The Criterion Collection

[moklp]

do most of us on here buy these Criterion releases to own another piece of the Criterion library, or buy them cause they know they will love the film and/or have seen it already and know it's a great film?

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by rock, stone

This is my chief complaint about Thin Red Line. While many of the performances are strong, no one ever transcends feeling like an actor in a movie. Not to mention Travolta has that long scene of blandly mannered scene chewing that I still can't believe made final cut.

Say what you will about BoB, Pacific, or Generation Kill, they excel at showing the complexities of what is means to be a soldier as well as the camaraderie, boredom, despair, and visceral terror that comes with it.

I don't know if I can defend Travolta, but I think the film works brilliantly without any hugely memorable leads. I feel the dehumanizing nature of war and violence robbing these men. We witness these events through a single befuddled consciousness lost amidst a splendorous land. The film certainly isn't The Great Escape or The Dirty Dozen, nor does it strive to be.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by moklp

do most of us on here buy these Criterion releases to own another piece of the Criterion library, or buy them cause they know they will love the film and/or have seen it already and know it's a great film?

Welcome to the site. I own all but three or so CC releases, so maybe I'm not the best judge. What's your take moklp?

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

I don't know if I can defend Travolta, but I think the film works brilliantly without any hugely memorable leads. I feel the dehumanizing nature of war and violence robbing these men. We witness these events through a single befuddled consciousness lost amidst a splendorous land. The film certainly isn't The Great Escape or The Dirty Dozen, nor does it strive to be.

I think his point is more that none of the leads really disappears into his character. It feels like you're watching Jim Caviezel and Sean Penn and Nick Nolte rather than characters played by Jim Caviezel and Sean Penn and Nick Nolte.

And I think part of that is due to what you call a single befuddled consciousness (I've never thought of it in those exact terms but that has a solid ring to it). I liked the idea of the narration but something always bugged me about the execution. I didn't mind the 'graduate philosophy seminar' feel at all. Warrior/Philosopher was hardly a new concept and it only stands to reason that people who might get their heads blown off at any second might from time to time muse about the meaning of life. And having grunts be every bit as thoughtful and eloquent as officers was fairly risky in that it challenged expectations but not at all a bad idea.

Buuuuuuuuuut (and I'm just now putting my finger of this) none of the voices sounded unique. Perhaps that was intentional but the effect for me at least was to leave the underlying impression that three different guys were all reading the same monologue and that made it a lot harder to viscerally connect with what I was watching.

Granted though, that's only based on one viewing so grain of salt and whatnot.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by octagon

I think his point is more that none of the leads really disappears into his character. It feels like you're watching Jim Caviezel and Sean Penn and Nick Nolte rather than characters played by Jim Caviezel and Sean Penn and Nick Nolte.

And I think part of that is due to what you call a single befuddled consciousness (I've never thought of it in those exact terms but that has a solid ring to it). I liked the idea of the narration but something always bugged me about the execution. I didn't mind the 'graduate philosophy seminar' feel at all. Warrior/Philosopher was hardly a new concept and it only stands to reason that people who might get their heads blown off at any second might from time to time muse about the meaning of life. And having grunts be every bit as thoughtful and eloquent as officers was fairly risky in that it challenged expectations but not at all a bad idea.

Buuuuuuuuuut (and I'm just now putting my finger of this) none of the voices sounded unique. Perhaps that was intentional but the effect for me at least was to leave the underlying impression that three different guys were all reading the same monologue and that made it a lot harder to viscerally connect with what I was watching.

Granted though, that's only based on one viewing so grain of salt and whatnot.

I can see why many of the actors don't come off as seasoned thesps.

2) I'm okay with the wandering narrative and incoherence because Malick was at the height of his visual potency. Much like Michael Mann, Wong Kar-Wai and Antonioni, the visual contrast is what defines the picture. That discrinct clash between the extremes yields it's depth: beauty against savagery.

