The Criterion Collection

[amazon13]

Originally Posted by CassavetesGodard

Well that's one way. That is weird. I tried to search for it by name (Hausu and House), by director, and even Criterion pre-orders and nothing. But forgot all about just using this site's link.

It's right way buddy.Weird? don't think so,just two clicks from House.

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by ccfixx

Blah, blah, blah...

The pre-orders for "House" and "The Magician" are now up on Amazon.

So, either you guys can lock them in now for the $27.99 price or belly ache later when the prices jump up to $30+.

CC

Pre-ordered both, and tossed them in the collection.... thanks for the heads' up..... it seems that the first week or so on Amazon, is the best time to grab titles....

[Crimson King]

Just finished watching Days of Heaven, and I'm in awe. Not a long film, but a five star one all the way. The famous locust scene is beyond words, NO CGI, just the real deal + peanut shells dropped from helicopters! Can't wait for The Thin Red Line!

[neo78956]

Originally Posted by BillyJack

Just finished watching Days of Heaven, and I'm in awe. Not a long film, but a five star one all the way. The famous locust scene is beyond words, NO CGI, just the real deal + peanut shells dropped from helicopters! Can't wait for The Thin Red Line!

Terrence Malick is pretty much a genius like that. Do you know how they got that shot and most of the locust swarm shots? They dropped dead/fake/ locusts, painted peanut shells, and other various small locust sized objects from planes flying overhead, and shot the scenes in reverse with everyone doing things backwards, then played it back in reverse so it looked like the locusts were flying up and people were acting normally. AMAZING.

If Days of Heaven blew you away, The Thin Red Line is going to melt your face off.

[Crimson King]

Originally Posted by neo78956

Terrence Malick is pretty much a genius like that. Do you know how they got that shot and most of the locust swarm shots? They dropped dead/fake/ locusts, painted peanut shells, and other various small locust sized objects from planes flying overhead, and shot the scenes in reverse with everyone doing things backwards, then played it back in reverse so it looked like the locusts were flying up and people were acting normally. AMAZING.

If Days of Heaven blew you away, The Thin Red Line is going to melt your face off.

Kinda reminds me of Kubrick, he has only made a very FEW feature legnth films in his career, 4 to be exact. Would love for Criterion to get the rights to Badlands.

[neo78956]

Originally Posted by BillyJack

Kinda reminds me of Kubrick, he has only made a very FEW feature legnth films in his career, 4 to be exact. Would love for Criterion to get the rights to Badlands.

To me, Malick is like the polar opposite of Kubrick. Malick's films are philosophical and visceral, very much about feeling and sight. Malick is very adamant about how film is a visual medium, not a written one. Very little dialogue, lots of outdoor cinematography. His films are all basically about the relationship between man and nature, or man and the world around him. Visual poetry, if you will. You feel a Malick film, you don't just watch it.

Kubrick, on the other hand, is very intellectual and dialogue driven (sans 2001). His films have emotion, but it's very different from Malick. Whereas your body and soul is engaged in a Malick film, Kubrick more engages your brain. Both filmmakers were visual masters, but they could not be more different in tone and style.

[Crimson King]

Originally Posted by neo78956

To me, Malick is like the polar opposite of Kubrick. Malick's films are philosophical and visceral, very much about feeling and sight. Malick is very adamant about how film is a visual medium, not a written one. Very little dialogue, lots of outdoor cinematography. His films are all basically about the relationship between man and nature, or man and the world around him. Visual poetry, if you will. You feel a Malick film, you don't just watch it.

Kubrick, on the other hand, is very intellectual and dialogue driven (sans 2001). His films have emotion, but it's very different from Malick. Whereas your body and soul is engaged in a Malick film, Kubrick more engages your brain. Both filmmakers were visual masters, but they could not be more different in tone and style.

Sorry, the reason I mentioned Kubrick was the few amount of films made by Malick.

[neo78956]

Originally Posted by BillyJack

Sorry, the reason I mentioned Kubrick was the few amount of films made by Malick.

Ah, that makes sense. Kubrick managed to make a good 13 films, so Malick has some catching up to do.

[Crimson King]

Originally Posted by neo78956

Ah, that makes sense. Kubrick managed to make a good 13 films, so Malick has some catching up to do.

