The Criterion Collection

[hoytereden]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

He's become what Ben Affleck used to be before Affleck stepped behind the camera.

Course it was a while back but, I thought Ben was excellent as George Reeves in Hollywoodland. No Blu-ray of that yet!?

[brandon_260]

Originally Posted by iScottie

For fans of Lars von Trier, here is the poster for his new movie Nymphomaniac.

Really hoping they bring this one to TIFF, unless it magically gets released before September.

[brandon_260]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

The Boof was actually decent in Redford's The Company You Keep. I can't say the same forthe film though

I'd say he carries that film. Really his best performance yet.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by Fellini912

I guess you are not a fan of Jacque Cousteau.

It's not that, it's just that the artifice (the quirk, the design) was the only take away from that film for me.

[Page14]

Originally Posted by iScottie

I have Dogville on DVD, but I haven't watched it yet.

Ditto.

I saw Dogville a few years ago at a free public showing that included a discussion afterwards. It's the only Lars Von Trier film I've ever seen. I liked it enough that I bought it ... or maybe I bought it just because it was so different that I felt I needed to see it again.

[gates70]

You know what drives me nuts about Criterion ? It's their ****ing prices in Canada! They had a bunch of titles for $32.99 on amazon.ca the other day, and now most of them went up to $54.99! I know they'll go down again, but this is like the stock market for christ sakes! Glad I bought my last 4 titles the other day for the price I did. /rant

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by gates70

You know what drives me nuts about Criterion ? It's their ****ing prices in Canada! They had a bunch of titles for $32.99 on amazon.ca the other day, and now most of them went up to $54.99! I know they'll go down again, but this is like the stock market for christ sakes! Glad I bought my last 4 titles the other day for the price I did. /rant

Get Page14 to smuggle some across the border for ya

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

But back on topic: I HATE it when people negatively deride a film because they feel "nothing happened." Something is always happening and it is up to the viewer to examine 1) What the artist's intentions are when their film has little plot, long takes, elliptical editing, etc. 2) and whether the work of art is successful in its methodology.

Let's assume something is always happening.

Is it always interesting?

Sometimes a tedious cigar is just a tedious cigar, no?

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by octagon

Let's assume something is always happening.

Is it always interesting?

Sometimes a tedious cigar is just a tedious cigar, no?

I'm just asking for a bit more of a descriptive/critical interpretation. That's all. If you are bored, tell us why. If you don't find it interesting, tell us why. Saying "nothing happens" renders your statement into a complete failure in my book. It ends any potential discourse right there.

[Hawkguy]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

I'm just asking for a bit more of a descriptive/critical interpretation. That's all. If you are bored, tell us why. If you don't find it interesting, tell us why. Saying "nothing happens" renders your statement into a complete failure in my book. It ends any potential discourse right there.

This. Actually, when I read that kind of reaction, my first thought is that the viewer wasn't paying attention to the film at all. If a reason is given, then I can start to understand that opinion.

[ShellOilJunior]

Scratch FROM HERE TO ETERNITY off the list of films from Sony that Criterion might release. Interesting how they licensed Waterfront but are keeping that one.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

I'm just asking for a bit more of a descriptive/critical interpretation. That's all. If you are bored, tell us why. If you don't find it interesting, tell us why. Saying "nothing happens" renders your statement into a complete failure in my book. It ends any potential discourse right there.

I get you're going with this but I'm also getting a 'tell us why you thought the soup was bland' vibe. Where does that discourse go?

I thought it was bland because I didn't taste anything. - But why didn't you taste anything? - Umm, well,...

For me 'interesting' is not the default setting. I don't need reasons to be bored by things, I need reasons to be interested in them.

It's usually pointless to throw around words like sucked and overrated and awesome and interesting without any context or discussion. I'm not sure 'boring' fits in that category though.

Boring seems pretty self-explanatory to me.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by Fellini912

You are a post-structuralist.

Sometimes art's goal is not the artist's original intent, but spectator's response or interpretation of the artwork. Which one has more weight? That has always been a philosophical dilemma.

It is always good to be critical of any artwork, that means you were engaged and attentive. To always agree with the artist/author is another way of being passive. What is interesting with film is that there are many angles you can approach it.

The best question to ask yourself is: Why did this scene or movie worked/did not work for me? Trying to elaborate is probably the best response.

