The Criterion Collection

[Scottie]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

I might have liked it more four years ago. Dude, it's no different than last year's Magical-Negro movie, Intouchables.

Is that film any good?

I know it got a lot of praise and a high rating, but it doesn't really sound good to me.

[Hawkguy]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

I might have liked it more four years ago. Dude, it's no different than last year's Magical-Negro movie, Intouchables.

Right---when I read that, I thought 'what? I liked that film!'... and then I started to remember that film and found I don't remember why I liked it, so yeah...I'd probably find it over-sentimental today.

Originally Posted by iScottie

But you also take film classes

The film classes at my college are like "learn how to direct". I don't want to know how to direct. If I do anything with movies, I want it to be analysis, etc.

I like both. Usually, it's one or the other: the film fans don't like production and the filmmaking guys aren't huge film fans (the other day one of the filmmaking students had no idea what The Master was)...so I feel like the outsider film-fan in my own film classes

[Hawkguy]

Originally Posted by iScottie

Is that film any good?

I know it got a lot of praise and a high rating, but it doesn't really sound good to me.

It sounds like, as I said above, very forced-King's Speech-style-sentimental-nonsense to me.... but I haven't seen it, so don't know.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by iScottie

Is that film any good?

I know it got a lot of praise and a high rating, but it doesn't really sound good to me.

It's just as saccharine as Perks of Being a Wallflower, but then again I love movies like Mike Snow's Wavelength.

On an objective note, it's one of the most crowd pleasing movies of last year, alongside End of Watch, Perks, Argo & Django.

[Scottie]

Originally Posted by CoopFilm

It sounds like, as I said above, very forced-King's Speech-style-sentimental-nonsense to me.... but I haven't seen it, so don't know.

Once upon a time, I owned The King's Speech DVD. I never watched it.

No plans in purchasing the Blu-ray as I don't really think watching a guy stutter for three hours is entertaining.

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

It's just as saccharine as Perks of Being a Wallflower, but then again I love movies like Mike Snow's Wavelength.

On an objective note, it's one of the most crowd pleasing movies of last year, alongside End of Watch, Perks, Argo & Django.

Thanks for the info. Maybe if it's really cheap someday I'll pick it up.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by iScottie

Once upon a time, I owned The King's Speech DVD. I never watched it.

No plans in purchasing the Blu-ray as I don't really think watching a guy stutter for three hours is entertaining.



Thanks for the info. Maybe if it's really cheap someday I'll pick it up.

Come to think of it, Tom Hooper really has a thing for odd mutterings from his actor's mouths. Not to mention odd framings, Les Miz was a headache both visually and aurally.

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by diskspinner

What I hate regarding Criterion reviews in blu-ray.com is no movie gets less than 4 (Well, may be there is a few but do not remember seeing any getting less than 4)...Movies are supposed to be subjective (& personal opinion) but Dr. Svet seems to like everything thrown to him by criterion. So before buying I have started borrowing from library.

Thank you for your note

I respect your opinion, but I obviously disagree with you. What you have in the Criterion Collection are some of the greatest films ever made, as well as important and acclaimed contemporary films. It is very difficult to dislike such a roster. (This is also true for the terrific Eclipse series).

Perhaps you are not convinced that Criterion's selection of films is as impressive as the scores indicate, but I think that the more films you see, the more you will begin to realize that each film in the collection is unique and worth seeing.

And if you think that my interest/admiration is fueled primarily by the Criterion logo, you are definitely mistaken. I have a great deal of respect for Criterion and what they do, but their films represent only a tiny fraction of my library.

And one final comment: I think that a lot of the younger enthusiasts that are getting into this hobby now do not fully realize how incredibly lucky they are to have Criterion around with their roster. My generation went through a different cycle. We did not have the internet and a community such as this one where we could discuss the films we wanted to see. Many, many films we simply could not see. Perhaps this is why my appreciation is slightly different.

In any event, I hope you will continue to be part of the community. And thank you for reading our reviews.