[RiFiFi1955]

Originally Posted by CoopFilm

It's definitely along the lines of that, yes. Personally, I just don't like Hammer films. I've tried..I've seen many..but I just don't like them for some reason, so I've kind of given up..

Have you checked out Hammer's psychological thrillers CoopFilm? You probably have already but if you haven't I would recommend giving them a chance, they are my favorite films from Hammer....Scream of Fear would be the starting place too.

Originally Posted by CoopFilm

Great Owl, I'd recommend Daughters of Darkness if you haven't seen it (it's on blu-ray).

Good Call... I will second that one, Absoultely check out Daughters of Darkness Great Owl...Top notch for the genre.

[rock, stone]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

I don't know if I can defend Travolta, but I think the film works brilliantly without any hugely memorable leads. I feel the dehumanizing nature of war and violence robbing these men. We witness these events through a single befuddled consciousness lost amidst a splendorous land. The film certainly isn't The Great Escape or The Dirty Dozen, nor does it strive to be.

I think you misunderstand me. I'm not missing a leading man or even standout performances. When I say they feel like actors in a movie, I mean that it feels like a week previous, most of them look like they were at a party in the Hollywood Hills.

Maybe it has something to do with how often characters will have dirty faces but clean, styled hair. I just don't buy most of them as having lived in that environment.

I'm not slating the picture, by the way. I think it is beautiful. But I also think it has some shortcomings worth addressing.

[dag]

Originally Posted by oildude

Perhaps that is what makes a Malick film memorable. His films may be frequently tedious, overly philosophical, and devote large portions of run time to characters reconciling their inner turmoil toward a reality which places them in conflict with the natural world, but I keep watching them anyway.

oildude, I frequently enjoy your comments on this board. If you're ever in Toronto, PM me. I'll buy you a beer, and we can talk about movies.

[Scottie]

Well, I just finished The Tree Of Life and I really enjoyed it. What a breathtaking, beautiful film.

Young Jack looked very familiar, but it appears he wasn't in any other films or shows. I didn't find the film very hard to watch at all. I found it pretty easy to understand and I think the messages and ideas were pretty straightforward.

Anyway, here is my interpretation of the film.

[Show spoiler]The film opens up with death, which is unfortunately an inevitable part of life. When Jack's younger brother is killed in combat (I'm assuming it was combat), we see how the family struggles to cope, especially Jessica Chastain's character. However, an important part of life is living, not just dying. Therefore, we see how the universe is created. We see how God breathed life into the world, before we witness the evolution from the era of dinosaurs to a more modern, technological society, in an important age of history - the 1950s. We see Jack's childhood. He lives with his mother, a light-hearted and compassionate woman, as well as his father, a more strict, authoritarian figure. The most important symbol in the movie is the tree that Mr. O'Brien (portrayed by Brad Pitt) plants in the front yard. Over the years it transforms and it blooms - growing very large.

Just like a tree blooms, Jack's life bloomed. We all are our own unique "trees of life". Just like a tree, we start as a seed. We then grow and mature due to our external environments. Specifically we are influenced by our peers, our family, our faith, etc. In Jack's case, his friends, his education, church, etc. acted as the branches of a tree. They all influenced the person he is today. However, the most important parts of a tree are the roots of a tree. In this case, it is the family. All of Jack's values and family customs were passed on through his mother and his father. His mother taught him about laughter, love, and kindness - all of these key emotions that we must possess to be a well-rounded person. On the other hand, Jack's father taught him responsibility and becoming a man. I personally feel that Mr. O'Brien was a bit too hard on Jack, and as a result, some elements of Jack's childhood were lost because of this. Regardless, they shaped Jack to be the person he is today.

For the bulk of the film, we see Jack's upbringing. This was all a reflection on what transpired over the years. I feel that the older Jack is a bit bitter and lonely in life. We see him daydreaming often, taken to these very dry, desolate locations, such as the desert or run down buildings. I feel that these places represent the loneliness and heartache that Jack has carried all of his life. I also feel they represent his longing for youth, childhood, and innocence, that was unfortunately stripped away from him at a young age. By ultimately reflecting on his life and the good times of it, it was than that he was able to feel the closest with his family. He was able to let go and forgive his father for the way he treated him as a child, and he was able to gain this sense of heartache lifted off of him, especially when Mrs. O'Brien let go and gave Jack's brother to the universe and in God's hands.