[

Not really. I mean if you read my descriptions of movies over the years I have been posting here, they never are very elaborated or constructed with deep analystic descriptions. Watching movies for me is a hobby, I am not a professional art critic and would never rmake the claim to be one. I know what I enjoy and I know what I don't enjoy but I sure don't have the time to write a Phd paper on why I like or dislike a movie, even more so if I dislike it. In general I will say the story had no appeal to me, actors where not interesting and the story held no meaning for me. It may well be a splendid piece of art for most people, for me it's not. Will not excuse myself either for disliking it, good for those who like it but I don't

[Fellini912]

There is at times that artist push the limits of good taste. For example John Cage's 4'33" (three movement musical piece of pure silence) or a painter that places a dot in the middle of the canvas. Many consider that art.



If a dog or cat can do better artwork than that, I do not call it art. At most, I call it a statement. The same goes in film. Sometimes there is no reason to a scene.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by octagon

I get you're going with this but I'm also getting a 'tell us why you thought the soup was bland' vibe. Where does that discourse go?

I thought it was bland because I didn't taste anything. - But why didn't you taste anything? - Umm, well,...

For me 'interesting' is not the default setting. I don't need reasons to be bored by things, I need reasons to be interested in them.

It's usually pointless to throw around words like sucked and overrated and awesome and interesting without any context or discussion. I'm not sure 'boring' fits in that category though.

Boring seems pretty self-explanatory to me.

"Boring" is just as overused as those words. How would you respond to someone who said The Sweet Smell of Success was boring? In that case it says more about the viewer than the film, right? That holds no merit with me.

I'm not asking for a full review, I'm not even asking they approach issues of form, history or genre either, just something to further the conversation. That's what the forums are for right? Discussion. If discussion is utterly irrelevant to someone, why post anything to begin with?

I was immensely bored by GI Joe: Retalliation, but atleast I think i clearly explained why in the brief post I made about it last month.

[Fellini912]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

Not really. I mean if you read my descriptions of movies over the years I have been posting here, they never are very elaborated or constructed with deep analystic descriptions. Watching movies for me is a hobby, I am not a professional art critic and would never rmake the claim to be one. I know what I enjoy and I know what I don't enjoy but I sure don't have the time to write a Phd paper on why I like or dislike a movie, even more so if I dislike it. In general I will say the story had no appeal to me, actors where not interesting and the story held no meaning for me. It may well be a splendid piece of art for most people, for me it's not. Will not excuse myself either for disliking it, good for those who like it but I don't

Your post sounds defensive.

My statement was in favor of your subjective view, which at times a subjective view can weigh more than the original intent.

An elaborate response does not have to be a PhD thesis. You are not obligated to clarify your disapproval (that's up to you), but I find it more courteous to do so ( for those fans of the film), in my opinion. Take care.

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

How would you respond to someone who said The Sweet Smell of Success was boring?

I would respond, "It had better not be boring, because I just spent $30 on it at Barnes & Noble a half hour ago!"

I might also recommend the Sour Stench of Failure to that person.

[The Great Owl]

Sweet Smell of Success was a blind buy for me, but the reviews make it seem right up my alley in the sense that I love 1950s cinema with jazz music thrown in, and this one draws comparisons to Ace in the Hole.

It's nice to have Octagon's avatar in full size.

This goes to the back of the line for the 22 Blu-rays in my collection that I have left to watch, because I'm saving the blind buys for last (Experiment in Terror, Rapture, The Big Heat, Greed in the Sun, Taxi for Tobruk, Sweet Smell of Success).

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by Fellini912

An elaborate response does not have to be a PhD thesis. You are not obligated to clarify your disapproval (that's up to you), but I find it more courteous to do so ( for those fans of the film), in my opinion. You take care.

Nicely put. I don't read criticism to nod my head to, to affirm my opinion. I want to be challenged, I want to engage in a discourse. There have been countless times when a certain strong piece of criticism made me want to revisit/reassess the film at hand.

There are several unfairly maligned works of art I would love for people to reassess and simply stating that "they're really good" won't make anyone want to see them. You convince people with words not grades and hyperbole.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

"Boring" is just as overused as those words. How would you respond to someone who said The Sweet Smell of Success was boring? In that case it says more about the viewer than the film, right? That holds no merit with me.

If I were truly interested in discourse I would probably point to some of the things I found interesting and ask how - if at all - that person reacted to those specific things.

If not, I would simply register my disagreement or (even more simply) ignore the whole thing.

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

I'm not asking for a full review, I'm not even asking they approach issues of form, history or genre either, just something to further the conversation. That's what the forums are for right? Discussion. If discussion is utterly irrelevant to someone, why post anything to begin with?

People post all manner of one-shot impressions. Seven Samurai is essential. The Seventh Seal is a masterpiece. This was breath-taking, that was relevatory and so for and so on.

Sometimes they flesh them out, sometimes they don't.

Does 'meh, I didn't really care for it' tell me anything particularly useful? Not usually, no.

But it doesn't drive me nuts either.

Not usually, anyway.