraham]

Originally Posted by IronWaffle

Plastics and rubber souls. Sums it up.

All I've got left is Mike's "You're evil!" and "Sounds like a lot of supernatural baloney to me."

Switching to other Criterion news: Netflix has pulled Harold & Maude from Instant Streaming in the last few days. Has anybody heard any official reference to or explanation for the delay or the dropped extras, is there?

Last thing, so let me tell you one thing son, nobody every lends money to a man with a sense of humour!

Nope, it has me confused. Amazon Canada hasn't switched the release day yet either. My pre-order of Harold and Maude and The Organizer is still shipping in April.

[rkish]

Originally Posted by SpiderBaby

I know you had different reasons for telling me off, but isn't this the reason why it started? Anyways, let's get over it, it's done.

Thanks ROclockCK, BohemianGraham, P@t_Mtl, rkish, rock, stone (I have "mellowed" for you actually so we can all get along on here), and anyone else I missed.

Didn't have to mellow for me...to each his own!