The Criterion Collection

[jlk5844]

Originally Posted by ngower

You have to see Grey Gardens! I consider it one of the best documentaries of all time. I even have a Little Edie tattoo!

And George Washington is just damn good. If you've got Hulu watch it there. Or check your library system. Mine had a copy, surprisingly.

I don't have Hulu.

But I have been meaning to make a trip to my library, as I've never looked to see if they have Criterions. It's been a long time since I've been there. Just haven't gone yet due to the massive amount of titles I'm trying to watch right now. When some time frees up, I will be sure to check it out.

[brandon_260]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

Read this, Brandon. I posted it a couple weeks ago. It isn't any kind of article that will "prove right and wrong" or anything like that. It does, however, represent some ideas that I strongly agree with. I saw that you have Like Someone in Love in your top 10 films from last year and Spring Breakers as your #1 film. ..and the first director you cite during our Malick conversation is Anotnioni.

We will never agree and that's fine.

http://www.rogerebert.com/scanners/a...oing-to-pieces

I'll bookmark it and give it a look tomorrow.

Originally Posted by ngower

[EDIT] On a different note, all this George Washington talk had me re-watch it tonight, and man do I love that flick. I'd venture to say it's in my top ten of all time. I tend to have a soft spot for early digital independent cinema, and for student/young director's films, and this is (at least to my knowledge) one of the best that fits that mold. I'm turning 25 at the end of the month and to think David Gordon Green accomplished this work at this same point in his life is just astounding.

Yes. That film is so good. I'm glad Criterion finally gave it the HD treatment, because it's a film that really begs for it.

Originally Posted by starman15317

I still haven't seen The Thin Red Line or The New World (the latter I'm not too interested in for some reason) but I always have different feelings about Malick. I like Badlands (in fact I own the Criterion) but I don't really like the other films. I admit that sometimes I use the P word to describe Malick, but usually, I can at least appreciate his films because they are unlike anything I've seen before.

To the Wonder just sucked though.

From the sound of it, it's not really Malick that you're into. Badlands is pretty far from the rest of his films. It's easily the most traditional and lacks most of the features that I love about his work.

I wholeheartedly disagree with your last statement though. To The Wonder is probably my least favorite Malick film, but it has a lot to offer. I think Malick shows both the blossoming and withering side of a relationship, how menial tasks performed together can go from bringing great joy to becoming monotonous.

I also find it deceptive to a lot of people. It initially seems like his most straightforward work. On the surface level, it's a very small and lowkey work, especially coming off the Tree of Life, but the depth of its musings on love are definitely there.

[Mansinthe]

First time i saw the thin red line i didnt like it nor understand it.
Years later i watched the new world and loved it.

Tree of life is one of my favorite movies ☺

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by lemonski

The part written in English. Read it yourself, it's borderline gibberish. Your edit made it worse.



Why? Do I have to read through 50 posts and replies before liking something? I simply liked his statement:

Offering films with a greater sense of purpose, works that require effort when viewing them, does not equate a director to being pretentious.

This is completely reasonable to me. Are you trying to argue otherwise - that films with a greater sense of purpose, or that require effort while viewing, do equate to a director being pretentious?

I don't know what else to tell you, lemonski. English may not be your first language?

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by lemonski

The part written in English. Read it yourself, it's borderline gibberish. Your edit made it worse.



Why? Do I have to read through 50 posts and replies before liking something? I simply liked his statement:

Offering films with a greater sense of purpose, works that require effort when viewing them, does not equate a director to being pretentious.

This is completely reasonable to me. Are you trying to argue otherwise - that films with a greater sense of purpose, or that require effort while viewing, do equate to a director being pretentious?

also, if all you can contribute to the debate is piling on after I already told you that the post was hastily written, then that's pretty sorry.

kudos to octagon, fellini, ngower, and the bronx bull for defending their opinion instead of just being a crap stir.

[DaveyJoe]

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by DaveyJoe

and I do, DJ.. I really do!

[Scottie]

These Malick discussions are becoming as common as the superhero opinions in the "Unpopular Opinions" thread located in the movie sub-forum.

No one is ever going to win, no matter how much it's talked about.

