The Criterion Collection

[Spanish Scott]

Hmm, gotta give credit to Joie, his bait has dominated the last 6 pages or so of discussion.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by Spanish Scott

Hmm, gotta give credit to Joie, his bait has dominated the last 6 pages or so of discussion.

very true. troll or not a troll?

but it's time to take his convo about Gravity to the Gravity thread and time to take his "master of suspense" opinions about which/who is more suspenseful -Gravity or Alfred Hitchcock? to the unpopular opinions thread.

sorry, joie, you've lost all credibility.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by ijustblumyself

Let's not forget that Hitchcock had more than a few duds himself.

no more than anyone else and hardly any after about his 15th film. and certainly, without question, far fewer than Brian DePalma. even his "best" work smacks of amateurism.

[EVERYONE LIES]

Originally Posted by ijustblumyself

Let's not forget that Hitchcock had more than a few duds himself.

Under Capricorn

[ShellOilJunior]

Hitchcock's mis-fires at least have something in them worth watching. Topaz, for example. I recall there being a nicely executed sequence with Roscoe Lee Browne. I haven't seen the films in years so I may need to re-visit.

[belcherman]

Originally Posted by ravenus

As regards Gravity, I didn't feel it particularly suspenseful. Let's face it, for most of the picture we have just one character, and since this is Hollywood and it stars Sandra Bullock, we know she's going to come out of it alive and mostly unharmed. It was more like a visually stunning really well put together theme park ride. A film like Psycho is more suspenseful because you have characters who are not obvious heroes / villains, so there are no limits on what can happen.

[Show spoiler] At least some audiences of the time would have gotten a fair jolt from seeing Janet Leigh's character getting the knife after having spent most of the picture till that point in her company.

That's my two bits.

Whoa, major spoiler, dude! I'm one of those people who got a jolt when that happened, and I wouldn't want anyone else to be deprived of that experience. Otherwise, I agree with everything else you said. Theme park ride sums up Gravity perfectly.

[format916]

family plot sucks; but it has a good score and a pretty cool car chase.

[ShellOilJunior]

Originally Posted by format916

family plot sucks; but it has a good score and a pretty cool car chase.

I enjoy Family Plot. The opening is excellent and the kidnapping plot is entertaining. Dern and Devane are very good, imo.

[joie]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

very true. troll or not a troll?

but it's time to take his convo about Gravity to the Gravity thread and time to take his "master of suspense" opinions about which/who is more suspenseful -Gravity or Alfred Hitchcock? to the unpopular opinions thread.

sorry, joie, you've lost all credibility.

You wish.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by joie

It doesn't bother me if the lips aren't synced to the spoken word.

It may not bother you, but it bothers a lot of people.

Quite frankly, I don't think that the bulk of people who buy Criterion releases are particularly interested in having the option of watching a film dubbed. It's pretty much the same reason why Criterion (with one notable exception) never released any of their titles in multiple aspect ratios.

I really don't think they'd find their sales increase enough for it to be worth the time, money, and effort.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by WonderWeasel

I made my way out to a different store today and found some more gems: hardcover copies of 'The Tin Drum' and the Spencer Tracy biography by James Curtis for $3 apiece in the clearance section, a brand-new copy of the Mill Creek release of 'The Lady from Shanghai' for $6.99, and a copy of Kenneth Branagh's 'Much ado About Nothing' for $8.74 with a 30% off coupon. I could blow my entire paycheck between there and Amazon lol.

I'm not sure it's worth that price. I admire the hell out of Branagh's Henry V and Hamlet (as well as his quasi-Shakespearean film, In the Bleak Midwinter) but his Much Ado was a mish-mash of bizarre casting and occasional scenes that looked like they were shot by a film school student.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by joie

I am actually interested. But I'd prefer numbers from Criterion. They're in a position to at least estimate the cost and determine whether it would be worthwhile.

They'd have to think that it was a good idea in the first place to even bother to investigate.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by joie

If you've seen "Gravity," don't you think it's time Alfred Hitchcock lost his "Master of Suspense" title?

No.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by billyearle

Maybe because of scale and the way the eye moves, subtitles never bother me on the big screen, but on TV subtitles cover too much of the image, spoiling the visuals, and often causing me to miss important details.

Interesting. I think the opposite. I suppose it depends on the size of your TV screen, and how far away from it you sit, but the field of view is much smaller when watching a film on TV, so your eyes don't have to move as much to read subtitles as they would watching on a large theater screen.

[jcs913]

Looks like joie is at it again..
Definitely not a troll, just joie..

[octagon]

Originally Posted by jcs913

Looks like joie is at it again..
Definitely not a troll, just joie..

Trolls don't all have to be clumsy, obvious oafs. The good ones keep you guessing. The really good ones can keep you guessing for years.

[jcs913]

Originally Posted by octagon

Trolls don't all have to be clumsy, obvious oafs. The good ones keep you guessing. The really good ones can keep you guessing for years.

You definitely could have something there!! Always reminds me of that guy on the subway; everything out of his mouth is 100% interesting, but 40% correct

[Yami]

Originally Posted by EVERYONE LIES

Under Capricorn

Wasn't one of them.

I think Under Capricorn is one of Hitch's most interesting films. In fact, it might even make my top ten. It just seems to be forgotten because of its lack of thriller elements but it's technical achievements are remarkable, with its long takes being more impressive than anything he did in Rope.

[WonderWeasel]

Originally Posted by jayembee

I'm not sure it's worth that price. I admire the hell out of Branagh's Henry V and Hamlet (as well as his quasi-Shakespearean film, In the Bleak Midwinter) but his Much Ado was a mish-mash of bizarre casting and occasional scenes that looked like they were shot by a film school student.

I knew that it got mixed reviews, and when I looked at the cast, I thought that Michael Keaton and Keanu Reeves seemed like odd choices for a Shakespeare film. Oh well, I'm sure I've spent $9 on much worse things before, and it'll make me appreciate Joss Whedon's version more when I watch it

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by WonderWeasel

I knew that it got mixed reviews, and when I looked at the cast, I thought that Michael Keaton and Keanu Reeves seemed like odd choices for a Shakespeare film. Oh well, I'm sure I've spent $9 on much worse things before, and it'll make me appreciate Joss Whedon's version more when I watch it

Keaton was actually better than one might expect, and Reeves no worse than one might expect. The real surprise was Denzel Washington, who seemed completely like a fish out of water.