What's the chance of getting an interview or commentary from Malick on The Thin Red Line? He did not appear on the Days of Heaven CC BD, but he approved the transfer.

[neo78956]

Originally Posted by BillyJack

What's the chance of getting an interview or commentary from Malick on The Thin Red Line? He did not appear on the Days of Heaven CC BD, but he approved the transfer.

Malick is a recluse and pretty much never does interviews, etc. Getting an actual photo of the guy in public is probably worth a million dollars.

[SpiderBaby]

Originally Posted by BillyJack

Funny I see you're a fan of Out Of The Blue, not quite as good as Easy Rider but a damn good film. I have the non-anamorpic DVD from Anchor Bay (It even came in a blue case!) with the Dennis Hopper commentary. I think that OOTB is now in the public domain sine I've seen budget DVD releases of it. Linda Manz of Days of Heaven was also great in the film, she seems to have retired from acting. The last film I remember seeing her in was in small role in The Game.

Yeah, I love Out of the Blue. I would put The Last Movie too, but that would be harder for Criterion to release.

[fdm]

Originally Posted by CassavetesGodard

So you seen it? It looks to have violence, sex, political issues, and punk rock, so my kind of thing. I just didn't know if the best scenes was already in the trailer and if those eye candy moments actually transform into a good blind buy.

Been a while since I watched it, but yeah sounds like it would be your kind of thing. The trailer gives a flavor of what the film is like, though there's a lot more to it (more violence, sex, political issues, and punk rock). Not sure what it was that made it just a mild recommendation for me, perhaps the story line gets a bit tedious at times, but it's probably worth a look, it could be a great blind buy depending on your tastes. For me, I'm pretty happy all in all with it, hadn't seen any Derek Jarman before (or since, yet, but will again at some point).

[SpiderBaby]

Originally Posted by fdm

Been a while since I watched it, but yeah sounds like it would be your kind of thing. The trailer gives a flavor of what the film is like, though there's a lot more to it (more violence, sex, political issues, and punk rock). Not sure what it was that made it just a mild recommendation for me, perhaps the story line gets a bit tedious at times, but it's probably worth a look, it could be a great blind buy depending on your tastes. For me, I'm pretty happy all in all with it, hadn't seen any Derek Jarman before (or since, yet, but will again at some point).

I haven't seen any Derek Jarman films, so Jubilee would be my first. His other films seem to have alot of homosexual stuff, and while I am fine with the subject matter I don't know if his films are for homosexuals, because I am not one. For example, I like Paul Morrissey's films because they provide comedy, and are about drags, drug scene, etc. But I don't know if Jarman's films are for that crowd. There is a difference between a movie made ABOUT someone and a movie made FOR someone. So I might just stick with Jubilee and not go more into his films. It's hard to adventure into these type of director's films, because as a straight guy who is open to watching just about anything, you don't want to be stuck watching a In the Realm of the Senses type of movie with 2 dudes in it.

[ChadFL]

Originally Posted by neo78956

Malick is a recluse and pretty much never does interviews, etc. Getting an actual photo of the guy in public is probably worth a million dollars.

That's the truth. Better chance of getting an interview with Bigfoot than Malick. Though somebody did snap this picture not too long ago of Brad Pitt with a man who appears to be Malick in LA.

http://theplaylist.blogspot.com/2010...nging-out.html

[SpiderBaby]

Originally Posted by ChadFL

That's the truth. Better chance of getting an interview with Bigfoot than Malick. Though somebody did snap this picture not too long ago of Brad Pitt with a man who appears to be Malick in LA.

http://theplaylist.blogspot.com/2010...nging-out.html

I never understood Malick doing this. Not trying to say this in a smart way, but who does he think he is/or what does he think he is getting by "hiding" all the time? Now, I can understand not wanting to be in the public's eye (smart), and being a film director out of love, but avoiding interviews and things about your own films. Really Malick? Just seems like a "hip" thing to do to make your image more "mysterious", since he comes and go with movies when he pleases, so he makes his life like that too in the public's eye. Like it's all a routine for his image. Maybe that is why he has a hard time getting things released (um, Tree of Life?). I don't know, but interview for the people who makes you money by seeing your films. Heck even guys like David Lynch and Godard comes out sometimes. Do it for your fans Malick. There seems to be alot of those.

