The Criterion Collection

[Brad1963]

Originally Posted by filmmusic

I prefer seeing that, which means those people are restrained and buy what they really need, than seeing posts of people feeling "compelled" to buy ALL of them (even if they have never ever heard of the movies) just because they have a C on the cover!

I understand that. But they are usually complaining about a film Criterion has chosen to release because they see value in doing so, then totally dismissing the film. They could instead take a moment, look up the film and possibly consider it for the future. Criterion is not in business to only release Lynch, Cronenberg or Malick titles, they celebrate all filmmakers and genres.

[shadedpain4]

Originally Posted by iScottie

In the Mood for Love

That's about as good of an answer as there is to that question.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by filmmusic

Of course.
But if those same films were released by an X company, I have a feeling those that would surely buy them if they were Criterion, wouldn't care less.
I see it happen all the time in many things in life.
The "brand" and the "name" is what makes the difference.

Yeah, but that brand loyalty and appreciation is built through experience. All my tech devices are Apple. Why? Because I've had great experience with their products, had great experience with the few costumer service needs I've had, like their retail presence, and I'm already heavily engaged in their ecosystem. If I hadn't absolutely loved that fantastic 17" PPC PowerBook I first bought a decade-plus ago, my experience, and thus what I now own, would be very different.

And yes, I have slightly more Criterion titles than any other studio. 18.1% of my collection is Criterion, while the next highest is Warners at 17%. But again, that's based on the quality of the product and my experience with that product.

OTOH, the last few months' worth of announcements haven't done a whole lot for me, outside of Hiroshima mon amour and Two Days, One Night and possibly one or two others. With the former, it's a film I've long wanted on Blu, and simply a great film that is incredibly moving and has limitless replay value. With the latter, it's a blind buy, but I love Cotillard and have read great things about it.

So, I don't make decisions based on the fact that the case a C on it. I make decisions based on my experience with that C's output, based on what the review says, especially concerning extras, and based on varied thoughts on the film itself, especially who directed it and whom it stars.

And it's not like I'm under some odd misconception that it's only Criterion that puts out great releases. Sony's release of The Social Network can stand against pretty much anything from anyone, pretty much.

[jmclick]

Originally Posted by filmmusic

Of course.
But if those same films were released by an X company, I have a feeling those that would surely buy them if they were Criterion, wouldn't care less.

I think you're partially right, and I can use my own purchasing habits as evidence. Let me explain.

If Riot on Cell Block 11 had been released by Kino Lorber (for example) rather than Criterion, I probably would not have been interested in buying a copy. But I did in fact buy it, because it was a Criterion title; however, it wasn't the Criterion name alone that gave the title a certain cachet in my mind. It's because I knew that Criterion would offer a superior transfer of the film, and load the disc with a bunch of fascinating extras that would enrich my enjoyment of the movie, and make it worth my while to give it a look. And sure enough, by the time I watched the film, delved into all the extras and read the essay and other material, I was pretty impressed with the total experience.

Conversely, I refuse to buy On the Beach on blu-ray, despite the fact that I know it's a good film, and I'd like to see it again. Why not? Because Kino Lorber is fairly sloppy with their transfers (and sure enough, the visual and audio quality were both criticized in many of the reviews), and because the only extra they included on the title was the theatrical trailer. (Whoop-de-doo!) And so I decided to stick with my MGM DVD.

I consider Criterion releases to be excellent values for what I receive. I pay about $15.00 (shipped) on average for Criterions with an SRP of $39.99. The lowest I've seen On the Beach on sale for was around $16.50 shipped, discounted from an SRP of $29.95. The math is easy to figure out, and what's more, Criterion discs tend to hold their value.

That's my two cents worth. The Criterion name does affect my purchasing decisions, but only because they back up the brand with quality and value for my money.

[WonderWeasel]

I tried to wait until the July sale, but I couldn't. I stopped by B&N and picked up Letter Never Sent and upgraded to blu on Chaplin's Limelight. For those who care, Limelight came with a nice, thick booklet.

[filmmusic]

@jmclick
I agree with you that Criterion may have greater transfers than other companies.
But my posts didn't refer to the quality of the transfers, but the films themselves.
I was referring to blind buys based on a company's name.

example:
Jellyfish Eyes
I have a hunch that the Criterion customers that are trying to see this with an open mind, wouldn't do so if it wasn't Criterion and was just a film from another company.
(mind you, this statement doesn't mean I'm for or against this movie. I haven't seen it [just trying to go ahead some negative reactions with this parenthesis])

[kuro_sawa]

Originally Posted by jmclick

I think you're partially right, and I can use my own purchasing habits as evidence. Let me explain.

If Riot on Cell Block 11 had been released by Kino Lorber (for example) rather than Criterion, I probably would not have been interested in buying a copy. But I did in fact buy it, because it was a Criterion title; however, it wasn't the Criterion name alone that gave the title a certain cachet in my mind. It's because I knew that Criterion would offer a superior transfer of the film, and load the disc with a bunch of fascinating extras that would enrich my enjoyment of the movie, and make it worth my while to give it a look. And sure enough, by the time I watched the film, delved into all the extras and read the essay and other material, I was pretty impressed with the total experience.

