The Criterion Collection

[jcs913]

Originally Posted by rock, stone

I don't know, you seem to be under the impression that those who took exception to parts of your review have done so because they can't comprehend what you are saying.

I'm not interested in getting involved in this, but they seem to have grasped what you say and how you have chosen to say it, and that is with what they are taking exception.

To imply otherwise is disingenuous, at best.

Cheers.

I think the people calling out Pro-B, do not understand his tone or purpose. I am going to post the quote Pro-B is being called out for:

"Those who have spoken against Heaven's Gate or outright dismissed it as a grandiose failure must have their heads checked. Or admit that they are idiots."

I have put in bold what I think Pro-B is referring to. The bold is clearly a past tense, as I am sure we can agree on. I assume wholeheartedly that he is ONLY alluding to the PROFESSIONAL REVIEWS of the film back when it was released, not some local Joe's opinion on it. I remember when the film was released and read many of the reviews and the tonality of them is 100% on with what Pro-B is stating. He has also quoted those PAST PROFESSIONAL REVIEWS in his retort.
His point is simple to me. There were many past reviews, done by whom was considered then, a PROFESSIONAL in the field and they simply dismissed the film without looking deeper into it. How people on this forum think he is actually calling them an 'idiot' because they do not like the film is beyond confusing and frankly problematic. Again folks, to me, and Pro-B can confirm if he feels the need to, he is referring to the PROFESSIONAL reviews over the years that have simply dismissed the film without having an educated discussion about it, not this forums users who dislike the film to start with.
I was never a fan of the film, as I believe it goes in too many directions, unlike his much better effort, 'The Deer Hunter' , which is much more structured with characters and a story that make it a much more appealing film. I like what Cimino was trying to point out with the Gate, but it had no fluid feel to it, which frankly is very essential in a 4 hour film. Then again, that is my opinion....

[Scottie]

Originally Posted by COLD_COBRA_

This is B&N sale is my first time ever buying Criterions.
How am i doing thus far?

[Show spoiler]

You have some of the popular titles that most people enjoy, but no one can really say how you're doing. Everyone has their own preferences on films.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by COLD_COBRA_

This is B&N sale is my first time ever buying Criterions.
How am i doing thus far?

That a pretty nice mix. It should keep you busy for a while.

[octagon]

So we got Pro-B going off on forty year old reviews and reviewers and JK spends almost a full paragraph in the Guys and Dolls review going off about whether people should say lyric or lyrics.

I love this place and I particularly love seeing the occasional sign that the people running the asylum are every bit as batshit crazy as the inmates.

[joie]

Originally Posted by jcs913

I think the people calling out Pro-B, do not understand his tone or purpose. I am going to post the quote Pro-B is being called out for:

"Those who have spoken against Heaven's Gate or outright dismissed it as a grandiose failure must have their heads checked. Or admit that they are idiots."

I have put in bold what I think Pro-B is referring to. The bold is clearly a past tense, as I am sure we can agree on. I assume wholeheartedly that he is ONLY alluding to the PROFESSIONAL REVIEWS of the film back when it was released, not some local Joe's opinion on it. I remember when the film was released and read many of the reviews and the tonality of them is 100% on with what Pro-B is stating. He has also quoted those PAST PROFESSIONAL REVIEWS in his retort.
His point is simple to me. There were many past reviews, done by whom was considered then, a PROFESSIONAL in the field and they simply dismissed the film without looking deeper into it. How people on this forum think he is actually calling them an 'idiot' because they do not like the film is beyond confusing and frankly problematic. Again folks, to me, and Pro-B can confirm if he feels the need to, he is referring to the PROFESSIONAL reviews over the years that have simply dismissed the film without having an educated discussion about it, not this forums users who dislike the film to start with.
I was never a fan of the film, as I believe it goes in too many directions, unlike his much better effort, 'The Deer Hunter' , which is much more structured with characters and a story that make it a much more appealing film. I like what Cimino was trying to point out with the Gate, but it had no fluid feel to it, which frankly is very essential in a 4 hour film. Then again, that is my opinion....

The question remains: Is this site's review a review of the same film that was reviewed about 30 years ago? See my previous post. Is everyone reviewing the same film?

