The Criterion Collection

[ThatOneGuy]

Originally Posted by Sifox211

I don't know if it's just me, but a few months after reading a book or watching a film I can usually remember nothing about it, nor the characters' names. So every watch is like seeing it anew!

That is definitely not me. It takes years for me to forget movies entirely. I usually can draw up the big moments in films by looking at their cover.

[Scottie]

Originally Posted by dsman71

Anyone have Gilda and notice an audio glitch at the 1:06 mark, between 1:06 and 1:07 there was drop in audio..
Hopefully Im not the only one who caught this.

I just caught another at 1:23 I believe...

I just watched 01:06:00-01:07:00, as well as 01:23:00-01:24:00 and I did not notice any audio glitches or drops in quality.

[llj]

Originally Posted by WonderWeasel

I just got home from the Lady Snowblood screening, and that restoration looks and sounds absolutely pristine in a theater. Color, which (obviously) plays such an important part in the film, is vivid and it shows no signs of fading from age. One of the most interesting things I noticed was that skin tones were rendered perfectly, yet much of the film's color temperature is slightly cool, with a very light blue hue that adds to the winter setting. It made me think of an old rumor among film photographers that Japanese film stock tended towards a blue color temperature to correctly render skin tone, and American film towards red/yellow.

I think the blue hue is more a feature of the new restoration than the original prints. There is a lot of debate about this in the Lady Snowblood thread.

[jhiggy23]

I watched Umbrellas of Cherbourg last night and absolutely loved it. It's not a deep or complex film, but it really worked for me. It was my first Demy, actually.

I know it has been asked before, so I apologize, but can someone please comment as to the quality of the other films in the set?

[Scottie]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

I watched Umbrellas of Cherbourg last night and absolutely loved it. It's not a deep or complex film, but it really worked for me. It was my first Demy, actually.

I know it has been asked before, so I apologize, but can someone please comment as to the quality of the other films in the set?

The Young Girls of Rochefort and Lola are great films.

Une Chambre en Ville and Bay of Angels are good films.

Donkey Skin is in its own world, but I still really like it.

[llj]

Originally Posted by iScottie

5. I Knew Her Well

7. Paris Belongs to Us

I Knew Her Well is a a fairly typical 60s era Italian film about the emptiness of status, fame and celebrity. It's very stylish and well shot, somewhat reminiscent of Antonioni. Livelier and more 'open' than a typical Antonioni film, though. Recommended if you are into Antonioni and 60s era class-conscious Italian cinema featuring beautiful actors and actresses. I dug it.

Paris Belongs to Us is ostensibly a mystery film with characters that pretty much spend the entire film talking about what they are going to do rather than actually doing it. It's very long and requires a fair degree of patience for its talky, passive bohemian characters but it's got a lot of style and is in its own way, a very radical kind of cinema for its time. Personally, I fell asleep when I saw it in a theatre, but despite the film not being for me, I still could see that it was doing something very unique for its time, and it's a very well crafted film. If this sounds like your thing, go for it, but if you're unsure, get it at a sale or rent first.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by iScottie

The Young Girls of Rochefort and Lola are great films.

Une Chambre en Ville and Bay of Angels are good films.

Donkey Skin is in its own world, but I still really like it.

Thanks!

[SkyAntoine]

I watched To Be Or Not To Be last night for first time. Once again, movies made about WWII during or at the beginning of the war absolutely fascinate me. Great Dictator is one of my favorite films. TBONTB wasn't on the same level, but I enjoyed it quite a bit.

Very solid comedy throughout with a nice tightrope walk between satire and commentary on the Nazis. Hindsight gives us a different look on this today, but these films were so bold to be produced at the time.
8/10

[Polaroid]

Boyhood is on Sky movies, so going to give it a second chance.

[ThatOneGuy]

Originally Posted by Polaroid

Boyhood is on Sky movies, so going to give it a second chance.

I still have to watch it... I just don't really want to.

[Polaroid]

Originally Posted by John Klein

I still have to watch it... I just don't really want to.

Well my opinion on the acting is unchanged lol, awful acting from the kids and even Patricia Arquette is a tad wooden D:

[ThatOneGuy]

Originally Posted by Polaroid

Well my opinion on the acting is unchanged lol, awful acting from the kids and even Patricia Arquette is a tad wooden D:

I just wish there was a way of finding out the question that if the film did take 12 years to make, would people still like it as much as they do? The 12 years to make point is usually brought up when people talk about the film.

