The Criterion Collection

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by BAMJoe

What is the consensus on Il Sorpasso and The Great Beauty?

Haven't seen Il Sorpasso but the Great Beauty was good. I don't think it's a classic, but I definitely did like it.

My favorite post 1980 Itslian film is still Cinena Paradiso though.

[Scottie]

Originally Posted by Clare2904

Was this with the audio commentary? Whilst I still didn't like it enough to keep, I found that it helped me understand the film and gave me more appreciation.

Nope. I never watch the commentaries.

My biggest issue with Lloyd is that I don't find any of his slapstick to be funny. It all feels repetitive and tedious.

[Clare2904]

Originally Posted by iScottie

Nope. I never watch the commentaries.

My biggest issue with Lloyd is that I don't find any of his slapstick to be funny. It all feels repetitive and tedious.

Fair enough I personally find them educational but that may be due to me still being a "newbie" to the world of cine.

[skylog]

Originally Posted by Roninblues

Battle of Algiers - Favorite of the three
400 Blows - Well done but a sad tale.
Hearts and Minds - Assuming you wouldn't enjoy enjoy garbage, I guess it is a must own (though I would never tell someone else what they must own as it is too pretentious). I bought my upgrade last night as I was participant over there and it is part of my personal history.

thank you for your thoughts. with regards to "hearts and minds," i suppose "garbage" was the wrong word, but it just appears to be such a polarizing title. when i was searching around for opinions it seemed people simply loved it or hated it. not much middle ground.

[JoeBuck]

Originally Posted by iScottie

Nope. I never watch the commentaries.

My biggest issue with Lloyd is that I don't find any of his slapstick to be funny. It all feels repetitive and tedious.

You should definitely give some of them a shot some time!
Some directors can be extremely entertaining. For example, Frank Henenlotter has some amazing/hilarious/gross stories (especially on his commentary track for Brain Damage, my all time favorite track), and Scorsese is always a joy to listen to as well.

[Danchez]

Originally Posted by BAMJoe

What is the consensus on Il Sorpasso and The Great Beauty?

Two of my absolute favorite Criterion blind-buys ever.

[The Narrator]

Originally Posted by JoeBuck

You should definitely give some of them a shot some time!
Some directors can be extremely entertaining. For example, Frank Henenlotter has some amazing/hilarious/gross stories (especially on his commentary track for Brain Damage, my all time favorite track), and Scorsese is always a joy to listen to as well.

Soderbergh's commentaries are usually another level of excellent. I doubt I would have come around as much as I did on Ocean's Twelve without listening to his commentary.

[hustlermane]

Just watched Jacques Rivette's debut film, Paris Nous Appartient, on Hulu and it's excellent! Print looks to be in great shape as well, hope a physical release is soon. The fact that Criterion, in 2014, still hasn't released a Rivette film is almost fitting, like an inexplicable conspiracy from one of his films (though still frustrating).

[Snicket]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

You lost me at Anderson and auteur.

a filmmaker whose personal influence and artistic control over a movie are so great that the filmmaker is regarded as the author of the movie.

Sounds kinda hard to argue.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by Snicket

I don't even understand what this means. I don't think "Quirky" is a criticism anymore than "green" is.

Don't be silly. "Quirky" is as valid a comment -- positive or negative -- as, say, "melodramatic".

There are so few auteurs worth anything making movies now, thank goodness for Anderson. We need more filmmakers with a voice.

Absolutely. I'm not sure why you were castigating me on this point. What did you think I meant when I said "I think it's great that he has his fans who enjoy his movies. I'm just not one of them."?

Just because a filmmaker has a distinctive voice doesn't mean everyone has to like it.

[brandon_260]

Originally Posted by hustlermane

Just watched Jacques Rivette's debut film, Paris Nous Appartient, on Hulu and it's excellent! Print looks to be in great shape as well, hope a physical release is soon. The fact that Criterion, in 2014, still hasn't released a Rivette film is almost fitting, like an inexplicable conspiracy from one of his films (though still frustrating).

That's coming up on my watchlist soon. I've only seen Celine & Julie from Rivette, but it's an astonishing film. His body of work interests me so much, but it's also very intimidating.

