The Criterion Collection

[BluPops]

Originally Posted by kuro_sawa

If you're looking for Discreet Charm or Tristana, there are excellent blu-rays available already:

Here and Here, both are playable on North American players.

Of the films mentioned in your post, the one I fully expect CC to bring to blu-ray some time soon is The Exterminating Angel. While Simon of the Desert would be a cool upgrade, their DVD looks excellent and that would be quite a surprise to me!

Have Tristana and Discreet Charm on blu. Was just posting about them on Hulu to inform others.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by Polaroid

Ah yes - I'm friends with the writer, I'm even doing some book designs for him, ones another book in Malicks work and the other is a new cover for another books he's done :-)

I do love how Malick does films more for him rather than money or fame and it does show on his work :-)

Cinema of Terrence Malick: Poetic Visions of America is a great book. I used it quite a bit for my Malick thesis in college years ago.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by Polaroid

I never realised she was in these advert too:

[Show spoiler]PRADA CANDY L'EAU - YouTube

WAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIT A SECONNDDDDD - Wes Anderson directed these adverts too?? :O

Is it wrong if I enjoyed that ad for Prada more than I typically enjoy his movies?

[lordmorpheus72]

Originally Posted by adamhopelies

I actually went on eBay to order the cheap UK edition, which retails for around £10, but temptation proved too much when I crossed paths with the Criterion. The seller had reduced it from £90 to £60 for a quick sale, but was taking offers too, which got it down to £55. Criterion discs in the UK sell for around £23, so this was a little over the price of two discs, which I'm happy with.

I've got the UK Third Man, which is very nice, though I also have the second Criterion release of the film on DVD too.

That's cool, don't get a lot of priced to sell quick on ebay any longer!

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by kuro_sawa

For those interested....Malick's latest getting torn to shreds by the BBC:

ouch

One: This guy obviously doesn't like Malick to begin with. So, I'd be more interested in a review by someone who liked Tree of Life or To The Wonder.

Two: I just KNEW, the second I read the tagline, that he was going to use the phrase "first world problems" at some point in the piece. I'm glad I wasn't disappointed.

Three: While I haven't seen the film, so can't comment on whether it's any good or not (though, being Malick, it probably is), from everything I've read about it it seems absolutely clear that Mr. Barber completely missed the point.

Anyways, I'm very much looking forward to seeing this. Lord knows when that will happen, however.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by AaronJ

One: This guy obviously doesn't like Malick to begin with. So, I'd be more interested in a review by someone who liked Tree of Life or To The Wonder.

Two: I just KNEW, the second I read the tagline, that he was going to use the phrase "first world problems" at some point in the piece. I'm glad I wasn't disappointed.

Three: While I haven't seen the film, so can't comment on whether it's any good or not (though, being Malick, it probably is), from everything I've read about it it seems absolutely clear that Mr. Barber completely missed the point.

Anyways, I'm very much looking forward to seeing this. Lord knows when that will happen, however.

Looking forward to it, too.

Most of the best art IS divisive... the art that creates debate, discussion, mixed feelings... if something is universally loved, then that kind of kills any conflict. There are universally praised films that are great (the Toy Story films come to mind) and can also be considered art, but I almost prefer the ones that aren't. They feel more real, less packaged, more unpredictable.

It's also about how people LOOK at that art. A painting is just one image, and can inspire 1000 people to think about it 1000 different ways. But many people seem to recoil from cinema unless it delivers the basic emotions and feelings they expect going in. I get that, too, but a lot of people don't seem as receptive to experimental cinema as they do to other art and music, in my opinion. People say all the time, "that movie should've ended this way," or "this character should've done that"... but I doubt most people outside of art critics look at paintings and say "he should've used oil instead of watercolor" or "these brush strokes here take away from the overall feel." They just look at a painting as it is, and it either moves them or it doesn't.

[Polaroid]

http://www.firstshowing.net/2015/wat...-crimson-peak/

Ooooh

[lordmorpheus72]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

Hi lordmorpheus72

You can actually follow the instructions in this post from the DVD section and add any DVD title you want to the database:

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...61&postcount=1

But if some reason you can't do it alone, please send me a PM and I will be happy to help you. (I usually check PMs at the end of the day).

Here's Jaded (see below). However, I don't have this release in my library, so could you check the specs and make sure that they are correct?

I hope you are well



Pro-B

p.s.
Our review of The Soft Skin will be up today.