By the way, invoking the past tense as a defense of this site's review (the contentious statement, to be exact) doesn't excuse calling critics of 30 years ago idiots if they didn't like the film.

Add: My last sentence is true, in my opinion, regardless of whether today's review is a review of the same film that appeared about 30 years ago or not. It's not bad to imply that someone's review is idiotic, but it cam be done more subtly than by calling him or her an idiot; perhaps by explaining why someone's review is less than proper or correct.

[ElliesDad]

Originally Posted by octagon

So we got Pro-B going off on forty year old reviews and reviewers and JK spends almost a full paragraph in the Guys and Dolls review going off about whether people should say lyric or lyrics.

I love this place and I particularly love seeing the occasional sign that the people running the asylum are every bit as batshit crazy as the inmates.

After a week that saw the devastation of the east coast, Halloween, a full moon, a time change, and a pending Presidential election are you in the least surprised? Oh! and it's November...

[jcs913]

Originally Posted by joie

The question remains: Is this site's review a review of the same film that was reviewed about 30 years ago? See my previous post. Is everyone reviewing the same film?

By the way, invoking the past tense as a defense of this site's review (the contentious statement, to be exact) doesn't excuse calling critics of 30 years ago idiots if they didn't like the film.

joie, I will end my thoughts on this by simply stating that Pro-B was pointing out that the past critics just "didn't like the film." He points out, with examples, that they dismissed it without even giving it a thorough examination, which frankly is the backbone of a professional review on any subject. His tone may have been harsh, but his point was that the film was dismissed by these so-called 'experts' without a thorough look at the whole film. Frankly, he is correct, but you would need to revisit many of the past reviews to understand this. Either way, a purchase of the film should be on your interest level, not on its critique or, on this forum, the fact that it has a spine#...But that's my opinion of any film...

[joie]

Everyone should be proud to say that they didn't go to that school that taught that the person with the last word wins an "argument."

[thebard]

Originally Posted by joie

Is Criterion's "Heaven's Gate" (217 minutes; 216, according to Wikipedia) the same "Heaven's Gate" (219 minutes, according to Wikipedia) that was withdrawn after playing for only week?

A two-minute difference can be the product of a single cut or multiple insertions and deletions of a lot of material. Even if the runtimes were identical, there could be reordering of material.

Add: IMDb has the original theatrical release at 219 minutes and the "2012 Director's cut" at 216 minutes. Some may round up or down when the runtime has some seconds outside of an exact minute, I suppose.

By the way, Wikipedia mentions that Cimino did the 219 minute cut, so that must be another, earlier, "director's cut."

We have a similar situation with more than one "director's cut" with the soon to be released "Tin Drum."

Anyway, I am putting Criterion on watch for film history revisionism. You all should, too.

See "Notes on resoration" at:
http://www.labiennale.org/en/cinema/...sics/gate.html

Michael Cimino created this 216 minute version, removing the intermission card and music, as well as making some scene trims.

So looks like negligible changes. Note that I haven't yet seen the film in any iteration.

[trombone dixie]

I hope William Friedkin's list is a clue that CC will be releasing SORCERER.

[Blu Titan]

Originally Posted by ElliesDad

Little confused here (not certainly for the first time). Several posts criticizing Pro-b's 'idiot' reference~ does he in fact review under the pseudonym Dr. Svet Atanasov? And who is "Casey, the communist"??

Have never seen the film. I remember well the furor surrounding it's release, but the review is intriguing. As far as the politics are concerned I'm assuming the cattle-barons are the new one-percenters? Are the politics any more ham-fisted than in, say, the wonderful "Grapes of Wrath"?

Just an aside Oildude...I worked for a summer as storeskeeper at another great lodge~ Minaki Lodge, in northern Ontario~ so I can well appreciate your nostalgia! and glad to see you're coming on board with Malik...

Pro-b's real name is Svet Atanasov and unlike other reviewers who use "Dr." in front of their name, pro-b actually earned his doctorate degree.

Originally Posted by octagon

So we got Pro-B going off on forty year old reviews and reviewers and JK spends almost a full paragraph in the Guys and Dolls review going off about whether people should say lyric or lyrics.

