The Criterion Collection

[Visco.]

2001 was amazing. Simply put.

[excellence]

Here is my in-store B&N haul.

Shout out to deepbreathsanddeath and Joe Dalek for mentioning Le Samourai and Branded to Kill to me respectively.

Also, here's what the Blu Ray section at my B&N looked like if anyone is curious. Seem small? The DVD section was looking untouched.. in fact I don't think one DVD was missing (no picture sorry).

[Show spoiler]

[GoldMotel]

Just finished On the Waterfront (I've seen it before, but on blu it's just stunning). I couldn't decide on which aspect ratio to watch it in, but I finally went with 1.66:1, a happy medium between all three aspect ratio options.

[Majin Blu]

Originally Posted by excellence

Here is my in-store B&N haul.

Shout out to deepbreathsanddeath and Joe Dalek for mentioning Le Samourai and Branded to Kill to me respectively.

Also, here's what the Blu Ray section at my B&N looked like if anyone is curious. Seem small? The DVD section was looking untouched.. in fact I don't think one DVD was missing (no picture sorry).

[Show spoiler]

Nice choices. I want "Band of Outsiders" so bad.

[excellence]

Originally Posted by reelgeek

Nice choices. I want "Band of Outsiders" so bad.

I grabbed it so fast when I saw it.. all I thought about was the dance scene.

[FilmCafe]

I probably already answered my question but I'm assuming that the 3 Films by Roberto Rossellin won't be applied to this sale?

[deepbreathsanddeath]

Originally Posted by excellence

Here is my in-store B&N haul.

Shout out to deepbreathsanddeath and Joe Dalek for mentioning Le Samourai and Branded to Kill to me respectively.

Also, here's what the Blu Ray section at my B&N looked like if anyone is curious. Seem small? The DVD section was looking untouched.. in fact I don't think one DVD was missing (no picture sorry).

[Show spoiler]

Nice! Le Samourai looks amazing and I loved Branded To Kill so much. That and Tokyo Drifter are excellent. I liked BTK more though I think.

[deepbreathsanddeath]

I'm waiting for a non-member coupon before I finally make the order, but I'm still trying to narrow down my final picks for my order.

Currently I have:
-Wages of Fear
-Marketa Lazarova
-Safety Last!
-Repo Man (selling MoC steelbook to replace it with this)
-Island of Lost Souls (selling MoC steelbook to replace it with this)
-Letter Never Sent

I swapped Wings of Desire out for Letter Never Sent. In part because it'll save me some money but also because I'm still not sure on Wings of Desire. I keep flipping back and forth between wanting it and not being highly interested in seeing it.

I need a little push in the right direction here. What do you guys think I should get? Wings of Desire or Letter Never Sent?

[ravenus]

Originally Posted by jw007

I have to say there aren't enough female directors featured on The Criterion Collection. I've decided to put together my top 5 list of female-directed films featured on Criterion blu-ray.

Here is my top 5 list.

1. Sweetie - Jane Campion
2. Fish Tank - Andrea Arnold
3. White Material - Claire Denis
4. Tiny Furniture - Lena Dunham
5. Fat Girl - Catherine Breillat

It would be nice if they put out a Kathryn Bigelow movie as an example that female directors also make terrific adrenaline movies and not just intimate dramas about dysfunctional relationships / people (White Material seems to be an exception, but I haven't seen it). Strange Days would possibly be a nice addition considering it doesn't have a decent US release...or if they want to capture her early work, Blue Steel

[ravenus]

Originally Posted by deepbreathsanddeath

I need a little push in the right direction here. What do you guys think I should get? Wings of Desire or Letter Never Sent?

Letter Never Sent. WoD is a much more famous film and will probably be always available in one or the other release. Also, in terms of dramatic impact and "how the hell did they actually shoot this stuff" criteria, LNS owns completely...IMO.

[nametag]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

I would like to quickly comment here as I've seen other people posting similar observations.

I don't agree that the review spoils Fish Tank because this isn't a film that can be spoiled. In fact, in my opinion the specific scene a couple of people have addressed is irrelevant. Why? Because the idea behind this film is to place the viewer in the closed system where Mia exists. There is no way out. Her decisions are pointless. Her feelings and ambitions are irrelevant. The title of the film describes the system perfectly - it is a fish tank, and the fish leaves the tank only when it dies.

I think that there is a general perception in North America that a film has to tell a story. I believe this is one of the reasons why a lot of people have a problem with "slow" films. For some people slow is...bad? Fish Tank isn't a film in which the story is irrelevant, but the focus of attention is definitely on the system I mentioned above, not on the relationships between the main characters and the manner in which they evolve. The film does not have to begin at point A and end and point B to accomplish its mission. It has to force the viewer to step on the other side and spend some time with Mia. That's it. And I think that Fish Tank accomplishes its mission quite well.

I've complained about some of your reviews before for this reason (including Fish Tank specifically) and, I'm sorry, but that is pretentious nonsense.

