The Criterion Collection

[billzfan]

Originally Posted by stobbart

You said it there youself. Yes Orsen Wells made one of the most important movies. But thats because of what it did technically. Not because it was a good movie.

And I have seen movies by those directors, and many more. And what theories did you learn on what makes a good director, because I would love to hear the argument for Malick being a good director. As of yet, I have heard nothing. Just that I am wrong.

Wait, wait, wait. Now you're going after Citizen Kane?!?!!?

[stobbart]

Originally Posted by billzfan

Wait, wait, wait. Now you're going after Citizen Kane?!?!!?

I dont find it to be a great movie, as far as movies go. I agree that it is quite possibly the most important film made for what it did for movie making. But as far as it being an entertaining or engaging movie I think the majority of people would agree, its not really.

Have you seen it? or are you just saying that because polls and people have told you that its amazing. People need to realize that they need to watch and evaluate movies for themselves. Not what other people tell them.

I have had conversations with professors and students about this movie. and most of them agree, that it needs to be remembered and respected for what it did technically and for movie making. But its not something more then that. I will be buy it on blu, and watch it. But it would never make my own top 10.

[busheacker]

Originally Posted by stobbart

And I have seen movies by those directors, and many more. And what theories did you learn on what makes a good director, because I would love to hear the argument for Malick being a good director. As of yet, I have heard nothing. Just that I am wrong.

You're not "wrong," and anyone who says you are wrong is being unfair. On the other hand, you are being equally unfair by saying Malick is a bad director like it's some kind of objective fact. Sorry, but no. You certainly have the right to your opinion, but there isn't some scientific formula that conclusively determines whether a director is "good" or "bad." There are only opinions, none of which are "right" or "wrong" except to the person who holds said opinions.

[BasicGreatGuy]

Originally Posted by busheacker

You're not "wrong," and anyone who says you are wrong is being unfair. On the other hand, you are being equally unfair by saying Malick is a bad director like it's some kind of objective fact. Sorry, but no. You certainly have the right to your opinion, but there isn't some scientific formula that conclusively determines whether a director is "good" or "bad." There are only opinions, none of which are "right" or "wrong" except to the person who holds said opinions.

+1 for succinct truth.

[Trogdor2010]

Originally Posted by alen_shime

You really don't know what the hell you're talking about. "All of Kubricks films are fabulous = good director. None of Malicks movies are good (so far that I have seen, again thin red line may be good) = bad director" so that was the theory or a rule I haven't learned while studying multimedia production on the art academy. So the same theory or rule could be applied to I don't know, maybe Orson Welles, God damn the dude made one of the most important movies, but still it's just ONE movie, and Kubrick has got so many fabolous movies, Kubrick surely PWNED him. You are throwing this word DIRECTOR in our face and you don't know what the hell it is. Try watching some movies done by real directors like Ozu, Mizoguchi, Dreyer, Bresson etc.

You forgot about The Magnificent Ambersons, but yes it is rather shame he hasn't directed many films as he acts. He's best when he makes his own films. Citizen Kane in a way however, ruined Orson Welles because his portrayal of William Randolph Hearst, many claiming Welles to be a socialist Nazi because of it.

Michael Bay has made some good films , he just isn't known for it though.

The Criterion collection is not really about the greatest films, but rather releasing films that had some influence in the realm of filmmaking. I have not watched much of Terrence Mallick films, but observations sugggests that it's easy to mistake silence with pandering. I see his films are more of the "nature meets nuture" feel to his films.

[ksc2303]

Originally Posted by stobbart

Yeah...no all of this is wrong. My point was not about editing.

I give up, its impossible to talk to people on here about anything because all anyone does is either want to try and be funny and ironic like will smith guy on here, or just focus on something I said and take it out of context like this person.

thats fine, everyone can go on loving Malick, and whoever else Criterion tells you to like by adding their movies to the collection. But as I have said, one movie does not make a good director. All of Kubricks films are fabulous = good director. None of Malicks movies are good (so far that I have seen, again thin red line may be good) = bad director. That should be pretty clear. And to everyone who was worried about Malick not making another movie for 10 years....the next Transformers movie will be out for you all to go see.