THanks Pro-B! That's awesome, and thanks for the pointer to the thread. And I'll be happy to check the specs and make sure they are correct. You're the best!

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

Looking forward to it, too.

Most of the best art IS divisive... the art that creates debate, discussion, mixed feelings... if something is universally loved, then that kind of kills any conflict. There are universally praised films that are great (the Toy Story films come to mind) and can also be considered art, but I almost prefer the ones that aren't. They feel more real, less packaged, more unpredictable.

It's also about how people LOOK at that art. A painting is just one image, and can inspire 1000 people to think about it 1000 different ways. But many people seem to recoil from cinema unless it delivers the basic emotions and feelings they expect going in. I get that, too, but a lot of people don't seem as receptive to experimental cinema as they do to other art and music, in my opinion. People say all the time, "that movie should've ended this way," or "this character should've done that"... but I doubt most people outside of art critics look at paintings and say "he should've used oil instead of watercolor" or "these brush strokes here take away from the overall feel." They just look at a painting as it is, and it either moves them or it doesn't.

Completely agree on every point there.

I've had the discussion many times that I often enjoy films that split the critical community the most. There's something powerful in many divisive works of art, film or otherwise.

[Gusto-Guus]

I'm hopping this finally gets announced. The collection needs it.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by AaronJ

One: This guy obviously doesn't like Malick to begin with. So, I'd be more interested in a review by someone who liked Tree of Life or To The Wonder.

Two: I just KNEW, the second I read the tagline, that he was going to use the phrase "first world problems" at some point in the piece. I'm glad I wasn't disappointed.

Three: While I haven't seen the film, so can't comment on whether it's any good or not (though, being Malick, it probably is), from everything I've read about it it seems absolutely clear that Mr. Barber completely missed the point.

Anyways, I'm very much looking forward to seeing this. Lord knows when that will happen, however.

where in the review did it become "obvious" that the reviewer does not like Malick? in fact, there is proof that he likes his past work (e.g. (and not to give anything away,) the Malick being Malick sentence and the fact that he uses the word "self-parody.") I don't know that anyone or anything has ever been accused of being a parody of something that sucked.

regardless of his opinion, it is a very well written review, IMO. he is crystal clear as to why he didn't like it. I don't think there was any "missing the point" whatsoever.

when the trailer was posted here a little while back, everyone commented, "oh, it looks 'so different' for Malick." I can't imagine what anyone saw in the trailer to make them feel that. it looks a lot like his last two films. I don't know if this film is good or bad, but this reviewer feels that Malick has gone to the well too many times w/ his recent approach. I don't think that is far-fetched at all.

keep drinking the Malick kool-aid, though, everyone!

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by Gusto-Guus

I'm hopping this finally gets announced. The collection needs it.

there can never be enough "The Room" references on this site! that is a great cover, although the Golden Gate Bridge in the background would really max it out!

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

where in the review did it become "obvious" that the reviewer does not like Malick? in fact, there is proof that he likes his past work (e.g. (and not to give anything away,) the Malick being Malick sentence and the fact that he uses the word "self-parody.") I don't know that anyone or anything has ever been accused of being a parody of something that sucked.

regardless of his opinion, it is a very well written review, IMO. he is crystal clear as to why he didn't like it. I don't think there was any "missing the point" whatsoever.

when the trailer was posted here a little while back, everyone commented, "oh, it looks 'so different' for Malick." I can't imagine what anyone saw in the trailer to make them feel that. it looks a lot like his last two films. I don't know if this film is good or bad, but this reviewer feels that Malick has gone to the well too many times w/ his recent approach. I don't think that is far-fetched at all.

keep drinking the Malick kool-aid, though, everyone!

From reading the review, the reviewer seems to think that just because someone is handsome, has money and has beautiful girlfriends that his life is great. Quite the opposite, since beauty is only skin deep. There are a surprising number of "famous" people who feel lonely, isolated, etc but "play the role" that celebrity forces them to - I happen to know several of those people. Not saying it's not a first world problem, just saying that (without having seen the film) I think that is part of the point Malick is trying to make here, just like Coppola did with "Somewhere." Did he miss it because Malick didn't do his job properly, or because the reviewer did, in fact, miss the point? We'll see soon enough. Just my guess.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

where in the review did it become "obvious" that the reviewer does not like Malick? in fact, there is proof that he likes his past work (e.g. (and not to give anything away,) the Malick being Malick sentence and the fact that he uses the word "self-parody.") I don't know that anyone or anything has ever been accused of being a parody of something that sucked.

regardless of his opinion, it is a very well written review, IMO. he is crystal clear as to why he didn't like it. I don't think there was any "missing the point" whatsoever.

when the trailer was posted here a little while back, everyone commented, "oh, it looks 'so different' for Malick." I can't imagine what anyone saw in the trailer to make them feel that. it looks a lot like his last two films. I don't know if this film is good or bad, but this reviewer feels that Malick has gone to the well too many times w/ his recent approach. I don't think that is far-fetched at all.

keep drinking the Malick kool-aid, though, everyone!