[RojD]

Originally Posted by The Bronx Bull

I couldn't disagree more. Early Malick, while I love Badlands and Days of Heaven, pales in comparison to The Thin Red Line, which I feel is his greatest accomplishment yet. One could even argue that Badlands is the most "non-malick" film of the bunch, as he had yet to introduce his concepts of poetry, ambiguity, and a lack of coherence - all of which are incorporated into Days of Heaven.

My ranking:

1) The Thin Red Line (1998)
2) The Tree of Life (2011)
3) Badlands (1973)
4) Days of Heaven (1978)
5) The New World (2005)
6) To The Wonder (2012)

I think you're right that Malik's later work has more substance to it than the earlier. You get the same themes, issues, dichotomies in the early work, but it's in the latter that his ideas and techniques congeal. I'd rank them this way:

1) The New World (2005)
2) The Thin Red Line (1998)
3) The Tree of Life (2011)
4) Badlands (1973)
5) Days of Heaven (1978)
6) To The Wonder (2012)

Life is too short and films too many to spend a lot of time rewatching, but I've returned to New World time and again and enjoyed it more each time. All of Malick is in it -- themes, technique, philosophy -- and I can't imagine anything else he's going to do will exceed it. Thin Red Line is a close second. Tree of Life is a little didactic for me, and it sounds like Q might be, too. That said, if I'm going to sit through a discourse on Grace and Nature, I'd rather do it in Tree of Life than listen to a lecture in a theology/philosophy class.

And if that's pretentious to some, so be it.

[Edward J Grug III]

Originally Posted by iScottie

These Malick discussions are becoming as common as the superhero opinions in the "Unpopular Opinions" thread located in the movie sub-forum.

No one is ever going to win, no matter how much it's talked about.

They are nearly as boring as watching a Malick film!

[Oblivion138]

Originally Posted by ngower

I'd prioritize the Thin Red Line, but don't let The New World go unwatched. I think it's one of his weaker titles, but it's still great and it's his first flick with Lubezki, so you can see both feeling out one another stylistically. Make sure you watch The Director's Cut, though, as the theatrical version is sloppy.

I'm not sure which version would be called the "Director's Cut." Malick worked on both the initial 150-minute premiere version and the 135-minute theatrical version...so both of these are, technically, "director's cuts." Not sure about the 172-minute Extended Cut. I've never been able to confirm that Malick had anything to do with it.

[lemonski]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

kudos to octagon, fellini, ngower, and the bronx bull for defending their opinion instead of just being a crap stir.

The only "opinion" I posted on the subject was liking someone's comment, and you decided to have a snarky go at me and jhiggy23 for it - implying we liked an ignorant generalisation. You post hastily written stuff, then you suggest English isn't my first language. Nice.

[DaveyJoe]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

and I do, DJ.. I really do!

It's all right, you still have Zoidberg!

I was thinking of making some blind buys later this week, what does everybody think of:

Cul-de-Sac: how does this stack up to other Polanski films? Repulsion is my favorite of his, but this seems more similar to Knife in the Water.

Fish Tank: I've heard good things about it, any idea why such a recent film in 1.33:1?

The Forgiveness of Blood: I watched the trailer and it seemed intense, does the film deliver?

Judex: I loved Eyes Without a Face, are the two films similar at all?

Merry Christmas Mr. Lawrence: I found Empire of Passion and In the Realm of the Senses to be pretty compelling, but I'm not sure I have a good feel for Oshima's voice, how does this movie compare?

Naked Kiss: I've seen all the other Criterion/Eclipse Fuller movies and enjoyed them all, is this movie another success?

[Fellini912]

Originally Posted by ngower

Just to chime in: I don't think anyone disagrees that Malick can be verbose or obtuse, but I think folks find fault with your use of the word pretentious as it implies intentionality or desire on Malick's part to impress—as if Malick's whole purpose in being a filmmaker is to impress others. Certainly his reclusive nature suggests the contrary?

I've always found it a more fruitful exercise to consider Malick's training in philosophy as analogous to his methods in filmmaking. He was a well-trained academic philosopher, and if you've read any modern western philosophy (Malick's specialty was in Heidegger, who is notoriously obtuse) you might understand how he's approaching film. If you've read any philosophy, you'll know it can be incredibly dense and often requires slow, deliberate reads (and re-reads). Hell, it's even often criticized as pretentious! But a major difference between reading a philosophic text and watching a film is that you're permitted to read at your own pace. Film, on the other hand, is a medium to which you are at its mercy. You cannot keep rewinding in the theater, so Malick's density of ideas and emotions might end up losing some of the audience.