Please, dont leave. This thread need this... once interesting conversation breaks out then posts start getting deleted. I love you guys here on the forum for posting news and rumors about the collection but for the most part this thread isn't as stimulating as it could be.

That said - I think Stobbart is dead wrong. First of all don't use going to film school as proof of your superior taste in film. I've met the most insufferable and pretentious people in my life while I studied film.

Second if you've studied the process of filmmaking then you should know that every director has their own way of making movies. You going to tell me that Wong Kar Wai or David Lynch are bad directors because they can make up something the day of the shoot and create a movie on the fly?

So whats wrong with Mailick shooting a ton of footage and whittling it down to the movie he wants? You don't have to like it but don't diss him because you don't like his method. Personally I like his movies, even if some want to call them glorified discovery channel documentaries.

I don't understand all the hate towards Michael Bay... I mean he's made some really terrible movies. Transformers 2 is one of the worst movies I've subjected myself to (at least I didn't pay to see it) but I think Bad Boys and The Rock are perfectly fine big budget action movie nonsense. They're fun movies. I automatically dismiss the opinions of people who complain about Armageddon being a criterion title and then get excited over Antichrist coming out. Michael Bay > Lars von Trier

[Kevtronn]

Originally Posted by busheacker

You're not "wrong," and anyone who says you are wrong is being unfair. On the other hand, you are being equally unfair by saying Malick is a bad director like it's some kind of objective fact. Sorry, but no. You certainly have the right to your opinion, but there isn't some scientific formula that conclusively determines whether a director is "good" or "bad." There are only opinions, none of which are "right" or "wrong" except to the person who holds said opinions.

Exactly, opinions. Personally, I enjoy Malick's films not because I believe he is the best director ever, but because his films are different and bring out emotional responses.

[stobbart]

Watched When a Woman Ascends the Stairs this morning. Great film. Will be picking that up on the next sale.

[ChadFL]

Originally Posted by billzfan

Wait, wait, wait. Now you're going after Citizen Kane?!?!!?

He simply said that film is important but not especially good. I agree with that opinion completely.

[Arkadin]

I really hate that Criterion decided to ditch the "Red Shoes" sd cover art in favor of the new monstrosity.
YUCK!
I don't like it either.
the UK release is miles better as far as the artwork, and looks far classier.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Red-Shoes-Bl...1729363&sr=1-1
and the old Criterion sd artwork showing just the "red" shoes is also very nice.
this "new" Criterion art is a bust plain and simple, and is perhaps the worst art for any bd release imo.

[JJJ225]

Originally Posted by ChadFL

He simply said that film is important but not especially good. I agree with that opinion completely.

This is the way people say they don't like Citizen Kane without people getting all upset about it. Citizen Kane is amazing, and not just because of the advancements in technique.

And "Kubrick is the greatest, Malick sucks" sounds an awful lot like someone who doesn't really know what they're talking about. Sorry, maybe I'm completely off-base and being unfair, but in my experience discussing film with people, that's the general assessment. And if you hate everything he's done, you will definitely hate The Thin Red Line (a movie I don't like, despite loving Badlands, Days of Heaven, and The New World).

And I'd really like to hear the logic of how shooting less footage somehow = better director. Please explain it.

[jimonee78]

Originally Posted by stobbart

thats fine, everyone can go on loving Malick, and whoever else Criterion tells you to like by adding their movies to the collection. But as I have said, one movie does not make a good director. All of Kubricks films are fabulous = good director. None of Malicks movies are good (so far that I have seen, again thin red line may be good) = bad director. That should be pretty clear. And to everyone who was worried about Malick not making another movie for 10 years....the next Transformers movie will be out for you all to go see.

Originally Posted by stobbart

I dont find it to be a great movie, as far as movies go. I agree that it is quite possibly the most important film made for what it did for movie making. But as far as it being an entertaining or engaging movie I think the majority of people would agree, its not really.

