The Criterion Collection

[Polaroid]

Originally Posted by AaronJ

The Neon Demon will easily be my favorite film this year, and I can say that even though it's only July.

It's SERIOUSLY messed up, beautifully shot, wonderfully directed, and has excellent performances throughout. I think when I started to really get into film back in the 70s, this was the sort of film that I somehow imagined would eventually be made for me.

Jena Malone gave an incredible performance, surprised she's not used more, she's a brilliant actress!

I need a new avatar and I'm thinking Neon Demon too :P

[malakaheso]

Originally Posted by mja345

"Border Radio" is unwatchable. The "I Am Curious" films are absolutely awful as well. The Norman Mailer movies in the Eclipse set are really bad, but good for an unintentional laugh. "A Safe Place", in the America Lost and Found box, is often mentioned as the worst film in the collection. "Chasing Amy" is definitely up there for me. I remember thinking that film was so profound when I first saw it (I was about 12) and I watched my old Criterion DVD about a year ago and it was just cringe-inducing. The dialogue is so Kevin Smith-y. It's Smith at his Smithiest. That speech he gives as Silent Bob made me want to punch the TV.

Despite the claims for Chasing Amy's greatness, Kevin Smith is far better at making dumb comedies.

I agree it's quite cringeworthy.

[Polaroid]

Am I only one that adores The Curious Case of Benjamin Button....?

[moviecriticsonline]

Originally Posted by AaronJ

The Neon Demon will easily be my favorite film this year, and I can say that even though it's only July.

It's SERIOUSLY messed up, beautifully shot, wonderfully directed, and has excellent performances throughout. I think when I started to really get into film back in the 70s, this was the sort of film that I somehow imagined would eventually be made for me.

I think that's what's so great about films. All it takes is that certain likeness, either it be the story, cinematography, performances or anything else that would grab your attention and make you appreciate it for what it is.

Many people watch movies just to kill time, or watch their favorite actors. But when they pay close attention to the artistic aspect of it, they truly can find a deeper meaning and connect with it on many levels, just as you did with The Neon Demon.

This is why I enjoy movies, it's much more than just a story. It's the appreciation of cinema as a whole, and it's up to us (the viewers) to either connect with it, or dislike it for whatever the case may be. But in the end, that's what makes films fun, and opens the door for great discussions.

[Polaroid]

I wish we had more Horrors like Neon Demon - I am getting so bored of films like The Conjuring, Insidious, Sinister etc

Horror is my favourite genre and I have VERY little of this genre in my collection.

People seem to think horror = jump scares, ghost stories etc but there is so much room in that genre to play and experiment and takes things beyond that.

I am more terrified by films like Neon Demon, Antichrist, Possession, Rosemary's Baby, The Innocents, The Shining - even Under The Skin - not in a typical "omg I'm so scared" but they really get under my skin and stay with me - but people just down seem to have the imagination or patience to appreciate this.

I mean look at Blair Witch Project - it pretty much shows nothing but it is terrifying.

Why does horror need to be thrown in your face....?

[hoytereden]

Originally Posted by Polaroid

I wish we had more Horrors like Neon Demon - I am getting so bored of films like The Conjuring, Insidious, Sinister etc

Horror is my favourite genre and I have VERY little of this genre in my collection.

People seem to think horror = jump scares, ghost stories etc but there is so much room in that genre to play and experiment and takes things beyond that.

I am more terrified by films like Neon Demon, Antichrist, Possession, Rosemary's Baby, The Innocents, The Shining - even Under The Skin - not in a typical "omg I'm so scared" but they really get under my skin and stay with me - but people just down seem to have the imagination or patience to appreciate this.

I mean look at Blair Witch Project - it pretty much shows nothing but it is terrifying.

Why does horror need to be thrown in your face....?

It doesn't. That's why the Lewton films are so great; why the original The Haunting still gives me chicken skin and why the remake didn't.

[Polaroid]

Originally Posted by hoytereden

It doesn't. That's why the Lewton films are so great; why the original The Haunting still gives me chicken skin and why the remake didn't.

Ah I still haven't seen that one - only the remake

[tolijr]

I watched Heaven's gate today and I thought the picture was a little hazy in the beginning of the film and I believe this to be the director's intent. It got sharper shortly after but then I saw this purple tint flicker fast across my screen. Would someone please tell me what causes it? Thank you!

