The Criterion Collection

[octagon]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

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

Heh, good answer.

[mspar009]

That's what Amazon says - I thought this print went OOP

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by octagon

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.

Incidentally, I've grown weary of writing long-winded reviews for movies on this site.

From now on, movies that I like will receive the following post...


Movies that I dislike will receive the following post...


Ever so often, though, there may be a movie about which I am undecided, and such a movie will receive the following post...


This system would have saved me considerable time in the James Bond thread a couple weeks ago.

[Abdrewes]

To get to the point, I was honestly very curious to hear P@T's take, but he offered nothing but hyperbole. I don't see how these two posts offer any insight into the 1994 version of Queen Margot:

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

From the image that was in your post back a few pages, I first figured it was the 1954 version that was going to be release which I would go for. I have no interest in the 1994 version. No offense to anyone but it's one of the most over hyped, boring, piece of crapoid ever put on film

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

I found this film so long and boring. It felt to me like nothing and I mean nothing was happening, 20 minutes into the movie I wanted it to end. I stayed the course because I always do, always finish what I start but I could not believed I pay $5 (this was in 1994) to see it. I kept asking myself "what was I thinking when I said to myself let's go see this look's good?"

What can I say, one of those movies everyone love but I just can't. I gave it another chance months later on rental, just not for me at all.

I've read Pat's (non)opinion on critical thought, and that's fine, but I don't see what exactly angry posts like these do for conversation. The sole purpose of posts like these seems to be just to upset fans of the film. Sure, I'm no saint (I've written posts not quite that nasty, but nasty nonetheless), but that doesn't make it right or conducive to discourse (the key word).

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

This system would have saved me considerable time in the James Bond thread a couple weeks ago.

Exactly, but thank you for writing them nonetheless. When I go through my Bond set, your reviews w ill be the first things I read

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

Exactly, but thank you for writing them nonetheless. When I go through my Bond set, your reviews w ill be the first things I read

Awesome! It's worth noting that, although the first four Sean Connery Bond films are favorites of mine, they received the shortest reviews, and I wrote the reviews all in one post. After that, my reviews gradually became longer and more pretentious. I guess that I felt the need to defend the subsequent films, and wrote longer evaluations as such.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

Awesome! It's worth noting that, although the first four Sean Connery Bond films are favorites of mine, they received the shortest reviews, and I wrote the reviews all in one post. After that, my reviews gradually became longer and more pretentious. I guess that I felt the need to defend the subsequent films, and wrote longer evaluations as such.

It's easier to write about films you feel were misunderstood as opposed to classics. That's why my Miami Vice review is over two pages long

[Scottie]

As many of you may know by now, I am currently watching / re-watching all of my films in alphabetical order to determine what ones I want to keep and what ones I do not like enough to keep in my collection. The film that was on the agenda today was Terry Gilliam's 12 Monkeys. After finishing the film, I decided that La Jetée would make an excellent double feature, as it was the short film that inspired 12 Monkeys.

La Jetée

[Show spoiler]takes place during the aftermath of World War III. Paris has nearly been destroyed and the remaining survivors live underground. The scientists underground have been researching time travel and they have a man (portrayed by Davos Hanich) be the test subject. They first send the man into the past, pre-World War III, where he falls in love with the woman who has been trapped in his memory for years. After this goes on for quite a bit, the scientists decide to send him into the future, where the people there give him something to restore order to civilization in Paris. After a short series of events, the people of the future help him to return to the past once again, pre-World War III. As he rushes to meet the woman on platform, he is murder, realizing that the event that he experienced as a child that has haunted him all of his life, was his own death.

I feel like 12 Monkeys is a decent remake / full-length film based off of this short film.

[Show spoiler]Just like La Jetée, 12 Monkeys deals with the concept of time travel, but it is presented as an even larger issue. Bruce Willis plays James Cole, a volunteer test subject who is given the orders to return to the past and solve the mystery behind a virus outbreak, which destroyed all of humanity. He is first sent to 1990, before being sent to 1996, the year that the outbreak took place. He comes into contact with a handful of characters, such as Kathryn Railly (Madeleine Stowe), a psychiatrist, and Jeffrey Goines (Brad Pitt), the leader of the 12 Monkeys, an animal activist group. Similar to La Jetée, the film ends with a young James Cole witnessing his future self being murdered.

The thing that I would like you all to shed some light on to me is the linear sequence of 12 Monkeys. It's very difficult for me to grasp. Maybe it's not supposed to make sense, but I'm very bothered by it.

[Show spoiler]Who did young Cole witness murdered? His future self? How did the future self get there if he wasn't even given orders until later in life? Was it all in his head? Was "the future people" that were present in La Jetée similar to the old man's voice that Cole heard throughout the movie?