Have you seen it? or are you just saying that because polls and people have told you that its amazing. People need to realize that they need to watch and evaluate movies for themselves. Not what other people tell them.

I have had conversations with professors and students about this movie. and most of them agree, that it needs to be remembered and respected for what it did technically and for movie making. But its not something more then that. I will be buy it on blu, and watch it. But it would never make my own top 10.

Not trying to pile on, but this sort of attitude is just unnecessary. Visitors to this thread come in all shapes and sizes from hardcore cinephiles who have been watching/collecting films for years to new film lovers who are discovering Criterion for the first time.

Side note, received Vivre sa vie and Summer Hours from Criterion a day early. Also a bunch of the StudioCanal OOPs.

[PowellPressburger]

Originally Posted by Arkadin

I really hate that Criterion decided to ditch the "Red Shoes" sd cover art in favor of the new monstrosity.
YUCK!
I don't like it either.
the UK release is miles better as far as the artwork, and looks far classier.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Red-Shoes-Bl...1729363&sr=1-1
and the old Criterion sd artwork showing just the "red" shoes is also very nice.
this "new" Criterion art is a bust plain and simple, and is perhaps the worst art for any bd release imo.

I thought it was a rather blunt image to say the least, and at the same time simple. Typing about THE RED SHOES cover art. The more I look at it the more I actually like it. It is almost too simple in most respects when it comes to Criterion cover art.

Black Narcissus on the other hand it is, well like a painting, as it is. Yet each image for both cover art, sums up each film to certain degrees.

I have grown to like THE RED SHOES cover art, I figured Criterion would opt for something much different than their former DVD release artwork, had no idea it would be so much different.

I can only imagine how many variations they pondered over.

Sometimes some of the artists etc will post their variations on their sites. If anyone digs any up please post. Those who frequent the Criterion Forum know what I am typing about.

[PowellPressburger]

Was at BEst Buy earlier this evening and the location I visited did have Summer Hours $29.99 and Vivre Sa Vie $29.90 on the shelves early.

Like another member pointed out these are much better prices than what Best Buy had on previous releases. I hope the trend continues.

[JediFonger]

i know this came up many pages ago... but have there been custom covers for Criterion BDs in case (no pun intended) you wanted to replace it like the red shoe one? just curious =P

[capnnarcolepsy]

just watched "anti christ" via netflix streaming. wow, i am genuinely impressed. the hd streaming looked good as is, so i am uber excited to see it in bluray glory. hopefully there will be some behind the scenes stuff spotlighting just how they pulled off some the scenes. highly recommended.

[McCrutchy]

Originally Posted by capnnarcolepsy

just watched "anti christ" via netflix streaming. wow, i am genuinely impressed. the hd streaming looked good as is, so i am uber excited to see it in bluray glory. hopefully there will be some behind the scenes stuff spotlighting just how they pulled off some the scenes. highly recommended.

Netflix is also one of the lower-quality HD feeds (720p and DD 2.0), so you will be BLOWN AWAY by the slo-mo shots in 1080p...

By the way (I really hope ccfixx can respond to this), for those who have seen Antichrist, did anybody ever come across

[Show spoiler]a pair of rusted scissors

AFTER having seen this film? If so, did you have a reaction to the experience?

It hasn't happened to me, but I shudder to think about it...

[ShellOilJunior]

Originally Posted by stobbart

You said it there youself. Yes Orsen Wells made one of the most important movies. But thats because of what it did technically. Not because it was a good movie.

And I have seen movies by those directors, and many more. And what theories did you learn on what makes a good director, because I would love to hear the argument for Malick being a good director. As of yet, I have heard nothing. Just that I am wrong.

You cannot even spell Welles correctly and you're arguing about the merits of Kane?

[Illy Scorsese]

Originally Posted by stobbart

You said it there youself. Yes Orsen Wells made one of the most important movies. But thats because of what it did technically. Not because it was a good movie.

Oh Boy... You're one of those.

Malik is a good Director by the way.

[JJJ225]

Also, whoever said Welles had one good movie (all the quoting has gotten me confused) is insane. I think you might have meant you only have seen one Welles movie.