[hoytereden]

Originally Posted by Polaroid

Ah I still haven't seen that one - only the remake

I urge you to see it. There's a night and day difference.

I'd like to see Jacques Tourneur's Night/Curse of the Demon show up as a CC title. Despite an awful decision (courtesy of the producer) to show the creature right away, it still has that Lewton/Tourneur blueprint and Nial MacGinnis is a very memorable villain.

[ThisKid]

Originally Posted by tolijr

I watched Heaven's gate today and I thought the picture was a little hazy in the beginning of the film and I believe this to be the director's intent. It got sharper shortly after but then I saw this purple tint flicker fast across my screen. Would someone please tell me what causes it? Thank you!

Has to do with source material. The film had to be sourced from a film element other than the original negative (The YCM colour separation masters), so that may contribute to that little flair.

[tolijr]

Originally Posted by ThisKid

Has to do with source material. The film had to be sourced from a film element other than the original negative (The YCM colour separation masters), so that may contribute to that little flair.

As long as it's the source and not my disc, I'm fine with it.Beautiful restoration regardless of that little flair. Thank you!

[malakaheso]

Originally Posted by tolijr

As long as it's the source and not my disc, I'm fine with it.Beautiful restoration regardless of that little flair. Thank you!

Although it's less talked about than other transfers, some people who saw the film at the time believe the film has been cleaned up too much. If you read reviews at the time, critics often talk about how murky the picture was, but the new transfer exhibits an almost David Lean level 'cleanless', for lack of a better word.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by Polaroid

Jena Malone gave an incredible performance, surprised she's not used more, she's a brilliant actress!

I need a new avatar and I'm thinking Neon Demon too :P

She should be in every movie ever. Her performance in The Neon Demon
is perfection. I mean, I like Jena in general, but I won't deny that I was excited because of NWR and Elle Fanning. NWR is a genius, and Elle Fanning is an excellent actress and super-cute. Plus, the idea of a horror film taking place in the fashion industry -- that just had me right there.

But hell if I didn't leave that theater thinking, "Jena Malone was freakin' amazing!" Don't get me wrong: I loved Elle's performance. And Bella Heathcote's and Abbey Lee's, too. They were all top notch. But Jena owned the screen every time she was there. And I'm a huge Elle Fanning fan, so for me to say that ...

Originally Posted by malakaheso

Despite the claims for Chasing Amy's greatness, Kevin Smith is far better at making dumb comedies.

I agree it's quite cringeworthy.

I despise you. I wish you would be run over by a car (I'm not serious, I wouldn't wish that on anyone). But anyone who dislikes Chasing Amy should at least be hit with an umbrella, or something.

Originally Posted by Polaroid

Am I only one that adores The Curious Case of Benjamin Button....?

No. You're not the only one. I think it's fantastic. Then again, that's how I feel about almost all Fincher films, all Pitt films, and all Blanchett films.

Now, that doesn't mean I love each and every film that they have made. But it's close. And with Fincher, as I said earlier the only film that I'm not head over heels about is Panic Room, and even that I think of as mediocre. But for Fincher, mediocre is bad.

Brad Pitt is a great actor, has been in numerous fantastic films, and his resumé really needs no justification.

The same goes for Cate Blanchett, to be sure. Her oeuvre is amazing, and she can roll out a kick-ass performance in no time like no one's business. Don't even get me started on Carol.

Now, do I like it as much as I like a film like Fight Club or Gone Girl or Se7en or Zodiac? No. Does that mean I dislike it? No.

It just means that instead of being a masterpiece, it's a damned good movie.

Originally Posted by moviecriticsonline

I think that's what's so great about films. All it takes is that certain likeness, either it be the story, cinematography, performances or anything else that would grab your attention and make you appreciate it for what it is.

Many people watch movies just to kill time, or watch their favorite actors. But when they pay close attention to the artistic aspect of it, they truly can find a deeper meaning and connect with it on many levels, just as you did with The Neon Demon.

This is why I enjoy movies, it's much more than just a story. It's the appreciation of cinema as a whole, and it's up to us (the viewers) to either connect with it, or dislike it for whatever the case may be. But in the end, that's what makes films fun, and opens the door for great discussions.

I will absolutely watch films to kill time or see my favorite actress. I don't deny that in the least. OTOH, I usually very much enjoy how a film like that is made, what is going on behind the scenes, how intense it is.

