The Criterion Collection

[shadedpain4]

Originally Posted by spargs

I'm not much into preordering more than a week before release date, but for that large a discount on a Criterion release, I made an exception and preordered it myself!

Is that really that cheap? 5 weeks later it should be $25, $22 if you're a member, well below $20 if there are any coupons, at B&N.

[Tardis20]

Originally Posted by shadedpain4

Is that really that cheap? 5 weeks later it should be $25, $22 if you're a member, well below $20 if there are any coupons, at B&N.

There is a disconnect between the SRP on Criterion and Amazon so it depends on how you look at it. If indeed it should be $50 then $27 is only $2 more then 50% off sales...so it sounds good to me! If it should be $40 then I agree not as good...

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by shadedpain4

Is that really that cheap? 5 weeks later it should be $25, $22 if you're a member, well below $20 if there are any coupons, at B&N.

It's not the cheapest it'll be, but for a day one price, nearly 50% off is very good.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by Tardis20

Just a question for discussion but how can a terrible actor who is the main star be in great films? I'm not saying it's impossible but it seems like these two factors would go against each other happening more then once? I don't think Wayne is the greatest actor but he did very well in a lot of roles for the part, which is not something a terrible actor could do...

Well, in my opinion, when a film is a great film it's because of a large number of factors that usually have nothing to do with how good the star is. Wayne's virtue is that he has a large screen "presence" which compensates for what he lacks in acting ability. That's what makes a star.

There are any number of major film actors, past and present, whose star quality I think is much greater than their actual acting ability. Not that they're all terrible as actors, just that they're bona fide "stars", but not outstanding actors. In my opinion, some of the ones I include in this group are Humphrey Bogart, Errol Flynn, Steve McQueen, Elizabeth Taylor, Will Smith and Sandra Bullock.

[belcherman]

[quote=Tardis20;8819406]

Originally Posted by jayembee

Not necessarily. I'm not a fan of John Wayne, either. Quite frankly, I think he's a terrible actor. He was always more of a star than an actor. That said, I probably have more films in my collection starring him than any other actor. He just had a knack for finding himself in some great films from some great directors. Even John Ford, who worked with him regularly, was surprised by his performance in Red River. He reportedly commented, "I didn't know the big sonofabïtch could act."

Just a question for discussion but how can a terrible actor who is the main star be in great films? I'm not saying it's impossible but it seems like these two factors would go against each other happening more then once? I don't think Wayne is the greatest actor but he did very well in a lot of roles for the part, which is not something a terrible actor could do...

Nice quote from Ford, haha.

John Wayne was very good at playing the same John Wayne character. So good, in fact, that most of the roles he starred in were written specifically for him, playing that John Wayne character. This is not a knock against him -- he was very good at what he did, but for the most part, he didn't have to stretch himself that much.

[MifuneFan]

I wouldn't say John Wayne was a great actor, but he did iconic roles that wouldn't be the same with a different actor.. It wasn't just his presence, but also the way he acted in them that make those movies memorable. He has shown signs of greatness from time to time, but I think one of the main problems is he didn't do many movies that demanded amazing acting, or many that would show any potential range. He was the prototypical type-cast actor, but he still made a great career out of that.

[ShellOilJunior]

John Wayne was a personality. Same with Cary Grant and James Stewart. Nothing wrong with it.

There's so few of them today.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by jw007

every time i hear "john wayne", i think of myself... cause my initials, j.w., stand for that too. lol...well, jonathan, not john...but its close enough, right?

you are my favorite J Wayne, though... it's close, but I give you the nod.

[belcherman]

Originally Posted by jayembee

Well, in my opinion, when a film is a great film it's because of a large number of factors that usually have nothing to do with how good the star is. Wayne's virtue is that he has a large screen "presence" which compensates for what he lacks in acting ability. That's what makes a star.

