The Criterion Collection

[SkyAntoine]

Finished watching Blind Chance today in preparation for Criterion Close-up's podcast this weekend. It was my first Krzysztof Kieślowski film. I'm teetering on the edge of loving it or letting the historic context muddy the water too much for me.
I'm going to watch the supplements tonight which I expect to help.

As far as the concept of the film...very thought provoking. If this is the lesser of Kieślowski's Criterion releases, then good film watching nights lie ahead.
It is a good time to watch The Double Life of Véronique this week. I'm still holding off on The Three Colors Trilogy until I can binge watch over one week.

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by darkness2918

Is the BD coming from Criterion?

The release will not be via the Criterion Collection.

Pro-B

[mrjohnnyb]

SammyJankis

Outstanding closet visit video.

I love the story about why he saw State of Siege tens times as a child.

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

Some film adaptations do surpass the books they were based on imo.

The Shawshank Redemption, based on Stephen King's novella, "Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption", is a good example here.

Also...and I'm going to get flamed for this...

The Lord of the Rings film trilogy improves on the Tolkien novels. The conclusion of The Return of the King is almost excruciatingly drawn out in the novel, but the film, while still drawn out, makes the storyline more refreshingly concise.


EDIT: I see that someone here already beat me to The Shawshank Redemption.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

Also...and I'm going to get flamed for this...

The Lord of the Rings film trilogy improves on the Tolkien novels. The conclusion of The Return of the King is almost excruciatingly drawn out in the novel, but the film, while still drawn out, makes the storyline more refreshingly concise.

You won't get flamed from me this time.

I found the books a slog to get through -- I finally gave up half-way through The Two Towers -- but oddly enough, I read The Hobbit twice, and thoroughly enjoyed it.

For me, other instances of a film being better than the book: Blade Runner, A Clockwork Orange, Carrie

[Scottie]

Adding to the book and movie debate, I greatly prefer Chandler's novel of The Big Sleep to the movie. As much as I love Bogie and Bacall, it's hard for me to separate the two mediums.

[mja345]

"World According to Garp" is a fantastic novel with a very good film version to go with it. The movie did an excellent job of re-creating the tone of the book, which is never easy to do. I'd give the slight nod to the book, but the film is an excellent adaptation.

"Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" the film is about as well as anyone could have adapted the book. The book is far more focused on establishing a political and social tone, which would be difficult to do in the same way in a two hour film, but the film does a nice job of establishing that a bit in the last 15-20 minutes. I truly don't think anyone could have done a better job of filming an "unfilmable" novel than Terry Gilliam did.

I prefer the film version of "American Psycho" to the book. I think the film, IMO because it was directed by a woman, never glorifies Patrick Bateman and the character is boiled down to a complete joke. The book just wallows in brutal violence and, while it does have some funny moments, the film is just far better IMO.

Two AWFUL film adaptations of books are "Bonfire of the Vanities" and "Breakfast of Champions". "Bonfire" could have easily been a great film, but Brian de Palma was probably the wrong choice to direct, the casting was awful, and the shooting was a disaster. None of the satirical tone of the book is recreated in the film. And "Breakfast of Champions" is just a terrible adaptation of the brilliant Vonnegut book. Bruce Willis is just woefully miscast. Alan Rudolph is a decent director, but I don't know if anyone could have successfully directed a film version of that novel.

[filmmusic]

An unboxing video of The Decalogue from the polish thread.

Dekalog - The Decalogue Krzysztof Kieślowski Blu-Ray Unboxing - YouTube

I'm trying to find a trailer for the Dekalog, but i can't.
I have never seen any of the films.

[mja345]

Forgot to mention it in my last post, but probably the worst film adaptation of a book I've seen is "Slapstick of Another Kind", which was adapted from Vonnegut's "Slapstick". "Slapstick" isn't one of my favorite Vonnegut novels, but it's still pretty good, but the film is so mind-blowingly awful it must be seen to be believed.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

that's stating a general preference. most (not all) of the examples in your other post are the same. they amount to "I enjoyed the movie/book more." I think that's fine. but to say, and I don't mean to pick on Shell, 'the book gave us a lot more in the way of the background stories for the doomed family' (paraphrase obviously) is not fair. that's not a high level / general preference (which again, I think is ok.) its stating 'I don't like the movie because it was not something that the book was.' inherent limitations and the director's personal idea for how he/she wishes to interpret the material or what he/she wishes to say w/ said material can result in something completely different.

The director's personal idea of how he/she wishes to interpret the material is fair game for criticism, isn't it?

If a director wishes to focus more heavily on one aspect of a source and less heavily on another that's fair game for criticism. If a director wants to completely disregard the source material - *cough* Starship Troopers - he is well within his rights to do so but that decision is fair game for criticism.

If the production code forces Hitchcock to gut the ending of Rebecca that is fair game for criticism.

To my way of thinking, comparing a book to a movie is no different than comparing two movies. To me, one of the biggest differences between the original Insomnia and the Nolan remake is the way they each end. I think the original ending is far stronger than Nolan's watered down Americanized ending.

