The Criterion Collection

[prior]

Originally Posted by malakaheso

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.

With 'people' you obviously mean heterosexual men?

I agree this is a big part of why the film is so loved by many. Nothing wrong with that. It would be nice though if they could admit as much and not make the film into the art-festival it simply isn't.

[Cremildo]

Originally Posted by prior

With 'people' you obviously mean heterosexual men?

I agree this is a big part of why the film is so loved by many. Nothing wrong with that. It would be nice though if they could admit as much and not make the film into the art-festival it simply isn't.

An award-winning film that was elected by more than one serious publication as the greatest film of its decade, the second greatest of the century and one of the greatest ever is only admired because of the sexual prurience of the teenage-minded men who watch it as a softcore lesbo porn instead of the work of art (yes, art) about identity and personality it actually is?

Nice revisionism there.

[malakaheso]

Just another reason to not trust critics and polls anymore as far as I'm concerned :-)

[prior]

No reason to get upset about it. Everyone can think for themselves.

[Arch Stanton]

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.

I notice the seams between TV pilot and feature film more so now, but it never struck me when I first saw it (and I knew about the background going into it).

Fair enough, I can't argue with your taste here. But for me I'd say MD is the ultimate David Lynch film and will always be his magnum opus: combing the overtly surreal with the serial in a way that was (imo) the most successful, awe-inspiring piece of film he'd ever made. And the overwhelmingly positive critical reception to it goes against other divisive films he'd made like Fire Walk With Me, Lost Highway etc and goes to show he cracked some kind of ultimate formula - how do you get people invested in something so out-there and plain abusrd, and do it well?

Which of his films do you prefer, out of interest? Blue Velvet kinda guy?

[malakaheso]

^^^I share Rosenbaum's view that Lynch became less interesting as time went on, although I prefer Inland Empire to M.D. So yes, I guess you could say I'm an 'Eraserhead and Blue Velvet guy'.

I don't get a strong surreal vibe from MD. It seems too 'straight' for me, but then perhaps I had overdosed on his style by the time it arrived.

[llj]

Originally Posted by Cremildo

An award-winning film that was elected by more than one serious publication as the greatest film of its decade, the second greatest of the century and one of the greatest ever is only admired because of the sexual prurience of the teenage-minded men who watch it as a softcore lesbo porn instead of the work of art (yes, art) about identity and personality it actually is?

Nice revisionism there.

"Real" Critics can be driven by sexual impulses too. In fact, deep down, when you sweep away all the sophistication we use to wrap around ourselves, we're still driven by very base impulses. I mean, Ebert always automatically gave Angelina Jolie movies an extra star purely because of horniness. I think he admitted this once too.

All that said, Mulholland Drive would probably still be acclaimed even if one of the two girls were a guy. But sometimes a little something-something can push something that's merely respected to wildly loved.

Funny side-topic: I was having a conversation the other day with some people (2 other hetero men, it should be noted) about Blue is the Warmest Color. I said that I liked it and it was well acted and directed, but basically thought it was just another good film in a long line of good coming of age films, except this had more explicit sex scenes and a lesbo angle. You wouldn't believe the shade of color the guys I was talking to turned. They proceeded to admonish me that it wasn't "just" another coming of age film, that it had some of the greatest performances ever put on film, and thought I should be "more" enthusiastic about it, that it was so "real." Just "liking" it wasn't enough for them. And these guys were a little more than casual movie fans, they watch a fair bit more than usual. It was like they were trying to convince me they liked it so much for everything EXCEPT the sex, the way they discreetly danced around the subject.

I've certainly given some films a few extra points for scratching my own sexual itches too. I certainly don't blame those that do this, not at all. I just find it funny when people pretend it doesn't factor into their opinions.

[malakaheso]

Most of these consensus lists are nonsense anyway. I bet that most of the critics claiming Russian Ark is Sokurov's best film have seen very little of his work and probably understood even less. It's not even a typical example of his style.