There are any number of major film actors, past and present, whose star quality I think is much greater than their actual acting ability. Not that they're all terrible as actors, just that they're bona fide "stars", but not outstanding actors. In my opinion, some of the ones I include in this group are Humphrey Bogart, Errol Flynn, Steve McQueen, Elizabeth Taylor, Will Smith and Sandra Bullock.

I agree with most of what you say, except when you say that Bogart and Elizabeth Taylor weren't great actors. Bogart had depth and range, especially later in his career. Think of an actor who could have done all of these roles:

In a Lonely Place
The African Queen
Sabrina
The Caine Mutiny
We're No Angels

As for Elizabeth Taylor, if you haven't seen "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?", check it out. If she only did that one movie, it would be a career most other actors could only dream about.

Sure, Bogart and Taylor both made a lot of forgettable movies. When they were good, however, they were very, very good.

[mallomar]

Originally Posted by AgentOrange

I get THEIR explanation - and I know it's a cost cutting measure. Period.

1+1 Combo-packs don't bother me per se - I have alot of these BD+DVD+UV combo packs. However in Criterion's case because of the change of packaging (required by 1+2), a have to take issue with what they are doing.

My opinion is they shouldn't have made *EVERY* release a combo pack. Only those that can fit on 1 disc + 1 disc. If it requires a box set, then you have to separate them. At worst, how much would it really hurt just to knock out an extra or two from the DVD to "make it fit"? Not to punish DVD-only owners, but at some point they do have to move on - don't they?

Look at Zatoichi set. That thing is just insane to me - 9 BD, 18 DVD(!!!).

This exactly. For a single film, these things are about as wide as a VHS tape. Part of the fun of collecting Criterions has always been that they're fetishizable as physical entities. These big boats with one blu-ray in them are simply not pleasing objects.

[TJS_Blu]

Originally Posted by belcherman

I agree with most of what you say, except when you say that Bogart and Elizabeth Taylor weren't great actors. Bogart had depth and range, especially later in his career.

He didn't say that they weren't great actors. He said

whose star quality I think is much greater than their actual acting ability

But, I'm with you, at least on Bogart. He was a very good actor and demonstrated range. No swipe at Liz, haven't seen enough of her work.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by TJS_Blu

He didn't say that they weren't great actors. He said



But, I'm with you, at least on Bogart. He was a very good actor and demonstrated range. No swipe at Liz, haven't seen enough of her work.

with the Liz Taylor mention and Montgomery Clift addition to Criterion blu ray, it got me thinking that A Place In the Sun needs a blu ray release! hopefully this year.

[Tardis20]

Originally Posted by jayembee

Well, in my opinion, when a film is a great film it's because of a large number of factors that usually have nothing to do with how good the star is. Wayne's virtue is that he has a large screen "presence" which compensates for what he lacks in acting ability. That's what makes a star.

There are any number of major film actors, past and present, whose star quality I think is much greater than their actual acting ability. Not that they're all terrible as actors, just that they're bona fide "stars", but not outstanding actors. In my opinion, some of the ones I include in this group are Humphrey Bogart, Errol Flynn, Steve McQueen, Elizabeth Taylor, Will Smith and Sandra Bullock.

I can go with that overall. Fair enough.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by belcherman

I agree with most of what you say, except when you say that Bogart and Elizabeth Taylor weren't great actors. Bogart had depth and range, especially later in his career. Think of an actor who could have done all of these roles:

In a Lonely Place
The African Queen
Sabrina
The Caine Mutiny
We're No Angels

As for Elizabeth Taylor, if you haven't seen "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?", check it out. If she only did that one movie, it would be a career most other actors could only dream about.

Sure, Bogart and Taylor both made a lot of forgettable movies. When they were good, however, they were very, very good.

I love Bogart. I really do. (In fact, I greatly enjoy all of the actors I listed -- except for Taylor, whom I've never warmed to.) But again, I think he was more of a "star" than an actor. John Huston could pull a really good performance out of him -- The African Queen and The Treasure of the Sierra Madre were perhaps his best performances -- but in most cases, he didn't dazzle me. Contemporaries of his who could consistently dazzle me were Henry Fonda, Spencer Tracy, and William Powell, as well as Cary Grant and Jimmy Stewart (both of whom I think were far more than just "personalities") and Clark Gable.

