The Criterion Collection

[ElliesDad]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

I never understood the love for him in general. Alright he is not an horrible director but his movies are very simple, the characters are pretty much one dimensional with very lack of depth and the stories are far from being amazing. In general for me he fall in the category of Micheal Bay

Wow, P@t! I agree with every word you say regarding Mr. Cameron but find myself in the almost impossible position of wanting to defend him! Yes, as an individual he has always, since his "I am king of the world" days, seemed to have been far too overly-impressed by his own talents and personal attributes to suit polite society and even though his altruism and better angels are usually displayed simplistically and ham-handedly ("Avatar) he does aspire to doing something worthwhile and at the same time entertain in a reasonably constrained manner. And a lot of his stuff is enormously entertaining. "Aliens 2", "True Lies", "Terminator", even "The Abyss", for example.

But comparing him to Michael Bay...! Producer of such cinematic milestones as "The Purge", "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" (the precursor for every slasher/torture/sadism made since), "Bad Boys 4", "Armageddon", and "Transformers", the king of blaring noise and explosions and excessive cartoonish CGI, might be just a little harsh. Granted I haven't seen much of his 'oeuvre' as I have avoided it since been sucked into watching "Armegeddon" and the sickening "...Chainsaw Massacre" years ago, and more recently, "The Purge", free on cable before I was aware of his involvement. But what I have seen suggests work that has absolutely no 'redeeming social value", plays to the lowest common sensibility and denominator, and is largely mindless and puerile.

Whew, that was harsh. Good thing this is the Criterion thread or I might have had to avoid the site for a few days!!

[GenPion]

James Cameron is one of the greatest directors of all time. He is a true visionary. I'd love to see something from him added to the Criterion collection.

I can only think of one title they might have a chance at getting the rights to though. Piranha 2, anyone?

[callahan09]

Why doesn't the criterion website seem to acknowledge the existence of their laserdisc catalog?

[anthonyls]

Originally Posted by GenPion

James Cameron is one of the greatest directors of all time. He is a true visionary. I'd love to see something from him added to the Criterion collection.

If you really think this, then you probably haven't seen very many movies.

[Snicket]

Originally Posted by anthonyls

If you really think this, then you probably haven't seen very many movies.

You can disagree without being petty.

[malakaheso]

.

[Lutz]

Originally Posted by malakaheso

What degree of difficulty? What nod to Passion of Joan of Arc? Has Fincher actually stated this? Because he rarely ever talks about the influence of Euro directors at all. He is almost a pure Anglophile in terms of influences. He draws from the same narrow set of films as most of his American contemporaries. He's all about Kubrick and New Hollywood.

Alien 3 has its moments, but it doesn't have a strong identity like the previous installments. Alien is about as good as those type of films get. The second one is a good action film, as others noted above, but it has lost something with time. There is a lot of bad acting in it, which is actually quite typical of Cameron: directing actors is not his strong suit.

What was weak about Alien 3 identity (it was set on a prison planet with skinheads a very striking and still unique identity for a movie)? What type of film is Alien? What has Aliens lost with time? What acting in Aliens is bad? What history does Cameron have of badly directing actors (if anything Cameron has made a career out of getting amazing performances out of so/so actors; Schwarzenegger/Hamilton/Worthington are not strong actors in themselves and never gave better performances outside of his movies).

[malakaheso]

Originally Posted by Lutz

What was weak about Alien 3 identity (it was set on a prison planet with skinheads a very striking and still unique identity for a movie)? What type of film is Alien? What has Aliens lost with time? What acting in Aliens is bad? What history does Cameron have of badly directing actors (if anything Cameron has made a career out of getting amazing performances out of so/so actors; Schwarzenegger/Hamilton/Worthington are not strong actors in themselves and never gave better performances outside of his movies).