I love this place and I particularly love seeing the occasional sign that the people running the asylum are every bit as batshit crazy as the inmates.

pro-b, obviously, has strongs feeling about the way the film has been reviewed/criticized in the past.

[jcs913]

Originally Posted by joie

Everyone should be proud to say that they didn't go to that school that taught that the person with the last word wins an "argument."

Joie, it's not about winning or losing. It's about whether others can understand your posts...

[the sordid sentinel]

Originally Posted by trombone dixie

I hope William Friedkin's list is a clue that CC will be releasing SORCERER.

That would kick ass without a doubt.

[Scottie]

Hopefully City Lights gets announced for February.

[drbikeshorts]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

Temper's are very high over one movie review in here

As opposed to being worked up over Wes Anderson or Lena Dunham
I will say though, it's nice to see people getting back to actually discussing a film on its merits or faults.
However, I'd prefer to see a shift away from attacking or dismissing the reviewer and focus on personal feelings about the film.
I've always been a fan of the film, but I first saw it in the late 90s, probably on VHS recorded off TV, completely divorced from its controversial debut in the 80s. Even then, I thought it was a stunning film.
It's definitely long, but for me, like so many other extremely long films, like Once Upon a Time in America, Barry Lyndon or The Leopard (or so many other 3+ hour films), I really think it needs to be this long. You really have to feel the emotional journey of Averill (Kris Kristofferson). I think the extended prologue (if that's what you would call it) and the epilogue really pack an emotional punch.
The film definitely feels long and has strange meandering stretches during the second act, but for me, this is much of the film's charm.
The love story and the roller-skating scene are absolute highlights for me.
I can't wait to see this restored (or re-rejuvenated) version, particularly as the audio has always been so dreadful.
A friend and I wrote this big, glowing review of the film in the lead-up to it being shown in 35mm at The Astor in Melbourne, Australia.
We sent out invites to our friends, explaining that it was a 4 hour western and considered one of the worst films of all time and a huge flop that brought down a studio, but that we loved it and all were welcome.
We ended up with over 10 friends, including a number of girls, and everyone loved the film
It's clearly still a polarizing film, so I don't know if I can recommend a blind-buy, but I do recommend watching it and deciding for yourself.

[P@t_Mtl]

I last saw it in college (back then it wasn't so old and the reputation was still fresh as we say) and how it was responsible for the destruction of United Artist. I can't say that I am a fan of the movie but I also think the reputation is a little harsh and also many people b!tch on it and they never seen it, they just do so because they have heard from "the others" that it's horrible. Reputations can be very hard to remove once society as accepted said reputation.

[Member-167298]

Heaven's Gate is currently streaming on NetFlix. I am tempted to push play, but I will have to wait for a time when I have over 3 hours of free time.

[ElliesDad]

Originally Posted by Blu Titan

Pro-b's real name is Svet Atanasov and unlike other reviewers who use "Dr." in front of their name, pro-b actually earned his doctorate degree.

Thank's for that. I haven't been on the site all that long but I should have made the connection before this. My apologies to Dr. Atanosov.

[DetroitSquirreL]

I picked up 'Secrets of Success', ' El Norte' & ' Night of the Hunter' at B&N shop. I got the 50% off for the sale, 10% off for a B&N member, extra 15% off from Halloween coupon...PLUS an extra 10% off on 'Success...' because the case was dented in the corner...after taxes all 3 for $55 USD

[Page14]

So I had enough time today (actually I made the time) to take a drive to a B&N that was about an hour and a half (or so) away from me, to check out their Criterion section, with the sale going on and all. (I'll try to make this brief). There was another gentleman there also looking through the Criterions. He had a strong British accent. I would guess he was in his early 60s. We looked over each other's handful of blurays and found that we had similar interests. That started a conversation where we must have chatted about blurays (mostly Criterions) for at least a half hour. Very unexpected for both of us. I think we both felt a connection, much like how people converse in these forums. It just felt really nice to meet somebody in the flesh who had an interest in movies similar to myself. That's all ... just wanted to mention that here as it doesn't happen everyday.

[Show spoiler](Hope I didn't make anybody toooo nauseous. )

Oh, my take for the day was Chungking Express (... that's another story for another time), Paris, Texas and The Night Of The Hunter.