The Criterion Collection

[dsman71]

Im waiting for October for Halloween and all my horror stuff.. including Island of Lost Souls from Criterion. I was considering Diabolique but would that be considered *horror* ? Its creepy that's for sure ( and a great film)

[Dumbhuman]

Originally Posted by TJS_Blu

In case you don't know, The Unknown Known is out on the festival circuit...I think it debuted at Venice. It's a "Fog-like" interview with Rumsfeld which some PC-folks and some Mac-folks (presumably) said was too easy on the subject.

I haven't seen it yet, but I doubt Morris was easy on the subject. I remember reading a piece where he described expectations of The Unknown Known as The Fog of War 2, but he really thinks it's more akin to Tabloid 2. In other words, it's more about a person who's essentially bought into their own delusions and distorted realities about himself. McNamara was essentially from a less media-intensive era which didn't require such convincing belief in his own propaganda and he's also had a lot more time to reflect and change his perspectives.

Sounds plausible to me anyway. If Criterion does start releasing Errol Morris films, I'd love to have them presented with extras consisting of just hours of unedited footage, but I suppose that's a pipe dream.

[RipleyLV426]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

My guess is that it will probably be, at best, a marginal picture quality upgrade over the existing Criterion Blu-ray, which I've heard is superb.

I really should upgrade my old DVD of Cocteau's Beauty and the Beast at some point, because the makeup effects in the movie are out of this world. I've got some bigger fish to fry right now, though.

I always like seeing that Marilyn Monroe avatar.

lol, thanks...it always makes me smile looking at her,so natural, and candid like that. Hard to top!

Definitely get the Criterion blu for Beauty. It's quite a gorgeous film to behold. The slightly surreal sets and costumes give it that magical aura.

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by dsman71

Im waiting for October for Halloween and all my horror stuff.. including Island of Lost Souls from Criterion. I was considering Diabolique but would that be considered *horror* ? Its creepy that's for sure ( and a great film)

Diabolique is not only a horror film, but one of the best horror films. Alfred Hitchcock was so blown away by this film that he decided to make Psycho. Now, you don't have zombies, vampires, or people in masks running around and jumping at people, but it's still a horror movie through and through.

[jw007]

Originally Posted by ravenus

Star Wars kinda killed the market for adult SF films IMO. Once studios saw what a killing they could make on one-note fairy tale characters in a pseudo SF setting, they did not want to put up big money for more ambitious less merchandise-friendly SF movies any more.
Soderbergh's Solaris is IMO an excellent film, but had a dismal BO fate. There have also been some rather interesting low-budget SF films - Cube, Timecrimes, Pi etc

Yes, you're probably right about this. The 1970s saw some rather intelligent sci-fi films (Soylent Green, Silent Running, Slaughterhouse Five, Fantastic Planet and even Logan's Run (at least with the part played by Peter Ustinov)) and then Star Wars came out and created the blockbuster sci-fi genre. I think the second half of the 1980s was the worst era for science fiction films (with the exception of Aliens, Back to the Future, Robocop, Predator and The Abyss - and maybe Spaceballs and Star Trek IV) and then the 1990s saw a resurgence of sci fi with the advent of CGI.

I think Soderbergh's Solaris as well as Gattaca and Moon are some of the most intelligent sci-fi films of the last 15 or so years. Other sci-fi films that have come out in the last 15-20 years that are intelligent are Donnie Darko, The Fountain, Minority Report, The Matrix, Primer, Pi, Dark City, Contact, Children of Men, 12 Monkeys and Wall-E.

[jw007]

Originally Posted by goette

"Primer", from Shane Carruth, would be a good bet.

At least they could put some extras to explain the movie.

Absolutely... this sci-fi film would fit perfectly in the Criterion Collection.

[jw007]

Originally Posted by jayembee

Like many things when it comes to Criterion, it's a matter of licensing. It's not just "contemporary" SF that they're missing, but SF in general, at least in comparison to other genres. Including non-contemporary films, there's less than a dozen films that qualify, and one of those went OOP because Criterion lost their license.

