The Criterion Collection

[Arawn]

Originally Posted by mja345

You'd be surprised how many people haven't seen "The Godfather".

Last year I asked a Best Buy employee if they had Lawrence of Arabia.

He said, "Is that a movie?"

[Namuhana]

Originally Posted by mja345

You'd be surprised how many people haven't seen "The Godfather". I'm in my late twenties and the vast majority of people I know haven't actually seen "The Godfather". They know Brando doing his thing in it, they know Pacino is in it, but very few have actually sat down and watched it. "The Godfather" is the type of film that many people say they have seen because it's become so ingrained in popular culture, but some of those people haven't actually watched the whole thing. If you asked many people about Luca Brasi or Virgil Sollozzo, most would have no idea what you're talking about. I think so many people who are, say, ages 50-75 now saw "The Godfather" that it remains a huge part of popular culture.

People are weird with their viewing habits now. I know plenty of people who are completely turned off by watching a three hour movie, but will gladly binge watch a mediocre TV show. I think a lot of people fire up Netflix and don't even consider the vast majority of content on there, particularly if it's older. It goes back to people staying in their comfort zone, which we've discussed before.

I'm twenty-four and I've seen The Godfather! (Though, I wasn't all that enthralled with it; I'm the kind of guy who would have preferred Cabaret to win over The Godfather for Best Film that year. I think I'm an anomaly there, though...)

I tend to stay away from binge watching. I've only recently started doing it with one show, Community, though I think I've only consecutively watched five or six episodes at most. When I hear others my age telling me how they stayed home all day and watched a full season of, say, Game of Thrones, I just don't get it. I'm not the most active, and I enjoy sitting around watching movies and TV, reading, playing with my cat, but there must be some high degree of endurance to continually sit for hours on end. I guess I'm still in the mindset of watching television shows weekly, too. As much as I want to know what happens next, I don't need to watch something immediately. I guess I have a bit more patience than my peers.

It's funny. My older sister absolutely refuses to watch anything in black and white. If she's ever over and I'm watching a black and white film, she generally leaves the room. She doesn't like films in other languages, either. I guess, for some things, old isn't new again.

To get back to movies, today I watched Touch of Evil and Blood Simple, both for the first time. (I just finished reading Hammett's The Thin Man, which I think has something to do with watching some noir.) I really enjoyed both, and I'll have to pick up the Universal BD of ToE and wait for Blood Simple to get a release from Criterion.

[hoytereden]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

Cool. I was going to stsrt with the Hulot ones but figured I shiuld start with his first. Plus thepremise ounded funny. Tati is a great physical comedic actor

Originally Posted by oildude

Really glad to hear you liked your first Tati film. My advice is to watch them in order of year of release, that way you see the evolution of Mr. Hulot so that by the time you get to PlayTime you understand the character better, how he fits into that film, and will gain more insight into just how marvelous and technically astounding PlayTime is. After I finished the Hulot arc with Trafic, I was a bit sad knowing there were no more Hulot films to look forward to.

However, while I rate PlayTime as one of the greatest films ever made and enjoy the character of Hulot in it, my favorite Hulot films are the first two: Mr. Hulot's Vacation and Mon Oncle. Especially Mon Oncle. That movie is side splittingly funny while delivering a heartwarming message about the joys of life and family.

I love physical comedy so that's one reason Mr. Hulot's Holiday is my favorite of the Hulot films. He has so much energy and it's just one great bit after another. I won't ruin it but one brilliant sight gag

[Show spoiler]involves a inner tube and a funeral.

Before filming started on Mon Oncle began Tati was involved in a serious auto accident and suffered severe injuries. This is the reason that the Mr. Hulot character, in future films, would slow down considerably. I think it's a tribute to Tati that, even with his great physical talent impaired, the character doesn't really miss a beat. If anything, Hulot becomes more human and Tati's visual gags become even more inventive-the fountain and

[Show spoiler]the house with eyeballs

in Mon Oncle and

[Show spoiler]the whole phantom door

sequence in Playtime come to mind as examples.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by ThisKid

The main reason why we enjoy so fewer films made today is simply because Hollywood has just run out of ideas. I'm grateful for the films of the past because they changed my tastes for films and my outlook on life.

This couldn't be further from the truth. It has nothing to do with Hollywood running out of ideas (For starters, "Hollywood" rarely ever had ideas in the first place — it was the writers, producers, actors that brought the ideas to the studios, with the exception of the early days when Jack Warner, Chaplin, etc, had a hand in every aspect of the film production). It has to do with how MTV, vide games, social media, etc has changed audiences. PLENTY of original films are produced every year, yet even though this is what I see everyone clamoring for, those films rarely make money, with the exception of comedies (which are sold on the comedian involved) and low budget horror films. Interstellar was original and made money, but was sold on its director rather than its story, really, since nobody really knew what it was about.