You're quite right that not all films have to be heavy on 'story' as such, and there are plenty of films which aren't, and can be perfectly successful at what they do. But part of the joy of watching new films is not knowing about particular scenes, regardless of whether that scene is integral to the story or narrative. A David Lynch film, for example, might have a number of scenes which seem irrelevant to the story (if there even is much of a story, in the traditional sense), but that doesn't mean those scenes aren't still supposed to surprise and create tension anyway, and knowing about them in advance is going to mean the audience is not going to feel what the filmmakers are intending. It may not be a plot spoiler, but it's a spoiler nonetheless. If it's part of the set up of the film, or in the first third maybe, then fine, a reader needs to know SOMETHING about the film to know whether they might like it. But otherwise I think the audience should be allowed to be 'surprised' by a film and its outcome regardless of how much of a conventional narrative it has.

Regardless of that, Fish Tank is not a David Lynch film. You speak articulately of the themes, but it does have a fairly conventional narrative, and it is that narrative and what happens to Mia which helps us to understand her. The scene in which

[Show spoiler]Mia visits Connor's house

was one of the most tense scenes in any film I've seen in recent years. And that was intentional - Arnold clearly wants the audience to be tense. We were given no obvious indicator from the start that

[Show spoiler]Connor has a wife and child

- the cinematography emphasises that we are seeing things from Mia's perspective throughout and, though we may have some suspicions, we are meant to empathise with her sense of betrayal, and feel her shock. It is a plot twist, not a contrived or shallow or typically 'Hollywood' one, but a twist nonetheless. To have that spoiled in a review is disrespectful to both the audience and filmmaker.

But, as I explain in my first paragraph, I don't think that any film should be spoiled (in any sense) in a review, particularly on a site like this where people come for recommendations on whether to buy/watch a film they may not have seen. It doesn't matter how much of a conventional or linear narrative or plot it has. Filmmakers don't make films for audiences who already know what they're about to see.

[rock, stone]

Originally Posted by Danchez

I understand what you're saying about the film itself, but don't agree that it has any bearing on whether or not the review spoils elements of the film. Your perception of the film is given in hindsight, and while I think it's really well-articulated, part of my own enjoyment of the film was, you know, not knowing what was going to happen next.

Mileages may vary, but I don't think that it's ever truly necessary to reveal specific plot points in a review of a film.

There is a reason I only read the technical info for these reviews. Before I gave up on them, more often than not the film reviews would read like a wikipedia summery, spoiling plot points well into the 3rd act.

I don't see the point, but to each his own.

[deepbreathsanddeath]

Got to agree. I've started skipping straight to video/audio/extras and avoiding the main reviews for that reason. It's comforting to see that I'm not alone in feeling that those reviews tend to spoil things. To each their own but I think less details from the third act of some (or most) films should be left out of the reviews.

[octagon]

PQ/AQ and if I'm on the fence I'll skip down to the recommendation at the end (and even those can be a little nerve-wracking).

But the body of a review when I'm contemplating a blind buy? No, that's just asking for trouble.

Edit: To be fair though, I'm leery of pretty much all reviews for the same reason. Reviews here seem a little more fast and loose with spoilers but very few reviewers are without sin.

[jrsl76]

Originally Posted by reelgeek

I was curious about "The Moment of Truth". Does anyone own this film? Would you recommend it?

That film is spectacular. One of the best surprises of the collection for me. I highly recommend it.

[nametag]

Originally Posted by octagon

PQ/AQ and if I'm on the fence I'll skip down to the recommendation at the end (and even those can be a little nerve-wracking).

But the body of a review when I'm contemplating a blind buy? No, that's just asking for trouble.

Edit: To be fair though, I'm leery of pretty much all reviews for the same reason. Reviews here seem a little more fast and loose with spoilers but very few reviewers are without sin.

True, and it's a fine line that I'm sure critics have to tread constantly, because you want to be able to talk about the film, and give the reader enough of a sense of what the film is about. But, as has been said, the CC reviews on here do particularly

Originally Posted by rock, stone

read like a wikipedia summery, spoiling plot points well into the 3rd act.

Just read the review for Arnold's previous film Red Road as well, MAJOR spoilers there as well

[The Great Owl]

I usually read the full reviews even if I have never seen a particular movie before and am deciding whether or not to make a blind purchase. Many Criterion titles are, as pro-B says, impervious to spoilers. Red Desert is one such example.

I try to keep my own user reviews of movies spoiler-free. One can, for example, slog through my entire write-up of Things to Come without learning anything whatsoever about the actual plot. It's difficult to analyze a film without touching on some elements of the story that some people would rather not know until they have a chance to see the movie.

Of course, I thoroughly enjoyed my first viewing of Charade even after someone in this thread accidentally tipped off the identity of a pivotal character, and the knowledge did not lessen my immersion into the viewing experience. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

[Abdrewes]

Glad to report that after seeing Pacific Rim, Criterion's very own Guillermo del Toro has yet to make a bad film.

[blkhrt]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

Glad to report that after seeing Pacific Rim, Criterion's very own Guillermo del Toro has yet to make a bad film.

I'm glad to hear you say that. While there have been some very positive reviews, I have heard some very big fans of del Toro think it is his worst movie. I hope I get a chance to see it while it is in the theaters...it seems like something that needs to be seen on the big screen.

[Tin Drum]

Originally Posted by COLD_COBRA_

Is Purple Noon considered a must buy?

IMO, yes. It's a very good film with amazing PQ and AQ. I love the film's style. Not your typical film made in 1960.