That's not to say you didn't understand or 'get' the film. It's possible that Malick's lost you and you've understood his intended narrative. Rather, I'm suggesting that the basic premise behind philosophy is the undermining and critique of existing ideas, so if Malick is attempting the same with filmmaking conventions, he's more than likely to run into issues. You can't attempt to redefine the medium (which isn't to call him a visionary or innovator—all philosophers are attempting to redefine the medium and many of them fail) and not expect speed bumps.

I'm just sort of brain-spilling here, and I know I'm not making a whole lot of sense, but as both a film fanatic and someone who studied philosophy in college, I think it's most beneficial to approach him as if you were approaching a philosophic text—ask what you find most important in Malick's voice, and what's most important to you? Are there particular conventions or tropes Malick is abandoning in favor of his more anarchical presentation and sequencing? So on and so forth in this inquisitive style.

My two cents...

[EDIT] On a different note, all this George Washington talk had me re-watch it tonight, and man do I love that flick. I'd venture to say it's in my top ten of all time. I tend to have a soft spot for early digital independent cinema, and for student/young director's films, and this is (at least to my knowledge) one of the best that fits that mold. I'm turning 25 at the end of the month and to think David Gordon Green accomplished this work at this same point in his life is just astounding.

Now we are talking about philosophy. I am just the happiest person on this thread today.

Calling Heidegger "notoriously obtuse" is an understatement.

Husserl, Heidegger, Derrida and all the phenomenologist are some of the most difficult reads in philosophy, at the same time they are very reward. They come from the school of thought that philosophy should be as rigorous as any theoretical science.

I am finally tackling this era/school of philosophy, and realized that I wasted so much time with Nietzsche in my youth. I now find 20th century German philosophers such as Frege and Husserl within my interest and study. It is around the break between analytical and continental philosophy. I found the need to read Husserl before encountering Heidegger (60 pages into Being and Time made me realize there is a lot of backtracking)

But I digress, to understand the meaning of Being through film is a very, very, very daunting task, although an interesting route to approach the same problem.

[jshaide]

Does anybody think there's a shot in hell of a Carnival of Souls Blu ray for October?

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

IMO, yes, The Tree of Life pretends to be something it is not. I absolutely love Badlands and Days of Heaven. In those films, Malick's style was at the service of his plots. TToL is, to me, almost a parody of his early work. It (his style) has almost become an affectation.

You mentioned "sincere" in a previous post... Sincere intentions do not equate to sincere art. There is nothing natural and sincere about the end of TToL. When you've lost your touch, you've lost your touch.
Same goes for Malick. The emperor earned his fancy robe in the 70's, but I'm sorry - now, he's butt a$$ naked.

I don't know if it is the mythology around this guy or what, but w/ TToL, I'd say he lost me.

I know I can't be the only one who ever made the Bugs Bunny joke about TToL:

"Tell us your story from the beginning:"
"In the beginning, the volcanoes were erupting, the earth was forming...Then, in a little pool, two tiny amoeba--"
"No no, that's too far back!"

[jrsl76]

Originally Posted by DaveyJoe

It's all right, you still have Zoidberg!

I was thinking of making some blind buys later this week, what does everybody think of:

Cul-de-Sac: how does this stack up to other Polanski films? Repulsion is my favorite of his, but this seems more similar to Knife in the Water.

Fish Tank: I've heard good things about it, any idea why such a recent film in 1.33:1?

The Forgiveness of Blood: I watched the trailer and it seemed intense, does the film deliver?

Judex: I loved Eyes Without a Face, are the two films similar at all?

Merry Christmas Mr. Lawrence: I found Empire of Passion and In the Realm of the Senses to be pretty compelling, but I'm not sure I have a good feel for Oshima's voice, how does this movie compare?

Naked Kiss: I've seen all the other Criterion/Eclipse Fuller movies and enjoyed them all, is this movie another success?

I still need to watch a few of these, but I can tell you that I personally preferred Cul-De-Sac to Repulsion, though it's not as good as Rosemary's Baby and Chinatown.

Fish Tank is very good, but is not one of my favorite releases.

The Naked Kiss is top tier Fuller and very highly recommended!