[Show spoiler]Compare to the laserdisc days, when because they were dealing with license-friendly companies, they had the likes of Blade Runner, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Forbidden Planet, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Robocop (which made it to DVD, but not for long before they lost the license), and Akira. Only four of their SF films on LD made it to Blu-ray: Brazil, The Blob, Robinson Crusoe on Mars (which is something of a special case), and The Man Who Fell to Earth (which has gone OOP).

I think the problem with contemporary SF films is two-fold:

(1) They've largely gone the more action/adventure route than the cerebral. This doesn't mean they can't be good, but it makes them more attractive to the major studios, which brings me to...

(2) They've become the province of the major studios (Warner, Disney, Fox, Paramount, et alia) who are, at best, reluctant to license out their titles. Unfortunately, Strange Days is one of them, having been released by Fox, as was Soderbergh's version of Solaris.

(To be honest, I wasn't that impressed by Strange Days, though I haven't seen it since it was first released. I should revisit it sometime...I think it's available in HD on Netflix.)

The only "contemporary" SF film that I can think of from a major studio that would be up Criterion's ally that they could possibly license, since it's from Universal, would be 12 Monkeys. It's not a film I'm taken with, but I can see it being something that Criterion would probably do a great job with.

Given that Sony is starting to thaw out regarding licensing, we can hope that Criterion will be able to acquire films like Gattaca and Moon (which got a decently extra'd release from Sony) at some point.

Others that would make good Criterion releases, but held by Magnolia, would be Monsters (which has an extras-stacked release from them) and Europa Report.

There are some other indie SF films that would make good Criterion releases, but I'm not sure if they'd be available for licensing (some are with MGM/UA, and lord only knows if they still have them). Certainly there are the spate of "nuclear fear" films from the 80s, among the best being Testament, Threads (which would make a great twofer release with The War Game), and Miracle Mile.

Another one I'd love to see is Michael Radford's Nineteen Eighty-Four, which could make a hell of a package from Criterion. I can see them releasing a set that included versions with and without the desaturated color, and with and without the Eurythmics soundtrack, as well as the 1956 Michael Anderson version (originally released by Sony, I think, so it's not impossible), the 1953 Studio One TV version (which would either be owned by Sony, or in the Public Domain), and the 1954 BBC TV version.

Very good, very good. I'd say the trend from cerebral sci-fi to action-oriented sci-fi started in the late 1970s after the whole Star Wars success. Of course every now and then we have very intelligent science fiction films (Moon, Gattaca, Solaris, Donnie Darko, The Fountain, Minority Report, The Matrix, Primer, Pi, Dark City, Contact, Children of Men, 12 Monkeys, Wall-E) but for the most part today's sci-fi is all brainless, action-packed, heavily CGI'ed films. Even the new Star Trek movies by J.J. Abrams are just lacking the cerebral/thoughtfulness of the old Star Trek that brought up a lot of social commentary, humanity, spirituality, philosophy and existentialism. Personally, I prefer the old science fiction before style over substance took precedence.

I also enjoyed Michael Radford's 1984 with John Hurt a lot. This would fit in nicely in Criterion. The other versions also would make this for a good box set package. Maybe in 2014 (the 30th anniversary of this film), this will all come to Blu-ray?

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by ravenus

Star Wars kinda killed the market for adult SF films IMO. Once studios saw what a killing they could make on one-note fairy tale characters in a pseudo SF setting, they did not want to put up big money for more ambitious less merchandise-friendly SF movies any more.
Soderbergh's Solaris is IMO an excellent film, but had a dismal BO fate. There have also been some rather interesting low-budget SF films - Cube, Timecrimes, Pi etc

At the risk of being an apologist for Star Wars (I loved the original three films when they first came out, but by the mid-90s, I just couldn't watch them anymore) I think it's a specious argument to lay the blame for the lack of adult SF on it. Yes, its overwhelming popularity laid the groundwork for big-budget, action-filled SF films from the major studios. But it also made it possible for adult SF films like Blade Runner and Soderbergh's Solaris to get financed by the big studios. Think of all the big-budget SF films that followed Star Wars that you like, and it's probable that most of those wouldn't have gotten made if not for Star Wars.