Blue Is The Warmest Colour was middle of the road, Euro style. Well made, but the high praise was absurd.

[prior]

@llj: Couldn't have said it better myself.

I don't even understand what's so wildly infuriating about the notion one might like something for other than purely intellectual or emotional reasons? Instincts are part of the human experience, too.

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by Cremildo

An award-winning film that was elected by more than one serious publication as the greatest film of its decade, the second greatest of the century and one of the greatest ever is only admired because of the sexual prurience of the teenage-minded men who watch it as a softcore lesbo porn instead of the work of art (yes, art) about identity and personality it actually is?

Nice revisionism there.

The only thing harder than arguing that it's the only factor (which I don't think anybody has said) is arguing that it's not at all a factor.

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by malakaheso

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.

My favorite David Lynch movie is still Dune (1984). I guess that I'm in the extreme minority.

[malakaheso]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

My favorite David Lynch movie is still Dune (1984). I guess that I'm in the extreme minority.

I can certainly respect that, even if I don't understand it. Kudos to you for admitting it good sir!

[HitchcockLang]

I just passed on used copies in excellent condition of Emgrants/New Land ($15) and Barcelona ($12) at a local FYE. Both would have been blind buys. Was it a mistake to pass those up?

Recently got Manchurian Candidate there used in like new condition for $15 and Day in the Country brand new but being sold as a used item for $25 (snagged both with trade in credit). Usually they price their used CC blu-rays at $25 so I don't know what is with this recent flurry of $15 and under titles.

[shadedpain4]

Originally Posted by hoytereden

Border Radio is my least favorite. I see Jellyfish Eyes getting a lot of votes in that catagory but I haven't seen it myself to comment.

I was able to get all the way through Jellyfish Eyes, which is more than I can say for Benjamin Button.

[pedromvu]

Originally Posted by Polaroid

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

You are not alone, I love it too, and if you check Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, Imdb, etc, a lot of other people do.

[theater dreamer]

Clearly, Lynch missed the optimal tag line for Mulholland Drive:

"Come for the tits. Stay for the art."



And just think...if Alexandria Daddario's rack had "accidentally" spilled out while she was swimming underwater, San Andreas might have challenged Vertigo and Citizen Kane for the top spot on Sight & Sound's "Top 100 Films of All-Time" list in 2022. An opportunity missed. Or two, depending on how one looks at it.


"Damn your modesty, Alexandria! My name could have been elevated to the pantheon of greats, alongside Welles and Hitchcock!!--Brad Peyton

[Feiereisel]

Originally Posted by Polaroid

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

Originally Posted by pedromvu

You are not alone, I love it too, and if you check Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, Imdb, etc, a lot of other people do.

Me too!

[johnmccabe]

Originally Posted by prior

With 'people' you obviously mean heterosexual men?

I agree this is a big part of why the film is so loved by many. Nothing wrong with that. It would be nice though if they could admit as much and not make the film into the art-festival it simply isn't.

I disagree that that "is a big part of why the film is so loved by many." While there are people who will like that aspect of it, that is only one scene and there's a lot more going on in the movie to like it for that reason. It's like saying people like Short Cuts mainly because we see a half naked Julianne Moore.

Easily Lynch's best along with Blue Velvet and Inland Empire.

[belcherman]

Originally Posted by johnmccabe

I disagree that that "is a big part of why the film is so loved by many." While there are people who will like that aspect of it, that is only one scene and there's a lot more going on in the movie to like it for that reason. It's like saying people like Short Cuts mainly because we see a half naked Julianne Moore.

Well, that sure doesn't lessen my appreciation for the film. I remember that gratuitous nudity and girl-on-girl action were the main reasons I went to see The Hunger back in the day, but then I was much younger. I seem to recall the movie had something to do with vampires. I think.

[johnmccabe]

Originally Posted by belcherman

Well, that sure doesn't lessen my appreciation for the fil.

Nor should it.