Alien 3 seemed like too much of a throwback to the first one. Building up suspense/tension in a confined setting. The tragic angle was interesting, but in my view it wasn't handled correctly. It has some of its own flavour, but not enough. There is nothing definitive about it. Aliens was a very cutting edge film in the mid 80's but it isn't that film anymore. It had a real wow factor back then. Perhaps Cameron's style just became too familiar over time.

Re: the acting in Aliens Paxton is bad (but hilarious, so he gets away with it), and the acting from the other soldiers is bad too. It could just be their characterisations, but it's just ham fest to me. There is plenty of hammy acting in most of his films. Linda Hamilton is terrible in some of those hospitable scenes in T2, Furlong isn't great either. He is cringe worthy at times.

[Reddington]

Originally Posted by malakaheso

Alien 3 seemed like too much of a throwback to the first one. Building up suspense/tension in a confined setting. The tragic angle was interesting, but in my view it wasn't handled correctly. It has some of its own flavour, but not enough. There is nothing definitive about it. Aliens was a very cutting edge film in the mid 80's but it isn't that film anymore. It had a real wow factor back then. Perhaps Cameron's style just became too familiar over time.

Re: the acting in Aliens Paxton is bad (but hilarious, so he gets away with it), and the acting from the other soldiers is bad too. It could just be their characterisations, but it's just ham fest to me. There is plenty of hammy acting in most of his films. Linda Hamilton is terrible in some of those hospitable scenes in T2, Furlong isn't great either. He is cringe worthy at times.

Bill Paxton is great in Aliens. And his superb cameo in True Lies is a highlight of what is, for me, Cameron's best film.

[Lutz]

Originally Posted by malakaheso

Alien 3 seemed like too much of a throwback to the first one. Building up suspense/tension in a confined setting. The tragic angle was interesting, but in my view it wasn't handled correctly. It has some of its own flavour, but not enough. There is nothing definitive about it. Aliens was a very cutting edge film in the mid 80's but it isn't that film anymore. It had a real wow factor back then. Perhaps Cameron's style just became too familiar over time.

Re: the acting in Aliens Paxton is bad (but hilarious, so he gets away with it), and the acting from the other soldiers is bad too. It could just be their characterisations, but it's just ham fest to me. There is plenty of hammy acting in most of his films. Linda Hamilton is terrible in some of those hospitable scenes in T2, Furlong isn't great either. He is cringe worthy at times.

But actually Alien 3 captures an extremely specific 90s aesthetic of industrial landscapes. This was everywhere at the time in music and interior design and it is a little 90s time capsule that captures the zeitgeist. The physical look and feel of the movie is completely different to what came before and is quite sophisticated in and of itself - comparable to anything Giger or Giraud established with the original.

With acting I think you are not giving enough credit or allowing for different definitions of acting outside 100% realism. When you say "but hilarious so he gets away with it" you are acknowledging that Paxton actually gave a great performance and further you are acknowledging that even if he may be a limited actor Cameron has actually cast him, written, directed, him in a way that suits the strengths of his abilities.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

I think that Ridley Scott's Alien is miles above James Cameron's Aliens, and i've always felt that way.

I did love Cameron's Aliens when it was first released, and I actually still do, but it has not aged nearly as well as Alien has. Of course, Alien is one of my all-time top 25 films, so few films have aged as well as it has.

I'm the opposite. I loved Alien, and I still do, but I don't find it as compelling a watch as I used to. It may be my loss of interest in horror films over the years, and the fact that the sense of fright and dread has worn off with repeated viewings.

Aliens, on the other hand, I've watched many more times than Alien, and it still hasn't worn out its welcome.

Don't get me wrong. I think Alien is a masterpiece of terror. Scott plays with the audience by introducing dread, and then holding a scene for just long enough that you think it's safe to relax, and then gets you good. But as I said, once I became familiar enough with that odd rhythm, it stopped working on me. It's like the Death Star trench battle in the original Star Wars. The first few times the fighters dive toward the trench, and swing into it, there's something of a vertigo effect. After seeing the movie several times, that effect disappears.