Both The Red Shoes and Black Swan are two of my favorite films. They both deal with ballet, but, more to the point, the desire of an individual to attain perfection in an art form. And it ends up taking everything from her (either one). Now, I love ballet, I do. I think it's amazing, and I think that the men and women who engage in it are beyond ... well, beyond something. But I've got a few ballets on DVD, I used to have season tix to the Opera, which got me into the ballet, and I think it's simply an amazing art form.

Sign me up for these beautiful, dark, engaging films? Yeah, I'm there. Powell and Pressburger absolutely nailed it with The Red Shoes and Aronofsky took their lead and nailed it with Black Swan. But these are great films, and great films ABOUT ART! This how someone makes a fantastic film about making film -- or in this case, dance. What does one have to give up to be that artist? How much of one's self needs be given up to achieve that top level? Could any of us actually do that?

I know I couldn't.

[malakaheso]

Just finished rewatching Mulholland Drive. When it first came out, I was convinced that the critics liked it more than other Lynch films because it's more accessible. I never got the fuss about it. Over time even many Lynch fans claimed it was his one of his best films, and I just don't get it. It seems like a bland watered down version of his style with TV style aesthetics and a lot of bad throwaway shots that you don't see in other Lynch films. The Hollywood angle seemed too on the nose, especially by Lynch's standards, and if you take that out of the equation you may as well just rewatch Persona or 3 Women. It's painfully obvious to me that it was just a TV project that was later reworked into a film, and the seams definitely show.

I know I'm in the minority here, but I think M.D is one of his worst films and certainly one of the least adventurous in his filmography. It's not a bad film per se, but it's only interesting for half of its 145 minute duration.

[Cremildo]

Originally Posted by moviecriticsonline

Is it safe to say that Benjamin Button is the worst Criterion release, or does Armageddon take the cake?

Would be interesting to know what you guys think, or what personal choices you have that you would consider a bad Criterion release.

I haven't seen every film Criterion has released, but my vote would go to Eraserhead - a painful film from one of my favorite filmmakers.

[Polaroid]

Originally Posted by cremildo

i haven't seen every film criterion has released, but my vote would go to eraserhead - a painful film from one of my favorite filmmakers.

[Al_The_Strange]

Ah man, I love Eraserhead. Was difficult to comprehend on the first viewing, and it does have some ugly parts, but on a rewatch I realize I love it because it is so ugly and nightmarish. To me, it's just what an art film should be: weird, but it makes sense and has its own rules and dimensions in which everything makes sense and successfully expresses something.

Not sure what my least-favorite Criterion movie is. There are a handful I didn't care about, but wouldn't call them bad by any means. I also wouldn't knock Armageddon that much--it's clearly outside the Criterion box, but as a blockbuster I felt it's fine for what it is. I think my vote would go to Jellyfish Eyes (although now that Pokemon Go is all the rage, the movie probably deserves a revisit ).

[llj]

Originally Posted by malakaheso

Just finished rewatching Mulholland Drive. When it first came out, I was convinced that the critics liked it more than other Lynch films because it's more accessible. I never got the fuss about it. Over time even many Lynch fans claimed it was his one of his best films, and I just don't get it. It seems like a bland watered down version of his style with TV style aesthetics and a lot of bad throwaway shots that you don't see in other Lynch films. The Hollywood angle seemed too on the nose, especially by Lynch's standards, and if you take that out of the equation you may as well just rewatch Persona or 3 Women. It's painfully obvious to me that it was just a TV project that was later reworked into a film, and the seams definitely show.

I know I'm in the minority here, but I think M.D is one of his worst films and certainly one of the least adventurous in his filmography. It's not a bad film per se, but it's only interesting for half of its 145 minute duration.

It's been a while since I last saw it, but part of me always thought that MD became so popular because of the HOT LESBOS angle and that Naomi Watts masturbating scene...

[Scottie]

Nashville is being re-released on October 4 in a BD-only version.

https://www.amazon.com/Criterion-Col...ords=criterion

[malakaheso]

Originally Posted by llj

It's been a while since I last saw it, but part of me always thought that MD became so popular because of the HOT LESBOS angle and that Naomi Watts masturbating scene...

Hah! Like people who thought Blow Up was Antonioni's best film back in the day because it featured full frontal nudity. It is a factor for sure, two hot 'lesbos' getting it on, but there are many other reasons why people love M.D, and I don't agree with half of them.

Taste is tasts of course.