But more to the point...what you call "adult SF films" are, and always have been, aberrations. There have always been such films in the history of SF cinema, but they've been the minority. The typical SF films across the decades have been ones like Invaders from Mars, Them, Village of the Damned, Queen of Outer Space, and Rocketship X-M, not Things to Come, 2001, and Solaris.

Originally Posted by jw007

Very good, very good. I'd say the trend from cerebral sci-fi to action-oriented sci-fi started in the late 1970s after the whole Star Wars success. Of course every now and then we have very intelligent science fiction films (Moon, Gattaca, Solaris, Donnie Darko, The Fountain, Minority Report, The Matrix, Primer, Pi, Dark City, Contact, Children of Men, 12 Monkeys, Wall-E) but for the most part today's sci-fi is all brainless, action-packed, heavily CGI'ed films. Even the new Star Trek movies by J.J. Abrams are just lacking the cerebral/thoughtfulness of the old Star Trek that brought up a lot of social commentary, humanity, spirituality, philosophy and existentialism. Personally, I prefer the old science fiction before style over substance took precedence.

I don't think there's really any difference between pre- and post-Star Wars SF films, in general. In both cases, the majority are divided up between "brainless, action-packed" films and intelligent, action-packed films, with a smaller number of cerebral, not-so-much-action films.

And I think you give some films a little too much credit. While Star Trek has its share of "social commentary, humanity, spirituality, philosophy and existentialism", I think with most of the films in that series (as well as in the TV episodes) it's remarkably superficial. Same with some of the 1970s films you mentioned.

Thoughtfulness is all well and good, but in the end, the film has to work as a story, and an awful lot of the action-packed SF blockbusters work terrifically well as stories. Say what you will about the Abrams ST movies not being as thoughtful, they're still enjoyable as hell. Give me either of those over The Voyage Home. And give me any of James Cameron's films over Soylent Green and Logan's Run.

I also enjoyed Michael Radford's 1984 with John Hurt a lot. This would fit in nicely in Criterion. The other versions also would make this for a good box set package. Maybe in 2014 (the 30th anniversary of this film), this will all come to Blu-ray?

We can only hope.

[smoss469]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

This is a seriously awesome haul.

Trying to decide which 1 to watch first. I've been wanting to watch M for a while but Letters Never Sent just sounds so damn interesting.

I might have problems, I'm already thinking of ordering a few more CC releases, DVDs this time. Maybe Rififi or the always popular and much praised Le Samourai

Off topic, but does anyone have any first hand experience with the Studio Canal release of La Grande Illusion?

[mrjohnnyb]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

Diabolique is not only a horror film, but one of the best horror films. Alfred Hitchcock was so blown away by this film that he decided to make Psycho. Now, you don't have zombies, vampires, or people in masks running around and jumping at people, but it's still a horror movie through and through.

I suppose it depends on your definition of horror, but I would not consider Diabolique to be in the horror genre. For me, horror has to have an element of the supernatural. However, I would label Diabolique a thriller.

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by smoss469

Off topic, but does anyone have any first hand experience with the Studio Canal release of La Grande Illusion?

I sure do. The StudioCanal Blu-ray of La Grande Illusion is a thing of beauty. The picture quality is stunning, and the extras go into detail about the restoration process. As much as I loved my old Criterion DVD, this Blu-ray soars miles above it in terms of the video presentation.

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by mrjohnnyb

I suppose it depends on your definition of horror, but I would not consider Diabolique to be in the horror genre. For me, horror has to have an element of the supernatural. However, I would label Diabolique a thriller.

I cannot give this the answer it deserves without revealing spoilers, but Diabolique does vaguely flirt with the possibility of a supernatural presence. I understand your point, though.

There's no right or wrong answer when it comes to how one defines the horror genre, but my own definition does not require an element of the supernatural. In fact, my personal favorite horror movie of all time happens to be Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho, a movie with no supernatural elements at all.

[AgentOrange]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

Most of the reviews that I've read about the Criterion Blu-ray of Beauty and the Beast say nothing but happy things about the picture quality considering the source limitations. I have yet to see the Blu-ray for myself, but even the 2003 Criterion DVD did not look half bad.