[ChadFL]

Originally Posted by CassavetesGodard

I never understood Malick doing this. Not trying to say this in a smart way, but who does he think he is/or what does he think he is getting by "hiding" all the time? Now, I can understand not wanting to be in the public's eye (smart), and being a film director out of love, but avoiding interviews and things about your own films. Really Malick? Just seems like a "hip" thing to do to make your image more "mysterious", since he comes and go with movies when he pleases, so he makes his life like that too in the public's eye. Like it's all a routine for his image. Maybe that is why he has a hard time getting things released (um, Tree of Life?). I don't know, but interview for the people who makes you money by seeing your films. Heck even guys like David Lynch and Godard comes out sometimes. Do it for your fans Malick. There seems to be alot of those.

Not entirely sure. A lot of people out there do have serious phobias to the point they are never seen in public. I used to work at a condominium that actually had a resident nobody had seen in 15 years. I'd drop her mail off at her doorstep and she'd leave me a nice tip for it under the rug but I never actually saw her.

But it seems to be selective with Malick. I mean this guy still directs films with large casts so it seems any phobia he may have is selective to say the least. Guess he's just a very private person in an occupation where you really should not expect privacy.

[SpiderBaby]

Originally Posted by ChadFL

Not entirely sure. A lot of people out there do have serious phobias to the point they are never seen in public. I used to work at a condominium that actually had a resident nobody had seen in 15 years. I'd drop her mail off at her doorstep and she'd leave me a nice tip for it under the rug but I never actually saw her.

But it seems to be selective with Malick. I mean this guy still directs films with large casts so it seems any phobia he may have is selective to say the least. Guess he's just a very private person in an occupation where you really should not expect privacy.

Yeah, privacy for a film director that directs the likes of Brad Pitt and Sean Penn in today's age isn't going to happen. I respect his privacy and all, just atleast interview for the people who makes you money. Don't shut them off, unless he really has a phobia.

[lDlisturb3d]

Originally Posted by reallyagi

I hope you were kidding about BB being the only Criterion you've seen, because it has nothing in common with the rest.

I knw that, i was just appreciative of the quality of the movie. In addition i wanna see what a critic calls a good movie, like summer hours.

[neo78956]

Originally Posted by CassavetesGodard

I never understood Malick doing this. Not trying to say this in a smart way, but who does he think he is/or what does he think he is getting by "hiding" all the time? Now, I can understand not wanting to be in the public's eye (smart), and being a film director out of love, but avoiding interviews and things about your own films. Really Malick? Just seems like a "hip" thing to do to make your image more "mysterious", since he comes and go with movies when he pleases, so he makes his life like that too in the public's eye. Like it's all a routine for his image. Maybe that is why he has a hard time getting things released (um, Tree of Life?). I don't know, but interview for the people who makes you money by seeing your films. Heck even guys like David Lynch and Godard comes out sometimes. Do it for your fans Malick. There seems to be alot of those.

Malick is one of those directors who is very passionate and serious about the art form, and would rather have the film speak for itself than having to be the face and voice of it. I appreciate that but I also find it somewhat frustrating because I would kill to get inside the guy's head and find out what makes him tick. Being a hermit is just his lifestyle choice I guess. His films are powerful and beautiful enough to where I can forgive him for it though.

Anywho, got paid today so I decided to take the plunge and buy In the Realm of the Senses and Close-Up on BD. Hopefully both live up to their reputations. In the Realm of the Senses certainly looks provocative, but it also looks like a compelling tragedy about lust and obsession. Very interesting indeed.

[Zen_Amako]

So, I picked up and watched Salo (on DVD). I doubt any subsequent viewing of the film will have the same effect as the first, so I'm not sure it will get a lot of replay. I liked it, though. I was expecting something extremely grim and dark, but it was really a political satire that just used extreme content to make its points. Some of the documentaries in the special features were very fascinating as well (you have to wonder what goes on inside people's heads while making a film like this). Obviously, this film isn't for everybody, but I'd recommend it to people who don't mind being challenged to think by a film and not spoon fed ( ). People who take it at face value will probably think it's garbage, but there is more going on beneath the surface.

Now I'm thinking about checking out Pasolini's Trilogy of Life (available on BD in the UK). People seem to think The Decameron is the best, and The Canterbury Tales is not as successful. I'm not sure about The Arabian Nights, but according to the review on this site, it contains some fairly graphic violence. Are all three worthy?