I feel that this movie gives off an important message. It makes us look at our lives and makes us reflect on what and who matters the most to us. It makes us re-examine our faith, our virtues, our values, etc. - everything that was instilled upon us by our family and peers. It gives us a sense of happiness in life and a sense of direction. A lot of times we wonder how the world was made, what our purpose in life is, etc. However, Terrence Malick points us in the right direction by the picture he paints with the O'Brien family. We are all God's trees in life. He planted the seeds and external factors led us to bloom and grow.

[spanky87]

I'd like to see a North American release of Clouzot's La Verite (The Truth) starring Brigitte Bardot in her best performance. I don't even think there's ever been one on dvd with english subtitles, and Criterion collection can make it happen.

[octagon]

I wonder what God does about spoilers.

That's gotta suck, actually.

[DarkRyder]

Originally Posted by Cinemach

One of the clues in the drawing has been interpreted as All That Heaven Allows, so there's that.

Which clue was it?

[octagon]

A heads up for the Mizo fans in the audience, The Life of Oharu is airing on TCM at 1am central.

[Hawkguy]

Originally Posted by RiFiFi1955

Have you checked out Hammer's psychological thrillers CoopFilm? You probably have already but if you haven't I would recommend giving them a chance, they are my favorite films from Hammer....Scream of Fear would be the starting place too.

I've seen many of their 70s films....some of their earlier 50s films, and not much from the 60s.

...but going off Wikipedia's list of their psychological thrillers, the only one I've seen is The Nanny, which I didn't even know was one of them...and if I remember correctly, I actually may have liked it. I do know the 70s films are generally considered the weakest, so that may make me a bit biased against their overall output.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by octagon

A heads up for the Mizo fans in the audience, The Life of Oharu is airing on TCM at 1am central.

I've been meaning to see this one for a while, hopefully I'll play it during the week.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by deepbreathsanddeath

I've recently gotten into the films of Lee Chang-Dong, I've watched Oasis and Peppermint Candy so far. He's been added to my list of favourite korean directors Secret Sunshine just arrived in the mail today which I'll be watching tonight. Very excited to see one of his films in high def

Oh definitely I saw Poetry last week & I was absolutely delighted by it. Secret Sunshine is incredible aswell. I really want to check out his earlier films now. He seems to be the Korean director to beat right now.

[Abdrewes]

iScottie, welcome to the club, you are officially a Malick-ite. Just imagine experiencing The Tree of Life on the big screen, there were mass walkouts and an equal number of confused and enlightened at the end of the picture. The birth of creation sequence is one of my most memorable experiences at the cinema. I literally ceased to exist at that moment. Complete awe.

I'm not sure if you've seen The New World, but even considering it's my least favorite Malick films, it beats nearly all 2012 theatrical releases.

[Scottie]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

iScottie, welcome to the club, you are officially a Malick-ite. Just imagine experiencing The Tree of Life on the big screen, there were mass walkouts and an equal number of confused and enlightened at the end of the picture. The birth of creation sequence is one of my most memorable experiences at the cinema. I literally ceased to exist at that moment. Complete awe.

I'm not sure if you've seen The New World, but even considering it's my least favorite Malick films, it beats nearly all 2012 theatrical releases.

Woot!

I would have loved to see The Tree Of Life on the big screen. I haven't seen The New World yet, but it's next on my list to watch.

Did I hit the nail on the head with my interpretation?

[spanky87]

Ugh, The New World.

The worst edited Malick film.

[andsoitgoes]

Originally Posted by BohemianGraham

As I said, if you're quick enough, you can get the preferred preorder price of 27.99 for new single disc releases if you monitor Amazon.ca carefully. I just grabbed The Blob and Colonel Blimp for that price each Monday, and they have since shot up to 38.99.