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by Polaroid

Well my opinion on the acting is unchanged lol, awful acting from the kids and even Patricia Arquette is a tad wooden D:

To this day the only performance by Patricia Arquette that I was ever impressed by was in True Romance.

She was great in that.

...underwhelming in everything else imo.

[llj]

Originally Posted by John Klein

I just wish there was a way of finding out the question that if the film did take 12 years to make, would people still like it as much as they do? The 12 years to make point is usually brought up when people talk about the film.

It's still a decent coming of age movie. At the end of the day when you strip away all the hype, there's still a solid movie underneath, just not as immediately spectacular without the quote-unquote 12 year gimmick. It would probably be considered on the same level (critically and financially) as a Kelly Reichardt film. Laudable piece independent American cinema, but would only known within a small circle of film geeks. I personally enjoyed Boyhood, and the 3 hours flew by pretty quickly for me. It ain't the greatest thing since sliced bread, but it's not that bad a way to spend a night at home.

[shadedpain4]

Originally Posted by John Klein

I just wish there was a way of finding out the question that if the film did take 12 years to make, would people still like it as much as they do? The 12 years to make point is usually brought up when people talk about the film.

I never understand the point of this question. You could also ask "If Ethan Hawke wasn't in this, would people still like it?" or "if Richard Linklater didn't direct it, would people still like it?". You're essentially asking if people would still like it if it were a different movie (which itb would have to be if they didn't make it the way they did), which of course has no answer since that movie hasn't been made.

My comments aren't meant to sound critical of you personally John, I've just seen that question a few times and I have trouble understanding it.

[ThatOneGuy]

Originally Posted by shadedpain4

I never understand the point of this question. You could also ask "If Ethan Hawke wasn't in this, would people still like it?" or "if Richard Linklater didn't direct it, would people still like it?". You're essentially asking if people would still like it if it were a different movie (which itb would have to be if they didn't make it the way they did), which of course has no answer since that movie hasn't been made.

My comments aren't meant to sound critical of you personally John, I've just seen that question a few times and I have trouble understanding it.

It is because that is always the defense for the film. If you tell someone you didn't like it they jump to the defense with "but it took 12 years to make! That is an achievement!". The film even marketed itself with it.

If you strip the film of that gimmick, does the film still hold up?

[llj]

Originally Posted by shadedpain4

I never understand the point of this question. You could also ask "If Ethan Hawke wasn't in this, would people still like it?" or "if Richard Linklater didn't direct it, would people still like it?". You're essentially asking if people would still like it if it were a different movie (which itb would have to be if they didn't make it the way they did), which of course has no answer since that movie hasn't been made.

My comments aren't meant to sound critical of you personally John, I've just seen that question a few times and I have trouble understanding it.

I agree with the thrust of your argument. That said, if you filmed it conventionally and just inserted different kid actors at different periods of their lives while the script remained exactly the same, one COULD argue it would be for the most part still the same.

Personally, I think the physical growth of Mason is to some degree important to the backbone of the film, though, which is why I agree with you that it would be a different movie had they filmed it conventionally.

[Scottie]

Originally Posted by Polaroid

Well my opinion on the acting is unchanged lol, awful acting from the kids and even Patricia Arquette is a tad wooden D:

Yeah, because the kids were trained professionals when production started.

[llj]

Originally Posted by John Klein

If you tell someone you didn't like it they jump to the defense with "but it took 12 years to make! That is an achievement!". The film even marketed itself with it.

People who say this don't sound like hardcore film geeks, though, certainly not enough to register as a member on blu-ray.com forums and post on a Criterion thread.

[shadedpain4]

Originally Posted by John Klein

It is because that is always the defense for the film. If you tell someone you didn't like it they jump to the defense with "but it took 12 years to make! That is an achievement!". The film even marketed itself with it.

If you strip the film of that gimmick, does the film still hold up?

I guess my point is that isn't a gimmick, it's an integral part of how the film was made. If you remove that bit, now you have to make changes elsewhere (focus on a smaller timeframe of the boy's life? Same script but multiple actors?) and each change would have made a different film.

Maybe what would be a question better suited to what you are trying to get at would be "Would people still like it if they didn't know it took 12 years to make?", although I think seeing the actors grow/age during the film is part of the experience, and something you would notice even if you didn't know the production history of the film.