The Criterion Collection

[JJJ225]

Originally Posted by brandon_260

Does anyone know if Criterion has the rights to any of the other films in the MGM Bergman set? We know Persona is likely right around the corner, but I'm making my way through the other films right now. I would love to see Shame getting a nice HD release, it's one of Bergman's most visually satisfying works.

We certainly don't know that they do. But it sees reasonable that they might with Persona on the horizon.

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by brandon_260

Does anyone know if Criterion has the rights to any of the other films in the MGM Bergman set? We know Persona is likely right around the corner, but I'm making my way through the other films right now. I would love to see Shame getting a nice HD release, it's one of Bergman's most visually satisfying works.

I do not have enough Bergman titles, but that will change over time. I'm looking forward to Persona in a big way for a fourth Bergman addition next to The Seventh Seal, Wild Strawberries, and Fanny and Alexander.

By the way, I like your new avatar a lot, even if it is the wrong woman from that film. Haha.

Seriously, I love that scene where they are surrounded by bison.

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by octagon

The Great Unwashed like good movies too., you know.

The masses lined up to see Casablanca and The Maltese Falcon and Double Indemnity. They loved The Godfather and Jaws and Goodfellas. And while a lot of intellectuals might look a little sideways at something like Rocky, the masses had that one dead right.

As I've been watching the Dirty Harry Collection this weekend, I've also been going through all of the included documentaries. As I've watched the Clint Eastwood biographies (there are about three or four of them in this box set), I've noticed that most of the movies in his acting and directing canon were dismissed by critics altogether until after he filmed Unforgiven. Up until that point, several amazing and culturally relevant movies, like the first Dirty Harry film or The Outlaw Josey Wales, were not properly acknowledged by the prestigious critic crowd, but the public knew that these movies were a good thing.

When Abdrewes sets up the 1970s poll in a few weeks, my Top 20 is probably going to include a lot of flicks starring Eastwood. That decade was when he hit a stride.

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

Owl, it's worth seeing for sure, but I would wager that a perceptive viewer such as yourself would be consistently rolling his eyes during the second half. It's a big mixed bag.

From what I gather about Prisoners, I can imagine myself liking the movie, but not loving it. That was also my reaction to Mud, which I rented a few weeks back. I liked Mud, but it did not blow me away like it blew a lot of people away.

[Show spoiler](I thought that it was a fine film that lost some steam when the filmmakers went into Van Damme Hard Target territory with the shoot 'em up conclusion on the riverboat.)

jw007 touches on some of this with the movie snob discussion above, but my recent viewing habits have caused me to have rather high standards. Since I purchased a Blu-ray player last year, I've been watching favorite "five-star" movies on almost a nightly basis as I've upgrade my coolest DVDs to Blu-ray. Watching a lot of classic films by a variety of directors in a short time is akin to attending a film school class, and my patience for films that do not "work" has thinned. This is the big reason why I have shrugged off the idea of seeing most 2013 films at the theater. That's not to say that I do not enjoy a guilty pleasure movie from time to time, but I do have a better idea for which new movies will quicken my pulse and which movies will not.

[jw007]

Originally Posted by octagon

The Great Unwashed like good movies too., you know.

The masses lined up to see Casablanca and The Maltese Falcon and Double Indemnity. They loved The Godfather and Jaws and Goodfellas. And while a lot of intellectuals might look a little sideways at something like Rocky, the masses had that one dead right.

True, but all of these films you mentioned came out in the 1940s to 1990. What about the last 20-25 years? The masses are clearly not the same anymore. Hollywood movies are just not as good anymore. Times have changed, right?

[jw007]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

jw007 touches on some of this with the movie snob discussion above, but my recent viewing habits have caused me to have rather high standards. Since I purchased a Blu-ray player last year, I've been watching favorite "five-star" movies on almost a nightly basis as I've upgrade my coolest DVDs to Blu-ray. Watching a lot of classic films by a variety of directors in a short time is akin to attending a film school class, and my patience for films that do not "work" has thinned. This is the big reason why I have shrugged off the idea of seeing most 2013 films at the theater. That's not to say that I do not enjoy a guilty pleasure movie from time to time, but I do have a better idea for which new movies will quicken my pulse and which movies will not.