How is that comparison any different from comparing the way Hitchcock and du Maurier ended Rebecca? I just don't see any difference at all. I think they're both completely legitimate comparisons.

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

film is a different medium. the director owes nothing to the original material. it is an adaptation. not a Gus Van Sant Psycho homage. it should be judged on its own merits.

Judging a film on its merits does not preclude second-guessing. In fact, in a way it pretty much requires second-guessing.

'Did somebody else have a better ending to this story' is a fair question when judging a film. 'Was there a more interesting aspect of this story on which the film could have focused' and 'could the film have benefited from paying less attention to this and more attention to that' are also fair questions.

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

consider SP4's hypothetical conversation once again.. let's say he changes his mind and goes to see that movie with his friend. he walks out and says, "it was good!" and his friend says, "I didn't like it because the part about the suspicious neighbors (idk.. off the top of my head here) was left out."

when evaluating that film, what bearing does something that didn't even exist in the film have on whether or not the film was good? its ridiculous, actually.

Let's say SP4's friend had said 'I thought Spielberg was absolutely right to jettison the adultery subplot. It did nothing for the story and subverted the relationship between Brody and Hooper'.

Would that have been ridiculous?

[octagon]

Originally Posted by jayembee

I found the books a slog to get through -- I finally gave up half-way through The Two Towers -- but oddly enough, I read The Hobbit twice, and thoroughly enjoyed it.

That doesn't seem at all odd. Compared to the trilogy, The Hobbit was a much more enjoyable read. Which is one of the things I really hate about the bloated The Hobbit movies. Jackson basically took the one really fun thing Tolkein wrote and turned it into a dreadfully slow slog.

His King Kong remake suffered from the same problem, actually. A three hour love letter to one of your favorite movies might seem like a good idea on paper but you run the risk of draining the material of the fun and excitement that made you fall in love with it in the first place.

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by iScottie

Adding to the book and movie debate, I greatly prefer Chandler's novel of The Big Sleep to the movie. As much as I love Bogie and Bacall, it's hard for me to separate the two mediums.

I prefer the novels, The Big Sleep, Farewell, My Lovely, and The Long Goodbye to their film adaptations, but I'll freely admit that I read Chandler's Philip Marlowe stories with Humphrey Bogart's voice in my head.

Originally Posted by octagon

That doesn't seem at all odd. Compared to the trilogy, The Hobbit was a much more enjoyable read. Which is one of the things I really hate about the bloated The Hobbit movies. Jackson basically took the one really fun thing Tolkein wrote and turned it into a dreadfully slow slog.

His King Kong remake suffered from the same problem, actually. A three hour love letter to one of your favorite movies might seem like a good idea on paper but you run the risk of draining the material of the fun and excitement that made you fall in love with it in the first place.

I only made it through the first two movies in Peter Jackson's The Hobbit trilogy. I just couldn't take it. Those Hobbit movies were like well-written parodies of The Lord of the Rings movies.

Peter Jackson's King Kong was...well...I cannot think of anything good to say about it. The original 1933 movie is so brilliant with the pacing, and it still stands as one of the most fast-paced movies ever. The new one...not so much.

It also irritates me that King Kong is an actual gorilla in the Peter Jackson movie. I never thought of Kong as a gorilla in the original film. He's the Great Ape...he's a species that the world has never seen before.

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

The Shawshank Redemption, based on Stephen King's novella, "Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption", is a good example here.

Also...and I'm going to get flamed for this...

The Lord of the Rings film trilogy improves on the Tolkien novels. The conclusion of The Return of the King is almost excruciatingly drawn out in the novel, but the film, while still drawn out, makes the storyline more refreshingly concise.


EDIT: I see that someone here already beat me to The Shawshank Redemption.

Maybe it's because they were a big part of my childhood reading experience, but I prefer the Tolkien books to the Peter Jackson movies.

I was able to use my imagination while reading the books, in a way that wasn't possible with the films. Plus some of my favorite characters, like Tom Bombadil, were left out of the films.

...Tom Bombadil was my boy.

[SlickDamian]

Stand By Me is an improvement on King's The Body.

[the sordid sentinel]

Well, after a week of intensive viewing I just finished the Zatoichi set. Absolutely loved it. The highest complement I can pay is that after the 25th film ended I wished there were 25 more to watch.

Can't say enough about Katsu's performance. Really affecting. Was always hoping Ichi would eventually wind up with the girl, but not to be. I found the endings of some of these profoundly sad. Thankfully there was plenty of humor to balance that out. Action was top notch, especially in some of the later entries. I liked the way these movies give insight into Japanese life and politics of that time period. Very interesting. Pretty much every outing is visually striking, the cast of directors definitely brought their A game. And I have to say as someone who lives with a disability some of the beats touched on in that regard are exactly true to life.