Pro-B

[drbikeshorts]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

And one final comment: I think that a lot of the younger enthusiasts that are getting into this hobby now do not fully realize how incredibly lucky they are to have Criterion around with their roster. My generation went through a different cycle. We did not have the internet and a community such as this one where we could discuss the films we wanted to see. Many, many films we simply could not see. Perhaps this is why my appreciation is slightly different.
Pro-B

I consider myself lucky growing up in the VHS era. Sure, the quality is dreadful by DVD and blu-ray standards, but with TV (particularly late night programming) and the local video stores, I was able to see a lot of films.
The generation before me would've been able to catch things on TV, but without being able to record and watch later.
And the generation before that would've either have to see it in the cinema, at repertory cinemas, or 16mm prints at school and university.
Kids today, with DVD, blu-ray, YouTube, and HD downloads are so lucky.
But I'm lucky too

[vader4]

I hope My Dinner with Andre gets an upgrade soon. The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, Lord of the Flies, any Lars Von Trier movie and My Dinner with Andre would be the perfect Criterion announcement, here's hoping!

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

Thank you for your note

I respect your opinion, but I obviously disagree with you. What you have in the Criterion Collection are some of the greatest films ever made, as well as important and acclaimed contemporary films. It is very difficult to dislike such a roster. (This is also true for the terrific Eclipse series).

Perhaps you are not convinced that Criterion's selection of films is as impressive as the scores indicate, but I think that the more films you see, the more you will begin to realize that each film in the collection is unique and worth seeing.

And if you think that my interest/admiration is fueled primarily by the Criterion logo, you are definitely mistaken. I have a great deal of respect for Criterion and what they do, but their films represent only a tiny fraction of my library.

And one final comment: I think that a lot of the younger enthusiasts that are getting into this hobby now do not fully realize how incredibly lucky they are to have Criterion around with their roster. My generation went through a different cycle. We did not have the internet and a community such as this one where we could discuss the films we wanted to see. Many, many films we simply could not see. Perhaps this is why my appreciation is slightly different.

In any event, I hope you will continue to be part of the community. And thank you for reading our reviews.

Pro-B

I couldn't agree more. I've been somewhat indifferent to (Tiny Furniture, Shallow Grave, Forgiveness of Blood, Fat Girl, etc.), but in time their virtues have been made apparent in contrast to much of the lackluster multiplex fare I've subjected myself to.

Unrelated Kino cross recommendation: It turns out there's another great Michelangelo, that is Michelangelo Frammartino: if your a fan if Kaurismaki, Antinioni, Lynch and oddly enough Rosselini, you may enjoy Kino's release of Le Quattro Volte.

[andsoitgoes]

Originally Posted by iScottie

Once upon a time, I owned The King's Speech DVD. I never watched it.

No plans in purchasing the Blu-ray as I don't really think watching a guy stutter for three hours is entertaining.

Is there a facepalm smiley? I wish there was. Sigh.

The movie isn't perfect, it's a bit milquetoast BUT it still has enough merit to be a good film. The comment about not watching it for 3 hours due to your reasoning really, really makes you seem terrifically narrow minded, which I truly hope you are not. There are many movies that contain characters who exhibit various quirks and oddities through the whole film, and those things don't take away from their stature.

It's like saying you don't want a movie because of someone's accent. It's a good movie. Not brilliant, but good. And Firth is excellent in the role.

Originally Posted by RiFiFi1955

I can't stand that! Not commenting on Mr. Svet because I don't know what he has reviewed and shared his opinion on or hasn't but I know some people that will love a film just because it is in the criterion collection...come on no one can love every film in the whole collection(that's ridiculous). I have a friend like this...I always talked about Following for years and he always disagreed with me on the merit of the film...well what do you know he likes it all of a suddden, wonder why?

Sorry for the rant!

Originally Posted by CoopFilm

Let me direct you to the Tiny Furniture review that (rightfully) doesn't come with a recommendation

First, I do someone find it funny that Pro-B come in touting the importance of ALL criterion releases, but still slapped TF with a 3.