Like his last two films, The Tree of Life and To the Wonder, Knight of Cups is an experimental, impressionistic collage which replaces most of its dialogue with fragmentary narration, and which abandons linear plotting in favour of woozy, elliptical montages punctuated by cryptic chapter headings.

That doesn't sound, to me anyways, as if he likes those two films.

And I think that the point missing is clear. The idea is that yes, Rick is having a series of relationships with beautiful women. But they are empty and meaningless and more akin to sex with prostitutes than something that makes his life better. You can have all sorts of hook-ups and still be achingly lonely.

Honestly, the review sounded like a jealous rant more than anything.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

From reading the review, the reviewer seems to think that just because someone is handsome, has money and has beautiful girlfriends that his life is great. Quite the opposite, since beauty is only skin deep. There are a surprising number of "famous" people who feel lonely, isolated, etc but "play the role" that celebrity forces them to - I happen to know several of those people. Not saying it's not a first world problem, just saying that (without having seen the film) I think that is part of the point Malick is trying to make here, just like Coppola did with "Somewhere." Did he miss it because Malick didn't do his job properly, or because the reviewer did, in fact, miss the point? We'll see soon enough. Just my guess.

he is not saying that at all. he is saying that given what is presented in the film, he cannot fathom what is miserable about this chap's life because, that is all that is presented.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by AaronJ

That doesn't sound, to me anyways, as if he likes those two films.

And I think that the point missing is clear. The idea is that yes, Rick is having a series of relationships with beautiful women. But they are empty and meaningless and more akin to sex with prostitutes than something that makes his life better. You can have all sorts of hook-ups and still be achingly lonely.

Honestly, the review sounded like a jealous rant more than anything.

the only thing that sounds negative in the line you quoted is "cryptic chapter headings."

as far as missing the point, one has to have an argument, so to say, in order to even make a point. that, is what he says is lacking - an understanding as to why this guy is unhappy

and as far as this guy disliking Malick, here is his blip on To The Wonder:

YOU might well mistake it for a pretentious perfume advertisement. But no other director could make such a beautiful drama about a fractious relationship in midwestern suburbia. - Nicholas Barber, Independent

[jmclick]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

there can never be enough "The Room" references on this site! that is a great cover, although the Golden Gate Bridge in the background would really max it out!

Okay, I had never even heard of this movie before, but after visiting the IMDb and seeing the 3.5 cumulative rating from over 23,000 viewers juxtaposed with the jaw-droppingly imaginative 10-star featured review by someone named "Brickyard Jimmy", I am officially intrigued. Bring it on!

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by jmclick

Okay, I had never even heard of this movie before, but after visiting the IMDb and seeing the 3.5 cumulative rating from over 23,000 viewers juxtaposed with the jaw-droppingly imaginative 10-star featured review by someone named "Brickyard Jimmy", I am officially intrigued. Bring it on!

oh, it is truly a remarkable experience. the day I first heard about it, I sought it out that very night and wasn't disappointed. the "bring it in the CC" stuff is probably meant as a joke, but to me, there is something brilliant happening in this film even if it is just one man's folly.

[ShellOilJunior]

Originally Posted by jmclick

Okay, I had never even heard of this movie before, but after visiting the IMDb and seeing the 3.5 cumulative rating from over 23,000 viewers juxtaposed with the jaw-droppingly imaginative 10-star featured review by someone named "Brickyard Jimmy", I am officially intrigued. Bring it on!

Your life will change forever.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

the only thing that sounds negative in the line you quoted is "cryptic chapter headings."

as far as missing the point, one has to have an argument, so to say, in order to even make a point. that, is what he says is lacking - an understanding as to why this guy is unhappy

and as far as this guy disliking Malick, here is his blip on To The Wonder:

YOU might well mistake it for a pretentious perfume advertisement. But no other director could make such a beautiful drama about a fractious relationship in midwestern suburbia. - Nicholas Barber, Independent

We're just going to have to agree to disagree.