Hollywood used to buy ideas and develop them at great cost. They don't do that anymore, because the risk of return now that budgets and — most importantly — marketing has gone up tenfold. A film may still cost $80 mil to make, but that marketing costs have doubled to tripled. So studios have turned to "safe" projects with built-in audiences in hopes that it will "pre-sell" itself.

Say what you want about the quality of the films, but big budget originals like Draft Day, Jupiter Ascending, Blackhat, Aloha, Tomorrowland — just a few of late — all flopping doesn't give Hollywood any confidence that going forward with new originals will pay off, either. At least when Fantastic Four flops, they knew they had a built-in enough audience that it still pulled $170 worldwide not counting home video sales, merchandising, etc.

Older viewers are staying home and watching on their home theaters, so the majority of the movie-going audience these days are kids and under 25's. So that's the market they cater to. It's unfortunate that new generations wouldn't go see a Bergman film like kids did in the 60s... or a movie like Rain Man (which made the equivalent, adjusted, of The Dark Knight in 1988) which wouldn't get made today because movie stars can't sell a film anymore.

Having been in hundreds of studio meetings, you'd be surprised at some of the thinking in there. But make no mistake, everyone wants to make good movies. It's just with costs, marketing, distribution the way it currently is now, they haven't "run out" of ideas — there's no faith in any projects that aren't pre-sold.

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

About The Godfather... I asked a few co-workers of mine which film they preferred - Goodfellas or The Godfather? It was only like 3 people, but all were under 30 and all said Goodfellas. One girl told me that she tried to watch The Godfather, but she was bored with it and turned it off.

This emphasizes my point. Many in the under 30, instant social media generation finds The Godfather boring. And there's absolutely nothing you can do about that, except make faster paced eye candy films that appeal to them. It's just too bad we can't get more smarter, better films released in a different way (doesn't have to be theatrical) for the rest of us.

[glarus]

Originally Posted by silverlakephil

4 years ago:


https://www.criterion.com/current/po...ndergarten-cop

April Fool's Day? So that's why my pre-order never shipped!

[mja345]

Social media has changed audiences more than anything. It's a necessary evil because you virtually have to be on it in some capacity, at least for work (I have Facebook and Linkedin). But it's created such a low bar for entertainment. People are entertained now by mindlessly scrolling through photos or watching very dumbed-down videos. You have to consciously avoid getting too wrapped up in social media. Many very young people in the U.S. now are on so many social media platforms and it just rules many of their lives because they haven't known anything different. I think if you go home and use social media as a primary form of entertainment, then it is going to seem so enormously arduous to sit down and watch a longer, slower-paced film. Social media has changed things far more than television or video games ever did IMO.

[ShellOilJunior]

Originally Posted by Arawn

Last year I asked a Best Buy employee if they had Lawrence of Arabia.

He said, "Is that a movie?"

During the DVD era I asked a Best Buy employee if they had Seven Samurai in-stock.

"Seventh Samurai? How do you spell it?"

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

During the DVD era I asked a Best Buy employee if they had Seven Samurai in-stock.

"Seventh Samurai? How do you spell it?"

Toshiro Mifune was the seventh samurai, no?

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by Namuhana

I tend to stay away from binge watching. I've only recently started doing it with one show, Community, though I think I've only consecutively watched five or six episodes at most. When I hear others my age telling me how they stayed home all day and watched a full season of, say, Game of Thrones, I just don't get it. I'm not the most active, and I enjoy sitting around watching movies and TV, reading, playing with my cat, but there must be some high degree of endurance to continually sit for hours on end. I guess I'm still in the mindset of watching television shows weekly, too. As much as I want to know what happens next, I don't need to watch something immediately. I guess I have a bit more patience than my peers.

I've binged watched something on occasion, but I'm not enamored of the practice. I find if I watch 10-13 episodes in a single run, I end up not being able to recall which episode a particular event happens in, because everything ran together as if it was one long movie. And that annoys me. I try not to watch more than 2-3 episodes of a show in one sitting, though sometimes I might do as many as 5, if that's how many episodes are on a single disc.

[zakzak]

Amazon is selling Chungking Express for $30 with 3rd party selling at $135!!
Grab it while you can if you are a fan of Wong Kar-Wai

http://www.amazon.com/Chungking-Express-Criterion-Collection-Blu-ray/dp/B004KVXC64/ref=tmm_blu_title_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr =

[theater dreamer]

Originally Posted by zakzak

Amazon is selling Chungking Express for $30 with 3rd party selling at $135!!
Grab it while you can if you are a fan of Wong Kar-Wai

http://www.amazon.com/Chungking-Express-Criterion-Collection-Blu-ray/dp/B004KVXC64/ref=tmm_blu_title_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr =

Ordered. Fingers crossed!