The same thing happened to me, except it wasn't my upgrade to Blu-ray but my growing interest with the Criterion Collection. As I keep becoming exposed and aware of great films from all around the world and from my own land, I realize that there are plenty of great films that still need to be seen that I haven't seen yet. So why should I focus on today when I have almost 100 years of cinema to access from? I am just learning more about Jean Vigo and Pierre Étaix for example, and these are filmmakers I never would have known about had I not discovered films from the Criterion Collection.

I am very selective nowadays with the high prices at the box office ($10-12 a ticket?! It's outrageous! I can pretty much buy and own a Criterion film in high definition at massive discounts for the same price!). The home theater has taken off and independent movie theaters have suffered since the advent of DVD players and beyond. I feel better saving my money and owning films that I know are good.

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by jw007

True, but all of these films you mentioned came out in the 1940s to 1990. What about the last 20-25 years? The masses are clearly not the same anymore. Hollywood movies are just not as good anymore. Times have changed, right?

The Shawshank Redemption received a lukewarm critical reception in 1994, and it was not given sufficient promotion upon its release, but the masses embraced it over time as the word-of-mouth spread like wildfire. It's a great movie that proved quite well that the masses will still come if the filmmakers build.

(I missed the recent memo about how I'm supposed to participate in the backlash against The Shawshank Redemption, so I still rank it as one of my all-time favorite films.)

Here's another example, and I might get ridiculed here as such, but...

John Carter is an excellent Disney film that really captures the spirit of the old live-action Disney epics, like 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea or The Swiss Family Robinson. It's an awesomely sprawling adventure movie that brings the Edgar Rice Burroughs stories to life and conjures memories of reading those books with a nightlight after dark during childhood.

Most critics adopted John Carter as their sacrificial lamb of 2012, but the film has received some well-deserved cheers from every normal person I know who has seen it.

For the most part, the overall quality of Hollywood films seems to have taken a hit, though.

[brandon_260]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

I do not have enough Bergman titles, but that will change over time. I'm looking forward to Persona in a big way for a fourth Bergman addition next to The Seventh Seal, Wild Strawberries, and Fanny and Alexander.

By the way, I like your new avatar a lot, even if it is the wrong woman from that film. Haha.

Seriously, I love that scene where they are surrounded by bison.

I'm up to 14 Bergman films watched as of tonight, though his works are criminal under-represented in my collection. I've only got Fanny and Alexander, Summer Interlude, Autumn Sonata, and the Artificial Eye collection from the UK. Once I've got the latter two actually in my hands and watched, Bergman will likely be the director I've seen the most films from. I plan to pick up a few of his other films during the next Criterion sale. Likely The Magician, the Eclipse set, and maybe Scenes from a Marriage.

That bison scene is breathtaking. I don't know if any director can capture the world in as beautiful a way as Terrence Malick.

[CriterionJunkie]

Originally Posted by jw007

I agree with everything you wrote here.

It's okay to be a snob. Actually we shouldn't call ourselves snobs, but rather scholars or intellectuals, because we've been exposed to some very superior and advanced films compared to the masses who just go to see a movie for entertainment. Is it not okay to want cinema to also be a transcending experience as opposed to just popcorn thrills? I sure believe in the power of cinema, because as a filmmaker, I've experienced firsthand some short films and trailers I made myself that "moved me". A lot of people want eye candy but I want brain candy, and brain candy can be just as addictive as eye candy (if you just want to keep learning and learning). There just are people who are not on the level of others, as snobby as that sounds, its true. It's even more true if those people are close-minded to experiencing "advanced cinema" if all they seek is style over substance. The great thing is, anyone can make a movie, and that allows some people with great minds to fulfill their passions with all this technology we have today.

Yeah. I try not to be a 'snob' about cinema. I enjoy what I enjoy, and on occasion, I'll still watch movies released today. I'll probably leave a theater today either fairly entertained or just disappointed. But, as far as revisiting it later on home video repeatedly? Not a chance.

Today's standards for movies is like junk food. Taste good at the moment, but not good for you in the long run. But, I'm glad I have the Criterion collection to go to because, there are a lot more filmmakers old and new on the label that are worth checking out and discovering.

And, like yourself, I dabble in filmmaking as well! I find from my experience, that a lot of times, working with a limited budget just challenges oneself to figure out things practically to make it work. Whereas, when I've worked on a big budgeted film set, there seems to be so much time and money wasted and the end result usually turns out terrible.

I suppose that was the difference about filmmaking back in the day as compared to today. Financing films back then were far different from today's economy. Not to mention the cost of living was way cheaper then compared to today!