I have watched this blu-ray several times, and I would call it about "average" in terms of PQ for a film of it's age. It didn't really jump out at me either way. There were some vertical lines visible on screen, and maybe a spec here and there. Detail wasn't the greatest, but it wasn't bad either.

Of course there's no way to know if they could have done better, or it truly is limited by source materials or age related circumstances.

[CriterionJunkie]

I just picked up Down By Law on Blu and Samurai Rebellion on DVD. I couldn't hold off for that one. I've been waiting but couldn't take it.

My next purchases I'm looking at are either Roberto Rossellini's War Trilogy or 3 Films with Ingmar Bergman set. But, I am holding off for that big boxed set of all the Zatoichi films!

[brandon_260]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

I sure do. The StudioCanal Blu-ray of La Grande Illusion is a thing of beauty. The picture quality is stunning, and the extras go into detail about the restoration process. As much as I loved my old Criterion DVD, this Blu-ray soars miles above it in terms of the video presentation.

How does the film compare to The Rules of the Game? I watched that within the last month and I adored it.

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by brandon_260

How does the film compare to The Rules of the Game? I watched that within the last month and I adored it.

Both films are wonderful, but I prefer La Grande Illusion. It's a prison escape film, for one thing, and I love those. It shares a few similarities with The Rules of the Game when it comes to observations about the effects of war on aristocracy. La Grand Illusion has more favorable undertones about the nature of aristocracy in an offbeat way, though, because it focuses on the "gentlemanly decency" aspect of the upper social classes, even among soldiers from opposing countries.

[brandon_260]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

Both films are wonderful, but I prefer La Grande Illusion. It's a prison escape film, for one thing, and I love those. It shares a few similarities with The Rules of the Game when it comes to observations about the effects of war on aristocracy. La Grand Illusion has more favorable undertones about the nature of aristocracy in an offbeat way, though, because it focuses on the "gentlemanly decency" aspect of the upper social classes, even among soldiers from opposing countries.

Interesting. I've had my eye on the blu-ray release for a while, even more so after I watched The Rules of the Game. It has hit some pretty low prices on amazon.ca, so I've got the price tracker set for it.

[zkirkland]

I watched Eyes Without A Face tonight. The score by Maurice Jarre makes me want to watch Lawrence of Arabia for the thousandth time. This movie is eerie personified and quite horrifying. I don't think I'll be picking up the Blu Ray in October but it was a great watch.

[jw007]

Originally Posted by jayembee

I don't think there's really any difference between pre- and post-Star Wars SF films, in general. In both cases, the majority are divided up between "brainless, action-packed" films and intelligent, action-packed films, with a smaller number of cerebral, not-so-much-action films.

And I think you give some films a little too much credit. While Star Trek has its share of "social commentary, humanity, spirituality, philosophy and existentialism", I think with most of the films in that series (as well as in the TV episodes) it's remarkably superficial. Same with some of the 1970s films you mentioned.

Thoughtfulness is all well and good, but in the end, the film has to work as a story, and an awful lot of the action-packed SF blockbusters work terrifically well as stories. Say what you will about the Abrams ST movies not being as thoughtful, they're still enjoyable as hell. Give me either of those over The Voyage Home. And give me any of James Cameron's films over Soylent Green and Logan's Run.

I have no issue disagreeing with you on the second and third paragraphs. To me, these new Trek films are at times unwatchable, only because of how unrealistic they are. I mean, I guess the old movies are pretty unrealistic as well but at least in the Voyage Home, when Chekov fell off a deck at 20 feet and almost died, it was more realistic than Abrams' Khan crashing through asteroids and falling hundreds of feet onto his back and just getting up and beating up Spock. I mean, it just gets a bit silly and ridiculous with some of these new films and to me its pretty laughable trying to take it all seriously when at times it feels like I'm watching characters in a video game. I guess I take Trek pretty seriously, but maybe I'm just a "Trekkie".

Alright, now lets get back to Criterion talk again.

[jw007]

I watched La Haine again a few nights ago, and wow, what an amazing film. I didn't think much of it the first time I saw it last year but now I think its quite an achievement, especially in the history of French society. It's too bad Kassovitz directed one of the worst sci-fi films of all time years later (Babylon A.D.), but La Haine is everything and then some.