Please help me. It's a really interesting concept, but it's easy to get lost in.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

This system would have saved me considerable time in the James Bond thread a couple weeks ago.

That sounds like a pretty good system but you might want to pick a better movie.

That one kinda blows.

[Fellini912]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

Incidentally, I've grown weary of writing long-winded reviews for movies on this site.

From now on, movies that I like will receive the following post...


Movies that I dislike will receive the following post...


Ever so often, though, there may be a movie about which I am undecided, and such a movie will receive the following post...


This system would have saved me considerable time in the James Bond thread a couple weeks ago.

Great system just as long no one dies at the end of your review.

[vader4]

Originally Posted by Fellini912

Great system just as long no one dies at the end of your review.

Actually I'd disagree with you there, I think someone dying at the end of the bad reviews would add incentive for studios to stop making bad movies

[Fellini912]

Originally Posted by vader4

Actually I'd disagree with you there, I think someone dying at the end of the bad reviews would add incentive for studios to stop making bad movies

I think by the end of the year we might not have a lot of Hollywood studios according to that standard.

[Edward J Grug III]

Originally Posted by iScottie

The thing that I would like you all to shed some light on to me is the linear sequence of 12 Monkeys. It's very difficult for me to grasp. Maybe it's not supposed to make sense, but I'm very bothered by it.

[Show spoiler]Who did young Cole witness murdered? His future self? How did the future self get there if he wasn't even given orders until later in life? Was it all in his head? Was "the future people" that were present in La Jetée similar to the old man's voice that Cole heard throughout the movie?

Please help me. It's a really interesting concept, but it's easy to get lost in.

[Show spoiler]It was his own death he witnessed - I believe it's not really meant to 'work' - it's a time paradox. It couldn't have happened without it happening. Like Planet of the Apes.

[Scottie]

Originally Posted by Edward J Grug III

[Show spoiler]It was his own death he witnessed - I believe it's not really meant to 'work' - it's a time paradox. It couldn't have happened without it happening. Like Planet of the Apes.

Alright, that makes sense. Thanks.

[Fellini912]

Originally Posted by iScottie

Alright, that makes sense. Thanks.

I highly recommend Primer, in my opinion, the greatest intelligent time traveling film ever made. Upstream Color will be out on blu ray May 7 th

[oildude]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

To get to the point, I was honestly very curious to hear P@T's take, but he offered nothing but hyperbole. I don't see how these two posts offer any insight into the 1994 version of Queen Margot:




I've read Pat's (non)opinion on critical thought, and that's fine, but I don't see what exactly angry posts like these do for conversation. The sole purpose of posts like these seems to be just to upset fans of the film. Sure, I'm no saint (I've written posts not quite that nasty, but nasty nonetheless), but that doesn't make it right or conducive to discourse (the key word).

Seems you are the only fan getting upset, and needlessly so. Are you really reading Pat's posts in such a way that words like "angry" and "nasty" come to mind? I read what Pat writes and completely agree and understand where he is coming from. He is one of the most well mannered and repectful long-time posters in this forum. Even if he disagrees with something he is nice about it. And, most importantly, he is an Audrey Hepburn fan. You forgot the rules of Audrey. Rule #1 - Audrey trumps all.

You are probably one of the few who has even seen the film. At least Pat gave it several chances and decided it wasn't for him. He doesn't have to give a discourse that meets your needed definitions, or provide a basis for further discussion. You like the film, he does not. End of story.

NOTE: extra smiley faces so you don't interpret my post as angry and nasty

[Page14]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

Get Page14 to smuggle some across the border for ya

Geez I didn't realize "details" went public. Oops. Fixed. (I was wondering how you knew that).

[jrsl76]

Originally Posted by 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.

Other than the UK edition, has this been announced for the US? If not, I still think there's a chance. Sometimes things do get released normally overseas and Criterion-ed in the US.

[brandon_260]

Ordered Summer Hours and Yi Yi from ImportCDs. Two less on my B&N wishlist. I've cut it down to 6 titles now, but I'm sure that will change when the time actually comes.

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by octagon

That sounds like a pretty good system but you might want to pick a better movie.

That one kinda blows.

Were you not entertained?

I know what you mean, though. I thoroughly enjoyed Gladiator when it was released, but, wow, that movie got really old really fast. I have no desire to revisit it these days.

On the subject of early 2000s flicks...
As I continue to watch my unwatched Blu-rays, I revisited the first two Extended Editions of The Lord of the Rings series over the past three evenings, and will watch The Return of the King tomorrow.
Good God, these are long movies. They're still so much fun in a popcorn way, but...they are long long long. That's why I only feel a hankering to rewatch them once every five years or so.