Now I would like to see a list of all the criterion reviews in a list here to compare the "movie" review scores, but all of them are THAT perfect? It is very implausible, as perfect as criterion may be. You can't see that and not think there is something a little head scratching about the almost universal acclaim from the films they put out.

Maybe you do believe that every movie, sans about 2 or 3 of them, they put out is perfection. I would sure love to live in that world. But it honestly does make the stereotype of film elitist seem valid. It is almost as though the name behind it and the supposed brilliance of a film wipes out any potential for flaws when it comes to the reviews. Antichrist, one example that just easily comes to mind, is awarded an almost perfect score. Again, while reviews are subjective, seeing the marks consistently "perfect" or close to it does make one question whether or not there is the capability of seeing any flaws. To date, Shallow Grave and Tiny furniture are the only films that have been ranked down in the criterion collection. Maybe there are more, but it's not an easy thing to see via search.

No one is flawless, no one, no company exempt from missteps. To say that criterion walks in the footsteps of a virtually inflatable higher being is a tad strange.

My suggestion, though it won't be taken, would be to spread out the reviews. No one person should review all of one thing. I'm not saying that someone who hates comedies should start to review comedies, but getting a singlular perspective on anything does decrease the overall credibility.

But just one thing to note, if what you say is true then all the criterion movies would have universal acclaim from a multitude of sources, and many certainly are not.

Actually I was able to check through your reviews and sort by movie value.

Almost 380 of your 426 movies received 4 stars or higher, leaving around 10% that were less than perfect. 11 of those that were under 4 stars were criterion films. The Blob, Dazed and Confused, Royal Tenenbaums, etc. Many of the 3.5 and under reviews were helmed by or consisted of material involving "youths". I wonder if there is anything worth noting in that? Was Tiny Furniture mediocre because it was mediocre, or did you find the subject material not to your liking? I see movies like that, Dazed, Shallow Grave, Royal all similar. Either the subject matter is focused on the younger generation, or is helmed by people of the younger generation and based on your reviews of Royal and Darjeeling, I wonder if you have a predisposition to disliking Wes Anderson as well. If that is the case, then were you the best person to review those films? If you don't like rap, should you review the newest Eminem album?

I hope you can see where we are coming from here. That is a very, very high hit rate. I know this site tends to be a bit liberal in the scoring on a regular basis, but I think this is an area that could be improved upon, even just by sharing the wealth of who reviews criterion films. One person and one viewpoint isn't a good thing when that's how it is consistently on a matter that IS subjective.

Things like video, audio and supplements are far more quantitative, within reason, and I don't think need to be subject the same requirements, though that's a bit tangential from the perspective that I'm coming from.

Blah. That ended up being way more than I wanted it to be. I would like to stress how much I do appreciate the reviews. This is one of my most visited sites, and I thank it for getting me back into the classics and higher class movies.

And as for the Criterion angle, they are generally one of the only class of films I will blind buy, and do release films that go above and beyond the normal caliber of the various studios. I tend to be selective when paying over $20 on a movie, so Criterion films make up the majority of my current purchases, as they provide the most bang for my buck when considering the extras they offer.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by andsoitgoes

Not brilliant, but good. And Firth is excellent in the role.

Agree on both counts. Sure it was a little sappy but not offensively so.

Originally Posted by andsoitgoes

Almost 380 of your 426 movies received 4 stars or higher, leaving around 10% that were less than perfect.

By my count the good doctor gave 126 of his reviewed films five star movie ratings. That puts the 'less than perfect' percentage closer to seventy percent.

You used words like perfect, perfection, flawless, infallible quite frequently but if you can only make that case by arguing that four out of five possible stars constitutes a perfect rating the whole thing becomes a bit of a strawman.

To my mind four stars is closer to a solid B+ and viewed in that light it's hard to think of too many Criterion releases that aren't at that level. Even the Criterions I haven't particularly cared for were very well made.

