The Criterion Collection

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by ultlife2013

I don't have All Is Lost, can I borrow it from you?

Check your Private Messages. I'm going to send you the Ultraviolet digital code for my copy of All Is Lost. (I rarely use digital codes myself.)

[bdmartin134]

Just finished L'Avventura for the first time, and definitely more challenging than L'Eclisse, previously watched the other night.
SPOILERS AHEAD: Excuse the ramblings, not really a review.
I don't mind the mystery of Anna and lack of conclusion there, but what I'm trying to figure out is how/why Claudia ended up really going for Sandro? I mean this creep is one day removed from losing his fiancee on the island and he's trying to get with Claudia. Does she really fall for his charm, or is this guy the most persistent dude ever? I guess this is how Sandro is, and the audience just had not seen it yet. We were under the impression that something was just really wrong with Anna, but had not found out that maybe it had something to do with how Sandro acted or treated her.
As Sandro and Claudia's relationship continued, I felt that Claudia just wanted to be completely loved, but Sandro was always looking elsewhere. So frustrating that Claudia was not strong enough to move on or just see what Sandro was really like by trusting her initial instinct. Vitti looks like she's not one to be messed with. God she's hot.
I liked the interpretation of Giulia and how she felt being ignored by Corrado, someone whom she's shared many years with supposedly in love. Also when she felt just the slightest affection and being wanted by the young painter, she was all for it. The attention she received made her feel so happy and wanted, it didn't matter that Claudia was in the room. This was an obvious piece of this massive puzzle.
I guess the most obvious message I felt was the desire by humans for love and affection, even though there might be clues to stay away from certain paths that may provide these feelings.
"Everything has become hideously simple" - Claudia (not so much for me)

[Scottie]

I just finished Monte Hellman's The Shooting via Amazon Instant Video. Wow is this film excellent!

I tried to watch The Shooting several times over the past few months, but I ultimately found myself deleting it off of my DVR. Being that the film is aired in such poor conditions and the subtitles are constantly out of sync, I found it to be too unbearable to view. Realizing that it was on Amazon Instant Video, I figured that now would be as good of a time as any to finally sit down and watch it as I am not too keen on blind buying films anymore, especially when they are not the cheapest.

The Shooting follows former bounty hunter, Willett (Oates), who upon returning home to his camp, finds his brother, Coin, missing and his former partner, Leland (Merholz) dead. The only surviving member of the crew, Coley (Hutchins), has little to no details surrounding the shaky events that resulted in his isolation. After a couple of days, a mysterious woman (Perkins) rides into camp and hires Willett to escort her to the area of Kingsley. It seems like a simple enough task, especially with the pay being reasonable, but it soon grows more and more complex with numerous detours being taken, the failure of the woman to disclose her identity or her meaning for taking up such a trip, and the arrival of a mysterious gun-for-hire (Nicholson).

The film is a western, but not in the traditional sense. The set designs certainly resemble that of the old west, but the mood of the film almost gives off a dying west type vibe. In fact, I think the film is more of a mystery with trace elements of a western than anything else. As the narrative of the film progresses and questions continue to go unanswered, the mood shifts to that of a bad dream. By the time that the film does end, I was very surprised and left bewildered and I am sure many of you will have the same reaction. Furthermore, it's always nice to have a film with a short enough run time, as it prevents issues from being too drawn out or hung up on.

Strictly based off of this viewing alone, I am pretty much sold on a set that I initially had no interest or desire for exploring to begin with.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by bdmartin134

Just finished L'Avventura for the first time, and definitely more challenging than L'Eclisse, previously watched the other night.
SPOILERS AHEAD: Excuse the ramblings, not really a review.
I don't mind the mystery of Anna and lack of conclusion there, but what I'm trying to figure out is how/why Claudia ended up really going for Sandro? I mean this creep is one day removed from losing his fiancee on the island and he's trying to get with Claudia. Does she really fall for his charm, or is this guy the most persistent dude ever? I guess this is how Sandro is, and the audience just had not seen it yet. We were under the impression that something was just really wrong with Anna, but had not found out that maybe it had something to do with how Sandro acted or treated her.
As Sandro and Claudia's relationship continued, I felt that Claudia just wanted to be completely loved, but Sandro was always looking elsewhere. So frustrating that Claudia was not strong enough to move on or just see what Sandro was really like by trusting her initial instinct. Vitti looks like she's not one to be messed with. God she's hot.
I liked the interpretation of Giulia and how she felt being ignored by Corrado, someone whom she's shared many years with supposedly in love. Also when she felt just the slightest affection and being wanted by the young painter, she was all for it. The attention she received made her feel so happy and wanted, it didn't matter that Claudia was in the room. This was an obvious piece of this massive puzzle.
I guess the most obvious message I felt was the desire by humans for love and affection, even though there might be clues to stay away from certain paths that may provide these feelings.
"Everything has become hideously simple" - Claudia (not so much for me)

I think you pretty much nailed it with that last paragraph.