At any rate, I eventually became so focused on the mechanics of how it's done, that I'm not as involved in the story.

Here's my biggest problem with Cameron's Aliens...

In the Ridley Scott film, we have this mysterious and gruesome creature aboard the ship, and this mysterious creature is seemingly invincible, with acid for blood, silicone cell material, and such. This one alien stalks the crew on the ship for the entirety of the movie, and much of the fun of watching the movie lies in wondering if anyone has a chance from this creature that is basically an unstoppable entity.

Early in the Cameron film, however, we see hundreds of these aliens being effortlessly blown to pieces by pulse rifles.

*sigh*

This pulse rifle scene in Aliens is cool on its own terms, but its mere presence makes the first movie weaker in retrospect, because it negates the threatening vibe of that first movie. The more that I see it, the more that it irks me.

I don't see how it "negates the threatening vibe of that first movie". I suppose I can see it if you're looking at Aliens as "just like Alien, but with more Aliens", but they are two very different types of movies. While Cameron did ham-handedly copy certain elements (eg, the detonation countdown) from the first film, he wasn't trying to do a remake.

Alien was a horror film; Aliens was a war film. The vibe is different, because they're supposed to be different. Alien was about a handful of working-class schmoes who found themselves in a situation beyond anything they'd ever experienced, and they didn't have a clue how to handle it. Aliens was about a squad of soldiers who did know what to do, but whose astonishing overconfidence -- and inept leadership -- screwed them from the git-go.

Comparing the two, is like comparing 2001 and 2010. The former is a masterwork of cinema. The latter seems to just be...there...but it's fascinating in its own way once you get past the realization that Hyams wasn't trying to copy Kubrick.

Every subsequent Alien film has made the series weaker. I appreciated David Fincher's symbolic concept for Alien³, but that movie was underwhelming. With Alien Resurrection, the wheels fell off of the bus entirely. The first Alien vs. Predator movie was good mindless fun, but the second one is one of the most vile and mean-spirited movies that I've ever seen. Prometheus was...well, Prometheus wasn't Alien.

Alien³ bugs the crap out of me because one element undermines the whole thing for me. Once Ripley realizes that she's not in danger from the Alien because she's carrying a Queen embryo inside her, it seems to me that all of her pent-up fear and anger towards the Aliens would result in her grabbing the nearest crowbar, hunting down the Alien, and beating it to death, knowing that it won't risk the Queen by fighting back. And if she (Ripley) dies from getting sprayed with acid, well, at least she won't die when the Queen bursts out from her.

I actually preferred Alien Resurrection because of its oddball cast, its even more oddball direction, and the attempt to do something considerably different.

Speaking of different, if you ever have the chance, hunt down and read William Gibson's Alien 3 script. Now that was a fresh and remarkable idea for the franchise.

Totally agree with you, though, on the two Alien-Predator smackdowns. And Prometheus.

[Lutz]

Originally Posted by jayembee

Alien³ bugs the crap out of me because one element undermines the whole thing for me. Once Ripley realizes that she's not in danger from the Alien because she's carrying a Queen embryo inside her, it seems to me that all of her pent-up fear and anger towards the Aliens would result in her grabbing the nearest crowbar, hunting down the Alien, and beating it to death, knowing that it won't risk the Queen by fighting back. And if she (Ripley) dies from getting sprayed with acid, well, at least she won't die when the Queen bursts out from her.

What point are you making here? You seem to be describing something you think is a plot flaw but then go on to give an example of what you think is missing from the movie with a scene that is actually in the movie?! There is literally a scene in the movie where Ripley tries to kill the alien in the basement with the lead pipe and to top it off she has a dramatic monologue venting her pent up fear and anger towards the alien. *SPOILERS* the alien is bigger and faster and runs away *spoilers*

[Cremildo]

Originally Posted by anthonyls

If you really think this, then you probably haven't seen very many movies.