Also I would get into through reason why sstuff is still higher here, and don't necessarily agree with it, but as per the rules of this forum, politics is verbotent.

ARGH. Fart. Would it be improper for me to ask you to PM me when those come up? I'd have snagged at least The Blob, even though I've never seen it.

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

The statements on your newfound appreciation for classic cinema and the films of Akira Kurosawa were really touching. His films truly were genius and sometimes we film snobs looking elsewhere need to be reminded how special they are. I now want to pop my Kurosawa discs into the player

The fondness of the memory I have when I popped in Yojimbo as my first movie, I think it's above and beyond anything I've had for a movie in years. Thinking of some of my favorite films of recent years, even No Country and There Will Be Blood, the magic of his expertise makes them seem almost second rate, and they were DAMN good movies!

Sanjuro was my second and, while still brilliant, lost a lot of the humor and joy that Yojimbo had.

After that, I think I received my Seven Samurai disc and fell in love with that, and proceeded to delve through many of the other films. Honesty, at this point, I believe Throne of Blood is my least favorite film. I found a lot of the acting to be even more overdramatic than is typical of Japanese cinema, and the end scene, one that seems to be very popular, to be just a little silly.

High and Low was another film that blew me away. I think there is little that Kurosawa could do wrong with Mifune, Shimura and, to a slightly lesser extent, Nakadai at his side. I find I like Prince's commentary as much as the movie itself. The insight he brings is legendary. I emailed him earlier this month and I find he is an incredibly generous man, too. I just wish he could have done the commentary for everything

Originally Posted by drbikeshorts

There's an even better line in the animated show King of the Hill when Bobby, Connie and Joseph are trying to decide what to do with their afternoon.
Joseph suggests going to a R-rated movie and Connie questions whether he's done that before.
Joseph: "Sure, but the only naked person in it was Harvey Keitel."

Ack! I had gone years without that burned into my eyes. All that therapy, gone.

I hate you.

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

First of all, great post!

Truth be told, Akira Kurosawa's movies were the reason that I started buying Criterion DVDs many years ago. I had always been intrigued, a friend who had recently discovered Kurosawa had been raving about the movies, and I had been researching the titles.

This particular DVD cover intrigued me most of all, though...



In my opinion, this is the sickest, most awesome cover art for any movie ever.
When I saw this cover art for Throne of Blood, I had to have the movie. It was just that simple. I had never watched an Akira Kurosawa film before, but I wondered how a movie with that DVD cover art could not be amazing. People had told me that Rashomon was a great starting point, so I bought Rashomon and Throne of Blood at the same time.

I quickly collected Kurosawa's works on Criterion as my funds would allow, and I even read his autobiography.

I like some Akira Kurosawa movies better than others, but the one that resounds the most with me is Stray Dog. I'm old school, and I love the morality character foils in that film. The policeman and the criminal both had similar traumatic war experiences and rough lives upon returning to their country, but the policeman stayed steady with his internal moral code while the criminal let outside events dictate his moral code. When I watched the character foils of James Bond and Javier Bardem's Silva in Skyfall, I kept thinking about Stray Dog.

Thanks much, I really appreciate that .

I agree that there is little better than the ToB cover, badass isn't even a strong enough description. I think that's why I ended up being so much more disappointed when I finally saw it.

I agree with you and stray dog, but I'm also VERY partial to the Shimura/Mifune paring. They were the start of the "buddy cop" mentality, I'd DIE to go back in time and meet the two of them together.

Anyway, though I don't really fully understand the technical side of things, at the same time it's so easy to understand what Kurosawa is doing, he lets us in and shows off without showing off, if that makes any sense. I love it.

Thankfully I have some more films incoming, inetvideo is being good to me, and I couldn't hold back some cheap titles on Amazon, though far less cheap when you factor in the extra I'm paying in import and shipping fees. Ugh the frustration of being in Canada sometimes. Again, I guess I can't complain too much

Originally Posted by Joe Dalek

We're not that snobby, are we?