[Scottie]

Originally Posted by DaveyJoe

It's all right, you still have Zoidberg!

I was thinking of making some blind buys later this week, what does everybody think of:

Cul-de-Sac: how does this stack up to other Polanski films? Repulsion is my favorite of his, but this seems more similar to Knife in the Water.

Fish Tank: I've heard good things about it, any idea why such a recent film in 1.33:1?

The Forgiveness of Blood: I watched the trailer and it seemed intense, does the film deliver?

Judex: I loved Eyes Without a Face, are the two films similar at all?

Merry Christmas Mr. Lawrence: I found Empire of Passion and In the Realm of the Senses to be pretty compelling, but I'm not sure I have a good feel for Oshima's voice, how does this movie compare?

Naked Kiss: I've seen all the other Criterion/Eclipse Fuller movies and enjoyed them all, is this movie another success?

Cul-de-sac is an okay film and better than I had imagined. That being said, I think it's my least favorite of him other than Carnage and The Ghost Writer (which are both still decent).

Fish Tank is one of the best coming-of-age stories that I have ever seen. Buy with confidence, in my opinion.

The Forgiveness of Blood was a rather boring film, in my opinion. I thought the story was rather compelling prior to putting the film into my Blu-ray player, but I couldn't wait for it to get over. It's really, really, really slow-burning and way too campy for me. It's one of the campiest films I've ever seen, if not the campiest.

Judex was decent. It's a fun film and I actually preferred it to Eyes Without a Face (though I'm not a big fan of that film).

I have not seen Merry Christmas, Mr. Lawrence, but it is sitting in my "to watch" pile. I can't bring myself to putting it in for some reason.

The Naked Kiss is one of three Fuller films that I've seen and it probably has to be my favorite. It's a pretty suspenseful film at times.

Originally Posted by jshaide

Does anybody think there's a shot in hell of a Carnival of Souls Blu ray for October?

I sure hope so. It is one of the creepiest films that I have ever seen.

[jmclick]

Originally Posted by jlk5844

I was just about to post that very often the cover art on Criterions can determine my interest in whether to further research the title and gauge my interest in a blind buy, which is kind of unfortunate in some cases because I know I am missing out on great movies. I do indeed judge some movies by their cover in the Criterion Collection. If the cover looks boring or uninteresting to me, I'll likely pass on it, as I have with George Washington (so thanks to those who are praising it, it is now on my radar), Grey Gardens, and others. I wish I wouldn't do this, but it happens. Is anyone else like this?

I definitely take the cover art into consideration when deciding to make a blind buy. And it works both to my benefit and detriment.

For example, I thought the cover art for the original Criterion release of Black Narcissus was hideous, and it kept me from buying the film. The new cover art inspired me to finally take a chance on the title, and now I consider it one of my favorite Criterion discs (and films) of all-time.

Conversely, I bought my copy of Insignificance only because I was intrigued by the cover art; however, I found the film itself to be, well, insignificant.

I agree with the poster who urged you to give the Grey Gardens set a try. The cover art is unexceptional, but the films are both remarkable.

My biggest disappointment: the artwork for the Criterion DVD release of Ernst Lubitsch's Heaven Can Wait. It was amateurish, banal, and gave no indication whatsoever of the sweetly wicked confection that Lubitsch had so masterfully concocted. I would love to see this one released on blu-ray with a more appropriate cover.

[dtyner92]

Originally Posted by jlk5844

I was just about to post that very often the cover art on Criterions can determine my interest in whether to further research the title and gauge my interest in a blind buy, which is kind of unfortunate in some cases because I know I am missing out on great movies. I do indeed judge some movies by their cover in the Criterion Collection. If the cover looks boring or uninteresting to me, I'll likely pass on it, as I have with George Washington (so thanks to those who are praising it, it is now on my radar), Grey Gardens, and others. I wish I wouldn't do this, but it happens. Is anyone else like this?

This unfortunately happens to me as well. If the film does get recommended to me I will most likely watch it, with or without the cover looking interesting.

Just finished watching Lars von Trier's The Element of Crime. What a marvelous first feature film. I loved the noir-ish feel dipped in a rustic, decaying and dreamy European back drop. I went to B&N to see if they had Trier's other film Europa, they didn't, so I had to order it. I really hope Criterion upgrades and or releases more of his films. Possibly Dancer in the Dark?