I don't pretend to fully understand the film (at all) as many times as I've seen it, but my present interpretation is this:

We, as human beings, can only experience the universe through being, well, human. Our experiences are what we have. Our feelings, or lack thereof, are what we have. And the universe is a cruel place because what we do, both to ourselves and to each other is cruel.

Putting aside for the moment any arguments concerning the afterlife, religious or otherwise, that moment before we die -- everything we've done, felt, everyone we've come into contact with, what we've done with or to them, all of that IS the universe. It is the totality of the "adventure" we will ever go on. Our adventure begins at birth (or maybe in the womb!) and it ends the moment we die.

If we accept all of this, and we look at what transpires in the film, then we can come to no other conclusion that, "The universe is broken." It's broken because we're broken, and we're broken because it is broken.

Antonioni wasn't exactly an optimist.

OTOH (you KNEW that was coming!) L'Avventura really reminds me of the quote I just saw in the Ingmar Bergman/Liv Ullman/Bibi Anderson interview concerning Persona, which I just finished. Bergman quotes Stravinsky, where he had said, "I have never understood a piece of music in my entire life. I have only experienced them."

And in a way I believe that quote applies to both L'Avventura and to Persona: They are more tone poems meant to be experienced than dissected. Of course, that doesn't mean that attempts at dissection aren't FUN!.

Oh, and two final points:

Yes, Monica Vitti is ridiculously hot! And an aggressively talented actresses (one of my favs).

And I think that Claudia's statement is meant both ironically and un-ironically. In one sense, obviously things haven't become simple at all, from the POV of taking the film apart in a standard, "This happened, that happened, why did this other thing happen," etc. way. But it's also un-ironic in that just taking the whole in and accepting it -- experiencing it -- means that, yes, it really IS simple.

Anyways, those are some of my (long-winded) feelings on this wonderful, provocative, and beautiful film.

[hoytereden]

Originally Posted by iScottie

I just finished Monte Hellman's The Shooting via Amazon Instant Video. Wow is this film excellent!

I tried to watch The Shooting several times over the past few months, but I ultimately found myself deleting it off of my DVR. Being that the film is aired in such poor conditions and the subtitles are constantly out of sync, I found it to be too unbearable to view. Realizing that it was on Amazon Instant Video, I figured that now would be as good of a time as any to finally sit down and watch it as I am not too keen on blind buying films anymore, especially when they are not the cheapest.

The Shooting follows former bounty hunter, Willett (Oates), who upon returning home to his camp, finds his brother, Coin, missing and his former partner, Leland (Merholz) dead. The only surviving member of the crew, Coley (Hutchins), has little to no details surrounding the shaky events that resulted in his isolation. After a couple of days, a mysterious woman (Perkins) rides into camp and hires Willett to escort her to the area of Kingsley. It seems like a simple enough task, especially with the pay being reasonable, but it soon grows more and more complex with numerous detours being taken, the failure of the woman to disclose her identity or her meaning for taking up such a trip, and the arrival of a mysterious gun-for-hire (Nicholson).

The film is a western, but not in the traditional sense. The set designs certainly resemble that of the old west, but the mood of the film almost gives off a dying west type vibe. In fact, I think the film is more of a mystery with trace elements of a western than anything else. As the narrative of the film progresses and questions continue to go unanswered, the mood shifts to that of a bad dream. By the time that the film does end, I was very surprised and left bewildered and I am sure many of you will have the same reaction. Furthermore, it's always nice to have a film with a short enough run time, as it prevents issues from being too drawn out or hung up on.

Strictly based off of this viewing alone, I am pretty much sold on a set that I initially had no interest or desire for exploring to begin with.

I generally find that anything with Warren Oates has merit. Wish Cockfighter would scratch its way into the Collection.

[adamhopelies]

Originally Posted by jayembee

Silent Movie (Mel Brooks, 1976). There is actually one spoken word, ironically uttered by Marcel Marceau.

The Artist (Michel Hazanavicius, 2011). Not completely silent, but almost.

Guy Maddin is the master of the contemporary silent film. Brand Upon The Brain! is in the Criterion Collection too.

[Polaroid]

Originally Posted by adamhopelies

Guy Maddin is the master of the contemporary silent film. Brand Upon The Brain! is in the Criterion Collection too.