By the way, today I just picked up Samurai Rebellion! I've tried to hold off on that movie in high hopes that that and the rest of the other titles in the set it comes in would be released on Blu Ray! I couldn't wait. I am also hoping that they'll finally re-release Throne of Blood on Blu Ray very soon too! That is such a classic as well!!

[EPlay]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

I don't think that all hope is lost, but I definitely get what you're saying above.

The trailer for the new movie, Prisoners, looked right up my alley. Most of the reviews for the film are favorable, but several trusted review sites indicate that the film drops the ball pretty badly in the last half. It's too bad, because this sort of thing is par for course now. There are so many 2013 movies that look incredible at first, but my spider sense is triggered by a few red flags when I do a little bit of research online. I was thinking of checking Prisoners out this weekend, but I'm more fired up about watching Blu-rays here.

I saw Prisoners today and I think there is a big issue with the script. Certain plot points don't make sense to my satisfaction.

And I was really disappointed that my favorite line delivery in the trailer (Howard's "What have you done?!?!" in that quavery voice is not in the film -- instead, he says something else.)

I don't know what's up with the B&N Buy2Get1 Criterion sale. I ordered 3 titles and received an e-mail 1-1/2 days later that they're sorry, despite their efforts they could not get 2 of the titles and only 1 would be shipping. One minute later, another e-mail with the same expected ship date for all 3 titles. Well, if I only get one from a B2G1, it makes no sense and I'll have to return the one!! And they couldn't have tried very hard to get it in 1-1/2 days! (The titles were Seconds, The Spy Who Came in from the Cold and La Cage aux Folles, with possibly only Spy shipping.)

[Visco.]

Originally Posted by EPlay

I saw Prisoners today and I think there is a big issue with the script. Certain plot points don't make sense to my satisfaction.

And I was really disappointed that my favorite line delivery in the trailer (Howard's "What have you done?!?!" in that quavery voice is not in the film -- instead, he says something else.)

I also found Prisoners very disappointing. The script just didn't seem like it was bringing anything at all new to the table. It was the same old mystery thriller with the same old distressed characters and the director didn't inject any new personalities into it.

The only reason it got a 2.5/4 from me is the performances (mainly Gyllenhaal's), the cinematography, and the sound design.

[ravenus]

Originally Posted by CriterionJunkie

Today's standards for movies is like junk food. Taste good at the moment, but not good for you in the long run. But, I'm glad I have the Criterion collection to go to because, there are a lot more filmmakers old and new on the label that are worth checking out and discovering.

Hopefully you're not restricting yourself to only what is available on Criterion's label because there're a number of labels out there with very interesting output. For instance, Second Run from the UK has a great repertoire of East European cinema, a good amount of which does not seem to have grabbed Criterion's attention, and even some wonderful Indian arthouse cinema. Sure, they're DVD only but I don't think a genuine film fan should be fazed by that. The transfers are pretty awesome for that format and they generally have very interesting video essays from the film-makers themselves or from cinema critics that give a lot of insight into the film.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by jw007

True, but all of these films you mentioned came out in the 1940s to 1990. What about the last 20-25 years? The masses are clearly not the same anymore. Hollywood movies are just not as good anymore. Times have changed, right?

Eh, times haven't really changed all that much. The masses have always liked fluff and they've always appreciated more sophisticated fare. Do the proportions nudge this way or that over time? Maybe. But I'm a pretty firm believer in the more things change, the more they stay the same and I really believe that when it comes to people.

As for Hollywood, yeah Hollywood has changed but so what. The 'studio system' got supplanted by a different studio system which got supplanted by yet another studio system and now that's morphing into a mix of corporate studios and various smaller and independant producers. So what?

Hollywood makes crappy movies but they still make good movies and other people make a whole bunch of movies both crappy and good and that's all that really matters.

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

As I've been watching the Dirty Harry Collection this weekend, I've also been going through all of the included documentaries. As I've watched the Clint Eastwood biographies (there are about three or four of them in this box set), I've noticed that most of the movies in his acting and directing canon were dismissed by critics altogether until after he filmed Unforgiven. Up until that point, several amazing and culturally relevant movies, like the first Dirty Harry film or The Outlaw Josey Wales, were not properly acknowledged by the prestigious critic crowd, but the public knew that these movies were a good thing.

When Abdrewes sets up the 1970s poll in a few weeks, my Top 20 is probably going to include a lot of flicks starring Eastwood. That decade was when he hit a stride.

