The Criterion Collection

[jbieste]

Originally Posted by Snicket

I finally added The Man Who Fell to Earth to my collection today.

After years of searching (and not wanting to spend $400) I finally found a very affordable copy.

Very happy today.

Congrats, affordable copies of this are hard to find. I dumped my copy quite a few years ago b/c I was having difficulty re-watching it. I'd seen it when it first screened and had fond memories of a very unusual night. When Criterion released it my expectations didn't match up well with my memories. A very good film, problem was with me. When I see the prices it's going for sometimes wish I'd kept it but there was a real disconnect so it needed to go.

[Arawn]

Originally Posted by Knaldskalle

Interstellar was promoted as being scientifically accurate (it isn't and it doesn't even attempt to explain the temporal paradox it ultimately relies on).

It represents the popular "science" that's been sold to the public for a while, at least. I don't doubt that some of the stuff in that movie is legit. The orbital mechanics, etc. But time dilation is make-believe. And as you say there's a time loop.

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by Arawn

It represents the popular "science" that's been sold to the public for a while, at least. I don't doubt that some of the stuff in that movie is legit. The orbital mechanics, etc. But time dilation is make-believe. And as you say there's a time loop.

Wormholes are purely theoretical...no one really knows if they exist or not.

But theoretical physicists like Kip Thorne believe it's a legitimate possibility.

There's also disagreement about how black holes actually work. Stephen Hawking claims there's no such thing as event horizons--the point of no return when entering a black hole. There's still so much about the physics of the universe that we don't yet understand.

Therefor I don't think it's implausible to say that time dilation, or even time travel, is a possibility. That's what Interstellar was about imo...the universe that we don't know.

...who can say what we'll be doing in a thousand years?

[AaronJ]

Watching Mulholland Dr. for the second time in a couple nights. It's one of the darkest films I've ever seen. I can understand why the network wasn't interested in it.

There are three films that I consider the greatest ever made. Well, four really.

Mulholland Dr.

Contempt

Three Colors: Red

The Passion of Joan of Arc


I can't watch this enough. There must be something wrong with me.

[BagheeraMcGee]

Originally Posted by AaronJ

Watching Mulholland Dr. for the second time in a couple nights. It's one of the darkest films I've ever seen. I can understand why the network wasn't interested in it.

There are three films that I consider the greatest ever made. Well, four really.

Mulholland Dr.

Contempt

Three Colors: Red

The Passion of Joan of Arc


I can't watch this enough. There must be something wrong with me.

Sorry, man, I just felt like using that gif. That guy is awesome. But FWIW, I saw Mulholland Dr. four times at the Cedar Lee Theater in Cleveland Heights when it played there, so I know what you mean about that film's "compulsive watchability"

[Purplenoon]

Originally Posted by AaronJ

Watching Mulholland Dr. for the second time in a couple nights. It's one of the darkest films I've ever seen. I can understand why the network wasn't interested in it.

There are three films that I consider the greatest ever made. Well, four really.

Mulholland Dr.

Contempt

Three Colors: Red

The Passion of Joan of Arc


I can't watch this enough. There must be something wrong with me.

There's also Blue Velvet & Buckaroo Banzai, hey. Not to mention Miracle Mile & the Godfathers, but I digress.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by Purplenoon

There's also Blue Velvet & Buckaroo Banzai, hey. Not to mention Miracle Mile & the Godfathers, but I digress.

And "Twin Peaks" which, if you watch all of it (including the film) is one of most messed up thing ever on TV.

[theater dreamer]

I have to agree with you, Arch Stanton. To be fair, though, I think the same could reasonably be said about any rabid fan base. I know that many Wes Anderson enthusiasts think he walks on water.

And, to be honest, I half admire really enthusiastic fans. The occasional hyperbole can make for pretty entertaining reading, and they tend to have better-than-average knowledge of film. But when a follower's enthusiasm for a director approaches "Hale Bopp cult" levels, then I just politely move on from the conversation. And believe me, there have been some people I've discussed film with before (cough imdb) that absolutely would not listen to reason; their level of tunnel vision reached frightening proportions.

You can't quantify film, or director greatness the way you can an professional athlete (it's clearly more subjective, in assessment), but, generally speaking, when a large pool of well-respected critics laud a film's greatness, or a director's works, that adds credibility to the argument. Yet these guys completely dismissed opinions from the likes of Pauline Kael, Andrew Sarris, as well as the likes of François Truffaut and Éric Rohmer, men who were not only film historians and critics, but admired directors in their own right.

Originally Posted by Arch Stanton

The biggest problem with Nolan is undoubtedly his fanbase. I don't think Nolan himself has any delusions of grandeur but the IMDb boys certainly do.

[theater dreamer]

I'm a big Stephen Hawking fan, and have read many of his books and lectures. To the best of my recollection, Hawking hasn't said that there was no such thing as an event horizon. In the paper he co-authored regarding the black hole information paradox, it seemed to me that he was re-classifying what, exactly, it was, and the mechanics of how it worked. But, I do admit that it's been several months since I looked at the paper, so I could be off. If, indeed, I am, please, by all means, point me in the right direction. But, the whole tenet of Hawking radiation is no longer plausible if there's no event horizon, as radioactive quantum particulates could never escape the black hole, otherwise.