As for Taylor, ...Virginia Woolf was a terrific performance, but to me it was a rare thing. She wasn't a patch on Katherine Hepburn, Joan Crawford, Rosalind Russell, or Bette Davis, all of whom were consistently excellent. It's like Sandra Bullock today -- she acted her heart out in Gravity, but no other performance of hers has struck me as being anything of note.

I'm reminded of an old usenet discussion of Casino, back when the film first came out. Many people pointed out how surprisingly good Sharon Stone was in the film, and one person responded, "Well, Scorsese can get -- and has gotten -- a great performance out of a baseball bat."

[lordmorpheus72]

Originally Posted by Polaroid

tad off topic but check out Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket and Paths of Glory, I have never been big on war films but like you, Thin Red Line changed me, as did Full Metal Jacket, just shame only Paths is on Criterion.

Thanks, I've seen Full Metal Jacket and quote a few others, but still need to see Paths of Glory. I've really come to enjoy war movies and films over the last 5 - 10 years.

[belcherman]

Originally Posted by jayembee

I love Bogart. I really do. (In fact, I greatly enjoy all of the actors I listed -- except for Taylor, whom I've never warmed to.) But again, I think he was more of a "star" than an actor. John Huston could pull a really good performance out of him -- The African Queen and The Treasure of the Sierra Madre were perhaps his best performances -- but in most cases, he didn't dazzle me. Contemporaries of his who could consistently dazzle me were Henry Fonda, Spencer Tracy, and William Powell, as well as Cary Grant and Jimmy Stewart (both of whom I think were far more than just "personalities") and Clark Gable.

As for Taylor, ...Virginia Woolf was a terrific performance, but to me it was a rare thing. She wasn't a patch on Katherine Hepburn, Joan Crawford, Rosalind Russell, or Bette Davis, all of whom were consistently excellent. It's like Sandra Bullock today -- she acted her heart out in Gravity, but no other performance of hers has struck me as being anything of note.

I'm reminded of an old usenet discussion of Casino, back when the film first came out. Many people pointed out how surprisingly good Sharon Stone was in the film, and one person responded, "Well, Scorsese can get -- and has gotten -- a great performance out of a baseball bat."

I guess we can agree to disagree. I would put Bogart on par with the other actors you mentioned. The five films I mentioned were with five different directors, so I don't think it was just a matter of a great director "pulling" a performance out of him.

And speaking of Fonda and William Powell, I would love a Criterion blu of Mr. Roberts (to get this thread back on track).

[deepbreathsanddeath]

I'm really interested in checking out more Indian films or films set in India. I only have The River (French Import) and The Darjeeling Limited I believe but I'm interrelated in getting the Satyajit Ray's films. Can anyone recommend great films set in India with beautiful cinematography?

[ShellOilJunior]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

with the Liz Taylor mention and Montgomery Clift addition to Criterion blu ray, it got me thinking that A Place In the Sun needs a blu ray release! hopefully this year.

It is in the works.

George Stevens, Jr. has confirmed it.

[ShellOilJunior]

Originally Posted by jayembee

I'm reminded of an old usenet discussion of Casino, back when the film first came out. Many people pointed out how surprisingly good Sharon Stone was in the film, and one person responded, "Well, Scorsese can get -- and has gotten -- a great performance out of a baseball bat."

The TV censored version of Casino is hilarious.

"Freak you!"

[Sinthetic]

Originally Posted by deepbreathsanddeath

I'm really interested in checking out more Indian films or films set in India. I only have The River (French Import) and The Darjeeling Limited I believe but I'm interrelated in getting the Satyajit Ray's films. Can anyone recommend great films set in India with beautiful cinematography?

Do yourself a favour and watch the excellent Monsoon Wedding.