I've seen over 2600 films and Aliens sits comfortably on my all-time top 10. Also, last time I checked, The Terminator, Aliens and T2 are generally considered great and influential films, even by pro reviewers. Michael Mann included Avatar on his Sight & Sound all-time top 10 list a few years ago.

[Purplenoon]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

Wow! His list is surprising indeed. It contains Biutiful as well.

I feel like I've landed in the wrong thread. Wasn't this the Criterion Discussion thread?

[callahan09]

I still want to have a conversation about the fact that Criterion's official website contains no references or evidence of the existence of their laserdisc catalog. I found that to be very odd, and I have no idea why it is. It leads me to a follow-up line of thinking: if their own website doesn't acknowledge the laserdisc catalog, then are those films & directors really in the collection? Is Pink Flamingos a Criterion movie if it was only ever Criterion on laserdisc and their own website does not acknowledge that fact?

[mja345]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

Wow! His list is surprising indeed. It contains Biutiful as well.

Tarantino put "Pretty Maids All in a Row", an ultra-campy early 70s sex comedy with Rock Hudson, in his top 10. I swear that dude must be coked out of his head half the time. Like he watched "Pretty Maids All in a Row" one late night on a coke binge and just said, "Whew! Yes! Top 10 film of all-time! Top 10!"

[callahan09]

Originally Posted by mja345

Tarantino put "Pretty Maids All in a Row", an ultra-campy early 70s sex comedy with Rock Hudson, in his top 10. I swear that dude must be coked out of his head half the time. Like he watched "Pretty Maids All in a Row" one late night on a coke binge and just said, "Whew! Yes! Top 10 film of all-time! Top 10!"

Almost certainly the case, yes, haha.

[belcherman]

Originally Posted by callahan09

I still want to have a conversation about the fact that Criterion's official website contains no references or evidence of the existence of their laserdisc catalog. I found that to be very odd, and I have no idea why it is. It leads me to a follow-up line of thinking: if their own website doesn't acknowledge the laserdisc catalog, then are those films & directors really in the collection? Is Pink Flamingos a Criterion movie if it was only ever Criterion on laserdisc and their own website does not acknowledge that fact?

The way I look at it, if a film was released by Criterion on laserdisc but later released on DVD by the studio, then it's no longer "with" Criterion. Back in the day, the studios saw laserdisc as a niche market, which it was, but they became interested in DVD once that format became mainstream. Films that were never released on DVD or that were licensed out could still be considered to be "with" Criterion. At least, that's my way of thinking.

[jw007]

Got a question for all here.

Has anyone aside from me accumulated such a large Criterion Collection that the passion and excitement of buying more Criterions is not as strong as it used to be?

Don't get me wrong, I love many films in the collection, but my anti-consumerist attitude as of late has put my collection in deep contradiction with my personal convictions. I am finding more pleasure selling, sharing, trading, giving away, donating and not accumulating anymore, and now every time I buy a new Criterion film, I wonder if I really needed to buy this?

What's a burnt out Criterion Collector to do?

[callahan09]

Originally Posted by jw007

Got a question for all here.

Has anyone aside from me accumulated such a large Criterion Collection that the passion and excitement of buying more Criterions is not as strong as it used to be?

Don't get me wrong, I love many films in the collection, but my anti-consumerist attitude as of late has put my collection in deep contradiction with my personal convictions. I am finding more pleasure selling, sharing, trading, giving away, donating and not accumulating anymore, and now every time I buy a new Criterion film, I wonder if I really needed to buy this?

What's a burnt out Criterion Collector to do?

Doesn't sound like your issue has much, if anything, to do with criterion and is a far more wide reaching personal dilemma about consumerism. Keep in mind, Criterion may be a business, but they are far from a huge entity, while they need to sell product to make money, their contributions to film preservation, analysis, and restoration make them more than worthy of your dollars without any needed feeling of guilt for consumerism in my opinion. Without efforts of groups like them a lot of this stuff would never be available for any of us to appreciate, and that's worthy of support in my opinion.