Conversely, I refuse to buy On the Beach on blu-ray, despite the fact that I know it's a good film, and I'd like to see it again. Why not? Because Kino Lorber is fairly sloppy with their transfers (and sure enough, the visual and audio quality were both criticized in many of the reviews), and because the only extra they included on the title was the theatrical trailer. (Whoop-de-doo!) And so I decided to stick with my MGM DVD.

I consider Criterion releases to be excellent values for what I receive. I pay about $15.00 (shipped) on average for Criterions with an SRP of $39.99. The lowest I've seen On the Beach on sale for was around $16.50 shipped, discounted from an SRP of $29.95. The math is easy to figure out, and what's more, Criterion discs tend to hold their value.

That's my two cents worth. The Criterion name does affect my purchasing decisions, but only because they back up the brand with quality and value for my money.

I feel like this is a load of bullocks and it all boils down to money instead of film. So you're saying that you'll buy a film from criterion for $15 you've never seen because it's going to have extras and the people deciding what to release have taste, but you won't buy a film you've actually seen from a different company because it doesn't have extras and costs $16? And stick with the DVD? Perhaps you would have known the Siegel film otherwise; anyway it seems off to me.

[Fabs]

Originally Posted by filmmusic

example:
Jellyfish Eyes
I have a hunch that the Criterion customers that are trying to see this with an open mind, wouldn't do so if it wasn't Criterion and was just a film from another company.
(mind you, this statement doesn't mean I'm for or against this movie. I haven't seen it [just trying to go ahead some negative reactions with this parenthesis])

I haven't seen the film either. But just looking at the trailer makes me wonder why this movie would be released before the numerous masterpieces that they have yet to release from Japan.

[Edward J Grug III]

Originally Posted by kuro_sawa

I feel like this is a load of bullocks and it all boils down to money instead of film. So you're saying that you'll buy a film from criterion for $15 you've never seen because it's going to have extras and the people deciding what to release have taste, but you won't buy a film you've actually seen from a different company because it doesn't have extras and costs $16? And stick with the DVD? Perhaps you would have known the Siegel film otherwise; anyway it seems off to me.

You missed the part about Kino being sloppy with their transfers at times, thus not being a company to trust. A very important point.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by filmmusic

Of course.
But if those same films were released by an X company, I have a feeling those that would surely buy them if they were Criterion, wouldn't care less.
I see it happen all the time in many things in life.
The "brand" and the "name" is what makes the difference.

Back in the laserdisc days, I bought a fair number of Criterions, but they were films that I was at least familiar with by reputation, if not ones that I had seen before. Then at one point I was flabbergasted when Criterion released John Woo's The Killer. At that time, all I knew of Hong Kong films was that they were badly dubbed "chop-sockey" movies, and I couldn't figure out why Criterion would want to release one on LD.

It wasn't all that long after that, on my way home, I was passing by an arthouse theater and saaw that they were showing Woo's Hard-Boiled. The last show of the last day was about to begin, and I said whatthehell, and bought a ticket. The next day, I went to a local Tower Records and bought a copy of The Killer and began a long-term love affair with HK cinema.

Because of that, I started to think about whether the other releases of theirs that I wasn't familiar with would also be to my liking, and I started blind-buying Criterions left and right. Some of my favorite filmmakers I got to know because of that. The thing is, that funky "C" isn't just a label, or a brand. It's an indication that if a title has that "C" on it, chances are it's going to be worth looking at.

Now, if you want to argue that people will buy Criterion titles just for collecting purposes, even if they don't like the films themselves, well that's a separate issue. Even then, there's nothing really wrong with that. But people who blind-buy Criterions just because they're Criterions are really just indicating a trust in the judgments of the people running the company putting out a worthwhile product.

Other labels? Sure, I'm finding other boutique/arthouse/whatever labels that are giving me the same feeling of trust. Cohen Media Group is the big one for me...just about everything they put out looks interesting. Cinema Guild is another. Oscilloscope Pictures is another, though I haven't bought anything of theirs yet (I've seen one of their releases on Netflix that I really liked, and a number of their other titles look interesting). There are a number of folks who feel that way about Olive Films, Kino Lorber Studio Classics, or Shout Factory/Scream Factory.

If anything, I find myself not buying as many Criterions as I would like because I'm buying releases from other companies, too.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by filmmusic

I prefer seeing that, which means those people are restrained and buy what they really need, than seeing posts of people feeling "compelled" to buy ALL of them (even if they have never ever heard of the movies) just because they have a C on the cover!

How many 'Criterion Completists' are there really, though?

Are there large numbers of people who post 'gotta have all of them' month after month after month?

I don't see it.

Originally Posted by filmmusic

@jmclick
I agree with you that Criterion may have greater transfers than other companies.
But my posts didn't refer to the quality of the transfers, but the films themselves.
I was referring to blind buys based on a company's name.

example:
Jellyfish Eyes
I have a hunch that the Criterion customers that are trying to see this with an open mind, wouldn't do so if it wasn't Criterion and was just a film from another company.
(mind you, this statement doesn't mean I'm for or against this movie. I haven't seen it [just trying to go ahead some negative reactions with this parenthesis])

Well, sure. If a guy at work or a certain reviewer consistently turns me onto films I enjoy of course I'm going to give their recommendations more weight.