I've spent my last couple days watching the Chabrol thrillers on Hulu. All three have their merits, but La Cérémonie is way above the others. Masques is the only one that doesn't seem to offer too much beyond its face value, but it's entertaining nonetheless.

[nondiatonic]

Tonight's haul:


Only blindbuy is Certified Copy. Started to get Like Someone In Love, but was sold by the extra feature film on both Certified Copy and Close Up. Will be adding a blindbuy of Breaking The Waves to max out my $100-or-less-per-Criterion-sale limit.

[JJJ225]

If you don't think Wes Anderson is an auteur, the only explanation is that you literally have no idea what an auteur is.

[Snicket]

Originally Posted by jayembee

Don't be silly. "Quirky" is as valid a comment -- positive or negative -- as, say, "melodramatic".



Absolutely. I'm not sure why you were castigating me on this point. What did you think I meant when I said "I think it's great that he has his fans who enjoy his movies. I'm just not one of them."?

Just because a filmmaker has a distinctive voice doesn't mean everyone has to like it.

Well I'm not. I don't understand the point you made about there being an in-joke. That seems like more of a critique of the fan base, not the films themselves. As there is no meta audience that exists in the Wes Anderson universe. I suppose 'inaccessible comedy' could be used to describe his films, which I can see.

As far as quirky goes, it's just a noun. So while I wouldn't say I don't like a Michael Bay film because explosions, well it's not the explosions that make the film undesirable. It's the way explosions are exploited in place of anything that matters. So if the films are quirky, well they just are. Let us know why that doesn't work.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by Snicket

Well I'm not. I don't understand the point you made about there being an in-joke.

I didn't say there was an in-joke. I said it was like there was an in-joke.

My wife and I both love Pixar films. One that we somewhat disagree on is Cars. A lot of the humor in the film is based on various personalities (some of who actually supply voices in the film) from the world of NASCAR. I don't watch NASCAR, so the jokes were completely lost on me. My wife does watch NASCAR, so she was getting a whole extra level of humor that was flying over my head.

There's something about Wes Anderson's films -- and I'll admit that I can't put my finger on exactly what -- that feels like they are full of in-jokes that I'm not getting.

As far as quirky goes, it's just a noun.

Well, actually, no. "Quirk" is a noun; "quirky" is an adjective.

So if the films are quirky, well they just are. Let us know why that doesn't work.

Well, I can't answer that because I never claimed that the quirkiness was why I didn't like the films. I feeling I get from jhiggy23's comments is that he thinks the quirkiness feels contrived. Contrived how? I don't know; you'll have to ask him.

On edit (left something out):

That seems like more of a critique of the fan base, not the films themselves.

I think you're being overly sensitive. It feels as if you're taking negative opinions about Anderson's work as a slight on the people who like his work. If you want us to respect the fact that you like his work, you need to return the favor and respect the fact that we don't like his work.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by Snicket

Sounds kinda hard to argue.

Not at all. Film is subjective and the concept of being an auteur is theoretical. It's a term that is thrown about and overused, despite its relative breadth and loose definition. Simply having a distinct style, as does Anderson, does not automatically make him an auteur. It makes him him.

[Snicket]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

Not at all. Film is subjective and the concept of being an auteur is theoretical. It's a term that is thrown about and overused, despite its relative breadth and loose definition. Simply having a distinct style, as does Anderson, does not automatically make him an auteur. It makes him him.

I guess if you make up your own definitions to words based on whats convenient, this is not going to go anywhere.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by JJJ225

If you don't think Wes Anderson is an auteur, the only explanation is that you literally have no idea what an auteur is.

By saying that, it's clear that you never read Sarris' essay or Trauffaut's writings on the theory of being an auteur. I recommend you do so before arguing about auteur theory. Plus, they're actually really interesting reads about film criticism.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by Snicket

I guess if you make up your own definitions to words based on whats convenient, this is not going to go anywhere.

I didn't make up anything. Unlike you, I didn't pull the definition from Wikipedia, I've actually been fortunate enough to read the texts on which the theory is based.

[Snicket]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

I didn't make up anything. Unlike you, I didn't pull the definition from Wikipedia, I've actually been fortunate enough to read the texts on which the theory is based.

Well I guess you're the best.