I highly recommend Brand Upon The Brain - its bizarre! and you have the aded bonus of choosing who you would rather do the voice over which is a great touch, they use the performances from the live shows which is great.

Whacky film, but I found ti really rewarding a very experimental and interesting take on silent films.

[Polaroid]

Certified Copy came today - About to watch now, will be my first film from Abbas Kiarostami.

Very excite but not sure what to expect , love Juliette Binoche though and the story sounds intriguing - also I quite like the packaging artwork, its simple and isn't that exciting, but it works for me and it has a lot of control with is nice, and also reflects the film (from what I know).

[nondiatonic]

Originally Posted by bdmartin134

Just finished L'Avventura for the first time, and definitely more challenging than L'Eclisse, previously watched the other night.

[Show spoiler]SPOILERS AHEAD: Excuse the ramblings, not really a review.
I don't mind the mystery of Anna and lack of conclusion there, but what I'm trying to figure out is how/why Claudia ended up really going for Sandro? I mean this creep is one day removed from losing his fiancee on the island and he's trying to get with Claudia. Does she really fall for his charm, or is this guy the most persistent dude ever? I guess this is how Sandro is, and the audience just had not seen it yet. We were under the impression that something was just really wrong with Anna, but had not found out that maybe it had something to do with how Sandro acted or treated her.
As Sandro and Claudia's relationship continued, I felt that Claudia just wanted to be completely loved, but Sandro was always looking elsewhere. So frustrating that Claudia was not strong enough to move on or just see what Sandro was really like by trusting her initial instinct. Vitti looks like she's not one to be messed with. God she's hot.
I liked the interpretation of Giulia and how she felt being ignored by Corrado, someone whom she's shared many years with supposedly in love. Also when she felt just the slightest affection and being wanted by the young painter, she was all for it. The attention she received made her feel so happy and wanted, it didn't matter that Claudia was in the room. This was an obvious piece of this massive puzzle.
I guess the most obvious message I felt was the desire by humans for love and affection, even though there might be clues to stay away from certain paths that may provide these feelings.
"Everything has become hideously simple" - Claudia (not so much for me)

I think another key thing to keep in mind is that we have two people

[Show spoiler]each dealing with grief in a different way. We see that Sandro isn't exactly the most chivalrous guy, but he may also be looking for anyone to excite him and take his mind off of Anna. I took his attraction to Claudia as they were searching for Anna as his defense mechanism. He was fearing the worst, so he turned his mind toward other interests. Claudia falling for Sandro could be a similar response.

This is all in addition to your comments, which I felt were very good interpretations.

[Polaroid]

I love love love love love love love loved Certified Copy, no doubt this film needs multiple viewings and can't wait to view it at a different angle.

Another no regrets blind buy

[Scottie]

Originally Posted by hoytereden

I generally find that anything with Warren Oates has merit. Wish Cockfighter would scratch its way into the Collection.

Warren Oates was a great actor. He takes on these roles so naturally that you forget you're even watching a movie.

[Scottie]

Originally Posted by Polaroid

I love love love love love love love loved Certified Copy, no doubt this film needs multiple viewings and can't wait to view it at a different angle.

Another no regrets blind buy

Glad to hear you loved it.

Abbas Kiarostami is an excellent director. I had not started exploring his catalogue until the beginning of this year, so it was a "kick-in-the-ass" type of thing for me when I finally got around to watching them. All three films on Blu-ray are excellent and I cannot recommend them enough.

Close-Up is, without a doubt, my favorite Kiarostami film. It plays out like a documentary, but it is rather docu-fiction. Also, the second film included in the release is as great, as well.

[Polaroid]

Originally Posted by iScottie

Glad to hear you loved it.

Abbas Kiarostami is an excellent director. I had not started exploring his catalogue until the beginning of this year, so it was a "kick-in-the-ass" type of thing for me when I finally got around to watching them. All three films on Blu-ray are excellent and I cannot recommend them enough.

Close-Up is, without a doubt, my favorite Kiarostami film. It plays out like a documentary, but it is rather docu-fiction. Also, the second film included in the release is as great, as well.

Thanks - will probs get Close-Up next, need to watch the extra film on Certified Copy release

Always exciting discovering new directors and films that are just brilliant

[Herry Dunston]

I'm conflicted. Belle de Jour is a Buñuel film I liked a lot, yet Tristana (not a Criterion film) is a more fruitful Buñuel film yet isn't as entertaining. Not like I have some serious factors into enjoying a movie.

[belcherman]

Originally Posted by jayembee

Silent Movie (Mel Brooks, 1976). There is actually one spoken word, ironically uttered by Marcel Marceau.

The Artist (Michel Hazanavicius, 2011). Not completely silent, but almost.