Why wouldn't I?

[StingingVelvet]

I will kill one shih tzu puppy every hour until The Brood is announced by Criterion.

[hoytereden]

Originally Posted by jmclick

I think you're partially right, and I can use my own purchasing habits as evidence. Let me explain.

If Riot on Cell Block 11 had been released by Kino Lorber (for example) rather than Criterion, I probably would not have been interested in buying a copy. But I did in fact buy it, because it was a Criterion title; however, it wasn't the Criterion name alone that gave the title a certain cachet in my mind. It's because I knew that Criterion would offer a superior transfer of the film, and load the disc with a bunch of fascinating extras that would enrich my enjoyment of the movie, and make it worth my while to give it a look. And sure enough, by the time I watched the film, delved into all the extras and read the essay and other material, I was pretty impressed with the total experience.

Conversely, I refuse to buy On the Beach on blu-ray, despite the fact that I know it's a good film, and I'd like to see it again. Why not? Because Kino Lorber is fairly sloppy with their transfers (and sure enough, the visual and audio quality were both criticized in many of the reviews), and because the only extra they included on the title was the theatrical trailer. (Whoop-de-doo!) And so I decided to stick with my MGM DVD.

I consider Criterion releases to be excellent values for what I receive. I pay about $15.00 (shipped) on average for Criterions with an SRP of $39.99. The lowest I've seen On the Beach on sale for was around $16.50 shipped, discounted from an SRP of $29.95. The math is easy to figure out, and what's more, Criterion discs tend to hold their value.

That's my two cents worth. The Criterion name does affect my purchasing decisions, but only because they back up the brand with quality and value for my money.

I bought both because I really enjoy those two films. For me it's the fact that these two titles are being offered at all on Blu-ray and the only way I wouldn't get them is if the transfers were absolutely terrible. On the Beach may not be Criterion good but compared to my TCM recording it looks terrific and I'm happy with it. I admit I would have been in seventh heaven if it had come with extras but if it had been a choice between bare bones release or no release at all............ I love Criterion but they also disappoint on occasion with an example being no commentary on Red River. A big omission in my opinion but once again not a deal breaker. My bottom line is owning copies of my favorite films and if it means giving up a little in order to get that then that's ok.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

I will kill one shih tzu puppy every hour until The Brood is announced by Criterion.

OUCH! That is flat out cold, man.

I would say, "I kill one super-cute kitten every hour until Mulholland Drive is announced by Criterion," but I'm not sure there are that many kittens in the United States.

[pro-bassoonist]

My Dinner with André Blu-ray REVIEW



I have seen this film a number of times during the years, but I don't find it as fascinating as many people are convinced it is. It is different and very bold, but in my opinion it is not one of Louis Malle's best efforts. (Actually, it is Wallace Shawn and Andre Gregory's film). I much prefer Vanya on 42nd Street.

There is a terrific documentary on the Blu-ray, My Dinner with Louis, which covers the French director's entire body of work. It is excellent



Pro-B

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

My Dinner with André Blu-ray REVIEW



I have seen this film a number of times during the years, but I don't find it as fascinating as many people are convinced it is. It is different and very bold, but in my opinion it is not one of Louis Malle's best efforts. (Actually, it is Wallace Shawn and Andre Gregory's film). I much prefer Vanya on 42nd Street.

There is a terrific documentary on the Blu-ray, My Dinner with Louis, which covers the French director's entire body of work. It is excellent

Pro-B

Yeah, I think Vanya on 42nd Street is superior too.

But it almost sounds like this might be worth it just for the documentary!

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by AaronJ

Yeah, I think Vanya on 42nd Street is superior too.

But it almost sounds like this might be worth it just for the documentary!

It is really good, Aaron

It covers just about everything, from the noir films all the way to the American films (Atlantic City). There are some terrific comments from Malle about the scandals, his trip to India, his first impressions of America, etc. You'll like it.

Pro-B

[jw007]

I don't know what's worse:

1) The fact that Criterion didn't announce anything on Monday.

or

2) Wasting 20 minutes of my time scrolling through 15 pages on this thread to get caught up reading posts from people freaking out and crying over Criterion's absence of announcements.

[jw007]

Originally Posted by jonathanswaqyim

Is the America Lost and Found Box Set worth picking up? Does anyone recommend it?

Oh yes. It's one of my favorite Criterion releases. I particularly am fond of the rebellious and rogue new wave of American film directors that emerged in the mid to late 1960s who changed film forever. This is the box set that pays homage to those exact people.

Originally Posted by alexandergrape

My Criterion dream is The Decalogue. Also, The New World would make me very happy. And any more Bresson is a plus, with some of his later, harder to find titles being more than a plus!

Sir, I like your taste in cinema.

[jw007]

Originally Posted by CriterionBlues

Can you run over to Criterion HQ and tell them to press the submit button? I'll give you their address.

I particularly thought this was a fantastic post though. (since you were actually there a few weeks ago)