The Criterion Collection

[theater dreamer]

Hey guys, just a heads up for some of you that collect Twilight Time films--Screen Archives Entertainment is holding a 7 for $70 blu-ray sale for several of Twilight Time's titles. I picked up the following:

Pal Joey - dir. by George Sidney. Frank Sinatra, Kim Novak, Rita Hayworth
Desiree - dir. by Henry Koster. Jean Simmons, Marlon Brando
Cover Girl - dir. by Charles Vidor. Gene Kelly, Rita Hayworth, Phil Silvers
Bonjour Tristesse - dir. by Otto Preminger. Deborah Kerr, David Niven, Jean Seberg.
Philadelphia - dir. by Jonathan Demme. Tom Hanks, Denzel Washington, Joanne Woodward, Jason Robards.
Love is a Many-Splendored Thing - dir. by Henry King. William Holden, Jennifer Jones.
The Way We Were - dir. by Sydney Pollack. Barbara Streisand, Robert Redford.

$84 delivered with shipping (there is a media mail delivery option for $5 less). That's a great deal for films that usually sell for $29.95 each.

[shadedpain4]

Originally Posted by theater dreamer

Hey guys, just a heads up for some of you that collect Twilight Time films--Screen Archives Entertainment is holding a 7 for $70 blu-ray sale for several of Twilight Time's titles. I picked up the following:

Pal Joey - dir. by George Sidney. Frank Sinatra, Kim Novak, Rita Hayworth
Desiree - dir. by Henry Koster. Jean Simmons, Marlon Brando
Cover Girl - dir. by Charles Vidor. Gene Kelly, Rita Hayworth, Phil Silvers
Bonjour Tristesse - dir. by Otto Preminger. Deborah Kerr, David Niven, Jean Seberg.
Philadelphia - dir. by Jonathan Demme. Tom Hanks, Denzel Washington, Joanne Woodward, Jason Robards.
Love is a Many-Splendored Thing - dir. by Henry King. William Holden, Jennifer Jones.
The Way We Were - dir. by Sydney Pollack. Barbara Streisand, Robert Redford.

$84 delivered with shipping (there is a media mail delivery option for $5 less). That's a great deal for films that usually sell for $29.95 each.

Thanks a lot. There goes $80.

[mande2013]

On an unrelated note, isn't this constant bombardment of 4K restorations getting to be a bit much after several of these films already had 2K restorations less than ten years. I feel like it's just an excuse to sell more blu-rays. Granting, further restorative efforts are perhaps necessary to prepare a film for an Ultra HD blu-ray release, but blu-ray is only capable of 2K output anyway, so what purpose does it serve to rerelease a film on blu-ray with a new restoration? How much better could a 4K restoration of Pierrot Le Fou possibly look on a regular blu-ray than the Criterion transfer from 7-8 years ago. Or for that matter the Criterion transfer of Lola Montes or M from around the same time. I just don't get it. I also have another question. If 35mm has a native 4K resolution anyway, then wouldn't a print of a "2K restoration" from 2008 have 4K resolution anyway, because it's being projected in 35mm at places like Film Forum and such? That's something that confuses me.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by mande2013

On an unrelated note, isn't this constant bombardment of 4K restorations getting to be a bit much after several of these films already had 2K restorations less than ten years. I feel like it's just an excuse to sell more blu-rays. Granting, further restorative efforts are perhaps necessary to prepare a film for an Ultra HD blu-ray release, but blu-ray is only capable of 2K output anyway, so what purpose does it serve to rerelease a film on blu-ray with a new restoration? How much better could a 4K restoration of Pierrot Le Fou possibly look on a regular blu-ray than the Criterion transfer from 7-8 years ago. Or for that matter the Criterion transfer of Lola Montes or M from around the same time. I just don't get it. I also have another question. If 35mm has a native 4K resolution anyway, then wouldn't a print of a "2K restoration" from 2008 have 4K resolution anyway, because it's being projected in 35mm at places like Film Forum and such? That's something that confuses me.