Yeah, even the so-called Spaghetti Westerns have gained 'cinephile cred' over the years.

As well they should.

[pedromvu]

For anyone interested on the probable September 50% off sale at Criterion, I just checked the dates from last 3 sales (last September one being on the 24) it seems they always tend to happen on the first 2 days of the week, so seems very probable it could be tomorrow or Tuesday, but who knows, let's see what happens.

But better to start doing our wishlists, because the newer titles usually get out of stock before the sale ends.

[pro-bassoonist]

Shadows Blu-ray REVIEW

[HuggyBear73]

Originally Posted by pedromvu

For anyone interested on the probable September 50% off sale at Criterion, I just checked the dates from last 3 sales (last September one being on the 24) it seems they always tend to happen on the first 2 days of the week, so seems very probable it could be tomorrow or Tuesday, but who knows, let's see what happens.

But better to start doing our wishlists, because the newer titles usually get out of stock before the sale ends.

What time does this sale usually go live?

[spanky87]

I just got the Rosselini/Bergman set. I thought the english Language version of Stromboli was sopposed to be shorter than the Italian one. Cover shows English 106 minutes, Italian 100 minutes.

Beautiful looking set by the way.

[jw007]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

The Shawshank Redemption received a lukewarm critical reception in 1994, and it was not given sufficient promotion upon its release, but the masses embraced it over time as the word-of-mouth spread like wildfire. It's a great movie that proved quite well that the masses will still come if the filmmakers build.

(I missed the recent memo about how I'm supposed to participate in the backlash against The Shawshank Redemption, so I still rank it as one of my all-time favorite films.)

Here's another example, and I might get ridiculed here as such, but...

John Carter is an excellent Disney film that really captures the spirit of the old live-action Disney epics, like 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea or The Swiss Family Robinson. It's an awesomely sprawling adventure movie that brings the Edgar Rice Burroughs stories to life and conjures memories of reading those books with a nightlight after dark during childhood.

Most critics adopted John Carter as their sacrificial lamb of 2012, but the film has received some well-deserved cheers from every normal person I know who has seen it.

For the most part, the overall quality of Hollywood films seems to have taken a hit, though.

I have to admit, I caught that movie, John Carter, on a cable channel earlier this year and was hooked. Eventually I changed the channel, but I must say, it wasn't bad and actually was rather thrilling at times. Of course, Shawshank is a modern day classic, but movies like that are not a dime a dozen.

[jw007]

Originally Posted by CriterionJunkie

Yeah. I try not to be a 'snob' about cinema. I enjoy what I enjoy, and on occasion, I'll still watch movies released today. I'll probably leave a theater today either fairly entertained or just disappointed. But, as far as revisiting it later on home video repeatedly? Not a chance.

Today's standards for movies is like junk food. Taste good at the moment, but not good for you in the long run. But, I'm glad I have the Criterion collection to go to because, there are a lot more filmmakers old and new on the label that are worth checking out and discovering.

And, like yourself, I dabble in filmmaking as well! I find from my experience, that a lot of times, working with a limited budget just challenges oneself to figure out things practically to make it work. Whereas, when I've worked on a big budgeted film set, there seems to be so much time and money wasted and the end result usually turns out terrible.

I suppose that was the difference about filmmaking back in the day as compared to today. Financing films back then were far different from today's economy. Not to mention the cost of living was way cheaper then compared to today!

By the way, today I just picked up Samurai Rebellion! I've tried to hold off on that movie in high hopes that that and the rest of the other titles in the set it comes in would be released on Blu Ray! I couldn't wait. I am also hoping that they'll finally re-release Throne of Blood on Blu Ray very soon too! That is such a classic as well!!

Yes, all good and true here indeed. Many big movies today are like junk/fast food. They promise thrills and chills, lead you on with false advertising in trailers and deliver crap in the end. Fortunately I'll never be addicted to bad movies (if they are indeed junk food), so I won't have to worry about that problem.

I'd be curious to hear what kinds of films you've shot? If you don't wish to share this on here, send me a private message if you'd like.

[Yami]

Originally Posted by JJJ225

We certainly don't know that they do. But it sees reasonable that they might with Persona on the horizon.

Criterion have a good relationship with MGM so I wouldn't be surprised if they do, but the rights to Persona reverted back to Svensk Filmindustri from MGM before Criterion licensed it.