The thing about Stephen that so utterly fascinates me is not his sheer intellectual capabilities (which are, of course, substantial); nor is it his ability to tackle, and communicate the most complex of hypotheses while trapped in his body; it's his curiosity. The man can mull over something for years, like pondering the rate of expansion for the universe, and arrive at a conclusion seemingly well-supported by mathematics. He authors a paper, releases it to the world, and then six months later, he's not only moved on to other things, he's still tackling the subject he just finished work on. And then, invariably, he comes back a year later, and tells the world, "hey, I was wrong. Here's what I now believe to be true."

That's the truest sign of greatness. He's never satisfied.

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

Stephen Hawking claims there's no such thing as event horizons--the point of no return when entering a black hole. There's still so much about the physics of the universe that we don't yet understand.

[jshaide]

The documentary CAMERAPERSON is playing in NY next month under the Janus banner, so it's safe to say this will be coming to Criterion at some point.

[Arawn]

Nolan clearly has an issue with his fight scenes looking realistic. This goes all the way back to Following. The funny thing is that in Batman Begins he used camera trickery to disguise the process and it worked pretty well. But by The Dark Knight Rises he's dispensed with all that and you're seeing the whole thing warts and all.

[GenPion]

Originally Posted by Arawn

Nolan clearly has an issue with his fight scenes looking realistic. This goes all the way back to Following. The funny thing is that in Batman Begins he used camera trickery to disguise the process and it worked pretty well. But by The Dark Knight Rises he's dispensed with all that and you're seeing the whole thing warts and all.

Nolan's use of long-take action sequences in both The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises is significantly better than the quick cuts of Batman Begins. I love all three movies but to me the action staging dramatically improved.

I do believe some of the reason for this is because of second unit director work on Batman Begins. Nolan wanted total creative control over The Dark Knight and was directly involved for the entire process.

[llj]

Watched my copy of Touch of Zen last night. This is clearly the best the film has looked in a long time, at least compared to all the other versions I've seen of it in the past.

That said, I was reminded of why the film has been so problematic on home viewing visually, and even in the new restoration, some of it still persists: the night scenes.

On the the Tai Seng DVD, all the night scenes were nigh-unwatchable. Just a mess of black upon black. Here, you can make out slivers of light better, but the blacks still bleed into each other. I don't know if the problem is the way it was originally lit and shot or that it's very difficult to handle the black levels in this film, but it's still quite difficult to discern what is going on in some of the darker scenes. I would venture a guess that the night scenes might play better on the big screen in a theatre. I saw a 35 mm print of it many years ago, but that was also raggedy and murky and I can't really remember much of what it looked like other than heavy print damage and fading.

I also noticed a continuity error late in the film! When Yang and the monks are walking through the desert, there are MULTIPLE shots where her facial injuries are on the other side of her face contrary to what was shown in the previous scene. And in a few scenes later, the facial injuries move back to the "proper" side of her face. I guess for compositional purposes Hu must have opted to reverse the images in those shots.

A word of suggestion for those tempted to think of Touch of Zen in relation to other martial arts films: don't. Think David Lean rather than Yuen Woo Ping. The fights are good and creative, yes, but Hu choreographs fight scenes in a different way than most martial arts directors, even though some of his techniques have been used by modern martial arts directors. But you will find that his fight scenes have a far more stagey quality owing more to Peking Operas, rather than the dynamic, punchy, filmic choreography of more traditional martial arts directors.

[The_Iceflash]

I hope Roberto Rossellini’s War Trilogy gets a Blu-ray release soon!

[Arawn]

Originally Posted by GenPion

Nolan's use of long-take action sequences in both The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises is significantly better than the quick cuts of Batman Begins. I love all three movies but to me the action staging dramatically improved.

I do believe some of the reason for this is because of second unit director work on Batman Begins. Nolan wanted total creative control over The Dark Knight and was directly involved for the entire process.

Nothing in Batman Begins looks as clunky to me as, for example, the rooftop scene in TDKR, that's all I'm saying.

[callahan09]

Originally Posted by The_Iceflash

I hope Roberto Rossellini’s War Trilogy gets a Blu-ray release soon!

I believe it's region B locked, but BFI has released a fantastic bluray if this in the UK.

[Giant Machine]

I'm looking forward to Blood Simple.

[tatterdemalion]

Originally Posted by Snicket

I finally added The Man Who Fell to Earth to my collection today.

After years of searning (and not wanting to spend $400) I finally found a very affordable copy.

Very happy today.

Nice pick up & congrats! I still have my old DVD copy of it but sadly didn't pick up the bluray when it was released. So I have the set with the novel. I've never been able too find out why the dates in the book that Del Rey printed for the Criterion release changes from the 1970s to the 1980s. Was it a misprint or a re-write? I've only read the original version and I'm trying to keep the book with the set in pristine condition so if anyone has read them both inquiring minds would like to know.

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by Giant Machine

I'm looking forward to Blood Simple.

I would've preferred a Criterion release of Barton Fink or Miller's Crossing myself.

Those both feel like quintessential Coen brothers movies imo.

I like Blood Simple, but it doesn't really feel like one of those films that could only have been directed by the Coen rothers.

...still happy for the rest of y'all good people.

[Arch Stanton]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

I would've preferred a Criterion release of Barton Fink or Miller's Crossing myself.

Those both feel like quintessential Coen brothers movies imo.

I like Blood Simple, but it doesn't really feel like one of those films that could only have been directed by the Coen rothers.

...still happy for the rest of y'all good people.

Really? Blood Simple is the distinctive Coen bros template that they've basically remade time and time again since. The opportunistic characters and their converging plotlines, interweaving of black comedy, violence and its ability to manifest in the everyday man, the overall sweeping nihilism.