Totally enjoyed seeing Mifune show up. For my money he is the most compelling presence ever captured on film. He completely owns it in Zatoichi meets Yojimbo. I like the thought of Yojimbo possibly settling into a quiet existence as hinted at in that entry as well. Nice seeing other frequent Kurosawa players popping in and out along the way as well.

Watched the bonus features and found the documentary somewhat sad. You can tell Katsu was quite self destructive. Hated seeing the guy who played a character I cared a lot about in that state. Pretty ballsy to let all of that be captured on film, however.

Will be looking forward to sawing through these again in the near future. So glad I finally sprung for this set.

[Edward J Grug III]

Originally Posted by the sordid sentinel

Well, after a week of intensive viewing I just finished the Zatoichi set. Absolutely loved it. The highest complement I can pay is that after the 25th film ended I wished there were 25 more to watch.

Can't say enough about Katsu's performance. Really affecting. Was always hoping Ichi would eventually wind up with the girl, but not to be. I found the endings of some of these profoundly sad. Thankfully there was plenty of humor to balance that out. Action was top notch, especially in some of the later entries. I liked the way these movies give insight into Japanese life and politics of that time period. Very interesting. Pretty much every outing is visually striking, the cast of directors definitely brought their A game. And I have to say as someone who lives with a disability some of the beats touched on in that regard are exactly true to life.

Totally enjoyed seeing Mifune show up. For my money he is the most compelling presence ever captured on film. He completely owns it in Zatoichi meets Yojimbo. I like the thought of Yojimbo possibly settling into a quiet existence as hinted at in that entry as well. Nice seeing other frequent Kurosawa players popping in and out along the way as well.

Watched the bonus features and found the documentary somewhat sad. You can tell Katsu was quite self destructive. Hated seeing the guy who played a character I cared a lot about in that state. Pretty ballsy to let all of that be captured on film, however.

Will be looking forward to sawing through these again in the near future. So glad I finally sprung for this set.

You watched the whole set in a week?! I just finished the seventh film, and I've had the set since it came out! :P

[blkhrt]

I've been too busy to keep up with the thread these days, but I love the book versus movie debate. One movie that I think definitely improves on the book is The Sweet Hereafter. The book is good, but the movie is outstanding (and one that I would love to see Criterion release).

[Namuhana]

Two book-to-film adaptations I find to be practically perfect are Atonement and (the criminally underrated) Cloud Atlas. Marvelous novels turned into marvelous films.

I've been (secretly) wanting a 3 Films by Joe Wright Starring Keira Knightley box set for quite a while now (Pride & Prejudice, Atonement, and Anna Karenina); it would be, dare I say it, perfection.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by octagon

The director's personal idea of how he/she wishes to interpret the material is fair game for criticism, isn't it?

If a director wishes to focus more heavily on one aspect of a source and less heavily on another that's fair game for criticism. If a director wants to completely disregard the source material - *cough* Starship Troopers - he is well within his rights to do so but that decision is fair game for criticism.

If the production code forces Hitchcock to gut the ending of Rebecca that is fair game for criticism.

To my way of thinking, comparing a book to a movie is no different than comparing two movies. To me, one of the biggest differences between the original Insomnia and the Nolan remake is the way they each end. I think the original ending is far stronger than Nolan's watered down Americanized ending.

How is that comparison any different from comparing the way Hitchcock and du Maurier ended Rebecca? I just don't see any difference at all. I think they're both completely legitimate comparisons.



Judging a film on its merits does not preclude second-guessing. In fact, in a way it pretty much requires second-guessing.

'Did somebody else have a better ending to this story' is a fair question when judging a film. 'Was there a more interesting aspect of this story on which the film could have focused' and 'could the film have benefited from paying less attention to this and more attention to that' are also fair questions.



Let's say SP4's friend had said 'I thought Spielberg was absolutely right to jettison the adultery subplot. It did nothing for the story and subverted the relationship between Brody and Hooper'.

Would that have been ridiculous?

That's fine. I realize that I did say something like "they should never be compared EVER." we have a page or so of people saying "x book was better than the film" or vice versa... That is comparing and I happen to think that's fine.

I've made it clear what type of relative comparison I think is not appropriate and I'd rather not repeat myself.

[hoytereden]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

Peter Jackson's King Kong was...well...I cannot think of anything good to say about it. The original 1933 movie is so brilliant with the pacing, and it still stands as one of the most fast-paced movies ever. The new one...not so much.

It also irritates me that King Kong is an actual gorilla in the Peter Jackson movie. I never thought of Kong as a gorilla in the original film. He's the Great Ape...he's a species that the world has never seen before.

Yes, we spend mere minutes in NY in the original but with Jackson I felt like I spent enough time there to qualify for jury duty. Just get on the damn boat! And don't get me going on the ice pond sequence or Jack Black's Carl Denham. Also the relationship with Ann and Kong was too buddy buddy. In the original she was never less than terrified of him and you figured once he got tired of her....
Jackson's heart was in the right place when he did this film but like an over indulgent parent he just went way overboard.