There's also a great 1952 noir called "The Thief" starring Ray Milland and the wonderfully named Rita Gam. There's sound, but no dialogue. This would be a great title for someone like Olive to pick up.

FYI: found this link that explains the history of subtitles in Europe. One thing that isn't mentioned enough, I think, is that subtitles were added, not for the benefit of the viewers really, but for the production companies. They need the subtitles in order to sell their product in foreign markets.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by octagon

If supplements are important make sure your player/tv combo can handle 50hz. 1080p is 1080p the world over but even if you get past region-coding you can run into trouble with 1080i or SD materials on non-US discs.

The person at the store should know what you're talking about...just remember to ask.

Thanks, Octagon! I really appreciate that. I think you might have explained to me before why my ITV Black Narcissus supplements actually did work on my set-up. I don't know if that is the same thing... Either way, I'll be sure to ask. I've got a fairly new set up, so it should work, but yes... will ask.

[nondiatonic]

Originally Posted by Polaroid

Thanks - will probs get Close-Up next, need to watch the extra film on Certified Copy release

Always exciting discovering new directors and films that are just brilliant

Originally Posted by iScottie

Glad to hear you loved it.

Abbas Kiarostami is an excellent director. I had not started exploring his catalogue until the beginning of this year, so it was a "kick-in-the-ass" type of thing for me when I finally got around to watching them. All three films on Blu-ray are excellent and I cannot recommend them enough.

Close-Up is, without a doubt, my favorite Kiarostami film. It plays out like a documentary, but it is rather docu-fiction. Also, the second film included in the release is as great, as well.

I too only recently discovered his genius. His films are so dialogue heavy and yet, even though they are translated, come through so clearly. That may be a compliment to the translators, but I also think it demonstrates his skill as a director.

I though The Report (the extra movie on Certified Copy) was decent, but I had a difficult time getting into it. However, I thoroughly enjoyed The Traveler (the extra film on Close-Up).

I would also like to note that The Taste of Cherry is on Hulu and is fantastic. Also, Cohen Media released The Wind Will Carry Us on BD which is another great film. The transfer is fairly good, although quality dips at times. I suggest picking it up along with the Criterion releases.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by Polaroid

I would love to see Alejandro González Iñárritu featured in the collection, he's made some devastating films.

nice to see an Iñárritu shout out. my wife had a business trip this past week and I sent her off with 2 DVDs to watch on the plane - David Gordon Green's All The Real Girls and Amores Perros. She had a chance to watch the first but not the Iñárritu. I haven't seen it in ages myself. Maybe soon. he has a new film coming out w/ Michael Keaton. trailer looks good.

BIRDMAN Trailer (Michael Keaton - 2014) - YouTube

[Polaroid]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

nice to see an Iñárritu shout out. my wife had a business trip this past week and I sent her off with 2 DVDs to watch on the plane - David Gordon Green's All The Real Girls and Amores Perros. She had a chance to watch the first but not the Iñárritu. I haven't seen it in ages myself. Maybe soon. he has a new film coming out w/ Michael Keaton. trailer looks good.

BIRDMAN Trailer (Michael Keaton - 2014) - YouTube

I have no idea what tot think of this film - it doesn't have that Iñárritu feel to it, the grittiness and raw emotion. This has so much special effects and dunno, I hope that doesn't overshadow the emotion, acting and direction.

Really hard for me to call this one, of course I will see it and give it a try and I love the theme and ideas behind it, but i'd never have guess it was Iñárritu who had directed it.

Then again sometimes its refreshing when a director tries new things and separate themselves from their existing image - When you talk about Iñárritu's film I think emotional, depressing, raw, and I guess that can get a bit tiring when repeated, even Lars Von Trier has experimented with comedy and new styles.

I hope its good

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by Herry Dunston

I'm conflicted. Belle de Jour is a Buñuel film I liked a lot, yet Tristana (not a Criterion film) is a more fruitful Buñuel film yet isn't as entertaining. Not like I have some serious factors into enjoying a movie.

I had seen and liked Belle de Jour and wanted to see more after I saw that Hitchcock mentioned him as one of his favorite directors when he was on the Dick Cavett show (Foreign Correspondent supplement.)

I got That Obscure Object of Desire from the library and LOVE, LOVE, LOVED IT! Extremely tight story, nice framing device for the telling of said story.. funny, sexy.. not exactly surreal, but not completely grounded in reality either.

I then decided to pick up all 3 of this non-CC films from the 70's - TOOoD, Tristana, and The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie. All 3 received good reviews on this site, have a ton of supplements, and can be picked up for about $40 total. Can't wait to see these other 2!

What was your dilemma, though, Herry? I didn't understand.