Kurosawa was a big gateway into non-Hollywood cinema for me, too.

BTW love the Spider Jerusalem avatar. I just started reading Warren Ellis's Gun Machine yesterday.

Thanks! I had the pleasure of sitting down with Darrick Robertson, the artist, for a few hours back in 2006. Through all the comic book experiences I've had, and I've been lucky with a few, he made me feel like I was an old friend. The stories he told and the piece he drew for me after I got him a special edition compilation he was too busy to get is amazing. Maybe one day I'll actually get the thing properly framed so I can look at it regularly.

Originally Posted by Illy Scorsese

Will I ever get "Ikiru" on Blu-Ray?

I may never know...

That's a darn good question. There is a Japanese release, but unless you can A) speak Japanese and B) want to buy a massive box set of equally non English things. I find it interesting that the set is region A. Is Japan the same region as NA?

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

You see for me it's rather easy. Granted I have been expose to foreign cinema since I was very young but I do enjoy going back to some "easier" movie like Star Wars or some Hollywood blockbuster. I see one style as an experience in senses where you must use all of them, including your brain to fully be in the movies. I see the others are something relaxing, I can just enjoy whatever ride the director is taking me on without using much grey matter I will grant however that I am a fairly "easy critic" compare to a lot of people I see on this forum. I seem to be able to forgive a lot of silly stuff that just seem to drive a lot of others insane.

I like that idea quite a bit. Is easy to get engrossed in the depths of high class cinema and lose the joy of mindlessness . I hope I never lose it!

Originally Posted by jrsl76

I personally think that The Hidden Fortress is perhaps the best choice for a Kurosawa starter.

I can't quite remember myself if my first was Yojimbo or Seven Samurai, but I think it was Yojimbo. Either way, I think both are great first films to view. The only negative with Seven Samurai is the length. In my opinion, you don't feel the length when you watch it, but anyone who hasn't seen it and sees how long it is might be discouraged against viewing, sadly.

I agree completely. It's an excellent movie, it's fun in all the right places, smart in all the right places and it's technically brilliant. I love it SO damn much.

If only they gave it a real deal full package blu ray release that provides more than a dinky 8 minute interview with Lucas not giving Kurosawa enough credit for his role in creating so many characters that made their way into the Star Wars universe. Look close and you'll see Han/Obi Wan, C3PO, R2D2, Leia, Jabba and Darth, along with many scenes that are shared in Star Wars as well.

Originally Posted by mrjohnnyb

I know that most cinephiles have either Badlands or The Thin Red Line as their favorite Malick, but mine is Days of Heaven. A friend of mine, who was originally from India and then grew up as an adolescent in the UK, said that Days of Heaven was the greatest film for him in terms of understanding the concept of America.

Originally Posted by Whirlygig

Days of Heaven...not just Malick's best film, but one of the best films of all time.

Originally Posted by iScottie

Currently watching The Thin Red Line. Hands down one of the most beautiful movies ever made.

My wife had commented a while ago about a war book she read that had been made into a movie, and for some reason we both thought it was The Thin Red Line, so I blind bought it for her as a Christmas present. Wel, it was actually the red badge of courageous which we found out when nothing in the movie matched what she remembered. We were still impressed with the film, it was quite stunning and some of the performances were amazing. I did think that it was almost trying to be a mix of Baraka and Chronos with its usage of the cuts to the various imagery, sometimes it seemed to be a little out of place.

Combining those with some seriously questionable performances, it took away what was otherwise a fantastic film. I wonder what it could have been had it been kept more true to the book, with more actual TALKING and more words from the original story. Or what it could have been if we'd seen the full 6 hours recorded

I did another blind buy for Days of Heaven, when a inetvideo has a criterion film for $20, it's hard not to grab it. I presume it'll at least be enjoyable. I haven't been able to take a blind jump at Sweetie or the Brakhage collection they have. I do wish I'd have snagged The Leopard though...

As for this thread, HOLY CRAP. This moves fast as crap! Who knew this could be so popular.