As for spreading the wealth, as you put it, there's definitely some merit to that. There's a downside too, though. While the film reviews might benefit from fresh eyes I like the fact that the transfers are all evaluated by the same set of eyes.

To me that consistent, experienced perspective more than outweighs whatever tunnel vision might exist on the movie review side.

[lemonski]

Originally Posted by retablo

Well, to be honest, that film makes little sense, regardless of how many times you watch it. It's cool, but any film that needs a chart to explain the proceedings is kinda of a fail in my book.

Well, what about a film like Last Year At Marienbad? I don't know if there is a chart for that, but would you consider it a fail? Personally, I couldn't make it halfway through - at no time did I get the feeling that there was ever a solution that could be worked out; the director was being willfully obscure, and I couldn't be bothered applying any brainpower to it (that may have something to do with my lack of brainpower )

Primer on the other hand presents enough threads of information for me to think that I might be able to figure out what is going on - if I really, really sat down and thought very hard about it, I could possibly work it out. The fact that it completely baffles me and yet at the same time taunts me to solve it is what makes the film endlessly rewatchable.

Anyway, I don't want to see any timelines for these sorts of puzzle movies, it completely ruins the fun. I'm not officially dumb until I get told the answer

[blkhrt]

Originally Posted by octagon

To my mind four stars is closer to a solid B+ and viewed in that light it's hard to think of too many Criterion releases that aren't at that level. Even the Criterions I haven't particularly cared for were very well made.

Heck, if you do the math, four stars out of five is 80%, which is a B-. In other words, a film with 4 stars is by no means perfect.

[BohemianGraham]

Originally Posted by blkhrt

Heck, if you do the math, four stars out of five is 80%, which is a B-. In other words, a film with 4 stars is by no means perfect.

That's an A- according to any university I went to. 70 is B-

Brain was caught, maybe tonight I will finally get to Sansho.

[rkish]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

(I'm waiting for Dr Svet to come and cruuuush this post)

Originally Posted by ElliesDad

I'm waiting for something much more dramatic, a crack in the time/space continuum perhaps...

Ehhh...you'd be surprised. Dr. Svet is a pretty down to earth guy. Unless you make an unsubstantiated claim about the technical aspects of a particular film/transfer...he understands that you are entitled to your opinion about film content, whether it's about the film itself or your personal opinion on its technical criteria (AQ/PQ).

[ShellOilJunior]

Instead of splitting hairs over the scoring in reviews why not read what Pro-B has to say?

To me scores are all relative. I understand they are there for the list makers and folks that need everything graded. I went away from rating films on my film blog a few years ago.

When you go into a museum do you rate the paintings you've seen out of 10? It's silly.

[joie]

If movies here are given mumerical ratings by averaging the numerical ratings of things like video, audio and extras, then the ratings could be very misleading. An average, run-of-the-mill movie could get an unrealistic high rating because it has great video, audio and extras. Extras, video and audio quality aren't what makes a good movie, although they can make seeing a good movie a better experience. All of the people who became fans of a movie after seeing it on an older format may have decided it was a good movie long before Blu-ray came along.

Edit: The problem is starting to appear at sites like Rotten Tomatoes, where some of the newer reviewers are obviously considering quality of presentation more important than the quality of the movie.

[blkhrt]

Originally Posted by BohemianGraham

That's an A- according to any university I went to. 70 is B-

Brain was caught, maybe tonight I will finally get to Sansho.

Seriously? Wow. Of the four universities that I have either attended or taught at, 80% is no where close to an A-. All that really matters, however, is consistency and that people know what the grades mean.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by Mary576

Either I am way too young or way too uncultured but...I haven't seen a 1 of those movies on that list!

Hey, everybody has to start somewhere.

Also, talk of ratings is pretty arbitrary, I'm thankful I don't have to give these movies "ratings" as a film is much more than a metacritic, rotten tomatoes, imdb, bluray.com score. What should be discussed is what Dr. Svet and his colleagues write on a given film. We're too quick to get to the thumbs___ that we neglect what truly counts.