[Bucky]

Originally Posted by Arawn

Last year I asked a Best Buy employee if they had Lawrence of Arabia.

He said, "Is that a movie?"

When I went to Beat Buy to pick up my online order of Lawrence of Arabia, the young lady that was helping me completely butchered the title when she called for it

[malakaheso]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

Hollywood used to buy ideas and develop them at great cost. They don't do that anymore, because the risk of return now that budgets and — most importantly — marketing has gone up tenfold. A film may still cost $80 mil to make, but that marketing costs have doubled to tripled. So studios have turned to "safe" projects with built-in audiences in hopes that it will "pre-sell" itself.

Yes. The ideas are out there, but they just get crowded out due to financial imperatives. However, it's also important to consider that the younger generations are more influenced by cinema and less influenced by plays and novels than what previous generations were, which may well explain why modern films are often so blatantly derivative. Which brings me to my next point: the general dumbing down of aesthetics. I'm not so sure if this is the result of Hollywood pandering to an audience hooked on a convergent media aesthetic, or whether it's due to the younger generation of film makers not being well versed enough in the visual arts. Either way it's a huge problem.

Peter Bogdanovich believes a big part of the problem is that contemporary Hollywood directors don't know their film history very well. Shane Black has also observed that the generation now taking the reigns of power in Hollywood are hooked on 80's cinema and are trying to relive their youth through it.

There is no doubt that financial incentives keep studios away from original product, but my questions raise the additional (i.e rather cynical) question of whether these directors would actually make great films if they were left to their own devices.

[malakaheso]

Originally Posted by mja345

"The Godfather" is the type of film that many people say they have seen because it's become so ingrained in popular culture, but some of those people haven't actually watched the whole thing. If you asked many people about Luca Brasi or Virgil Sollozzo, most would have no idea what you're talking about. I think so many people who are, say, ages 50-75 now saw "The Godfather" that it remains a huge part of popular culture.

Yes. The Godfather is slowly becoming a Citizen Kane type film. i.e it's more talked about than watched.

I grew up with The Godfather in the 80's and 90's because my father, who is now 70, was obsessed with it, so it was always around. It always had an elevated status in my household. hah. He dragged me with him to go see The Godfather III back in early 91. I was only 12 then!

Goodfellas is easier for modern audiences to get into because it's more fast paced and lively etc. The only disadvantage that Goodfellas has now is that after a few decades of imitators and tv shows that were clearly influenced by it like The Sopranos, it has lost some of its impact, but I guess that's just inevitable. The same could also be said for Pulp Fiction.

[filmmusic]

Originally Posted by malakaheso

the general dumbing down of aesthetics.

Speaking about film music which is my field, I would say the exact same thing applies there too.

[belcherman]

I can't believe that a generation that grew up on the Harry Potter movies and the LOTR trilogy would find The Godfather boring. I just can't. I honestly think that anyone who says that probably hasn't seen it and is just reacting to what they've heard about it.

[Firecrackker]

Do you guys like Riot in Cell Block 11? How's it stack up to other prison films like Escape From Alcatraz and A Man Escaped

[mja345]

Originally Posted by Firecrackker

Do you guys like Riot in Cell Block 11? How's it stack up to other prison films like Escape From Alcatraz and A Man Escaped

It's a good film, but very different from something like "A Man Escaped". I'd compare it favorably with Jules Dassin's "Brute Force". It's filled with 50s tough guy actors like Neville Brand and Leo Gordon. Another film that is very similar to "Riot in Cell Block 11" is "Big House U.S.A.", which was released by Kino last year.

[mja345]

I think the low point for Hollywood in recent memory was the "Point Break" remake. There was zero reason to remake that film except to appeal to teens who think the early 90s was too long ago to be asked to bother with. I saw it with my girlfriend because we were out to dinner and decided to check it out on a whim at a nearby theater. It had absolutely nothing that made the original enjoyable. And anybody who went for the nostalgia factor would be sorely disappointed because it's such a lifeless remake. Same goes for the "Robocop" remake. Both remakes sucked out loud and the depressing thing is a bunch of teens will probably identify both titles with the godawful remakes.

[Arch Stanton]

Originally Posted by belcherman

I can't believe that a generation that grew up on the Harry Potter movies and the LOTR trilogy would find The Godfather boring. I just can't. I honestly think that anyone who says that probably hasn't seen it and is just reacting to what they've heard about it.

Both Harry Potter and LOTR are A: steeped in fantasy folklore and B: aimed at a lowest common denominator kind of audience. The Godfather may be equally as slow as LOTR but it's considerably more complex and challenging, while of course it relies on knowledge and interest on the post-war culture of the USA. The other two are basically blank canvases.