I don’t know why this topic occasionally makes people angry. It is up to you, the consumer, if the upgrade is worth your while. I don’t think that it is any kind of ploy by the distributors to only release a film with an average quality transfer with full knowledge that they’ll get two sales when they re-release it with a better scan. At the same time, should we have said ‘good’ was ‘good enough’ when DVDs came onto the scene? And the fact is, the difference between a VHS and a DVD was huge, so maybe we should have?

As for Blu-ray releases, I just saw Unforgiven for the first time the other night (very good film, btw..) The disc was released, I think, in 2007 and received a score of 4.5 for PQ on this site. There’s no way that that same disc, if reviewed now, would get a 4.5. How about The Third Man? The review here made it seem like it was the most glorious HD transfer ever, only to have it superseded in quality by Studio Canal’s recent release.

It seems like they’ve improved upon the entire process of making HD scans and using the highest quality master means the best possible PQ. I don’t get what there is about this that bothers people.

[mande2013]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

I don’t know why this topic occasionally makes people angry. It is up to you, the consumer, if the upgrade is worth your while. I don’t think that it is any kind of ploy by the distributors to only release a film with an average quality transfer with full knowledge that they’ll get two sales when they re-release it with a better scan. At the same time, should we have said ‘good’ was ‘good enough’ when DVDs came onto the scene? And the fact is, the difference between a VHS and a DVD was huge, so maybe we should have?

As for Blu-ray releases, I just saw Unforgiven for the first time the other night (very good film, btw..) The disc was released, I think, in 2007 and received a score of 4.5 for PQ on this site. There’s no way that that same disc, if reviewed now, would get a 4.5. How about The Third Man? The review here made it seem like it was the most glorious HD transfer ever, only to have it superseded in quality by Studio Canal’s recent release.

It seems like they’ve improved upon the entire process of making HD scans and using the highest quality master means the best possible PQ. I don’t get what there is about this that bothers people.

I'm not suggesting we shouldn't upgrade home viewing formats for the sake of superior picture quality. Rather, I don't see what the benefit is of a 4K transfer over a 2K one if it's being viewed on a regular blu-ray. Obviously, on a cinema screen the difference between a 2K and a 4K restoration would be night and day. In the case of Lang's M, even though it's recently be restored, I'm sure plenty of people today are still more than happy with their late 2000's CC BD of the film.

[Banned User]

I'd personally prefer they focus on unreleased titles when a title is already available. I think what you find though is a lot of these films have seen newer 4k restorations recently while previously released Blurays were based off the older restoration work. So in those cases its not so much the benefit of a 4k restoration then it is the advancement of tools and restoration practices that yield the larger benefit. I assume everything from this point on is being scanned in 4k for an eventual UHD release down the line or for 4k streaming.

However some films have seen very recent restorations and have not made it to Bluray. Like Red Beard, Ugetsu and The Lodger. I'd much rather see these released then titles that are already available. Regardless of the quality difference between the previous and new releases of those titles.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by Banned User

I'd personally prefer they focus on unreleased titles when a title is already available. I think what you find though is a lot of these films have seen newer 4k restorations recently while previously released Blurays were based off the older restoration work. So in those cases its not so much the benefit of a 4k restoration then it is the advancement of tools and restoration practices that yield the larger benefit. I assume everything from this point on is being scanned in 4k for an eventual UHD release down the line or for 4k streaming.

However some films have seen very recent restorations and have not made it to Bluray. Like Red Beard, Ugetsu and The Lodger. I'd much rather see these released then titles that are already available. Regardless of the quality difference between the previous and new releases of those titles.

this is what I was trying to say, but couldn't find the words.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by jw007

You're literally one of the only people here on this forum that still remembers that avatar of mine. Wow, we're old timers aren't we!

I'll think about bringing back that avatar. For now I'll gratify your deepest, most perverse Orson desires with a tease of Orson for now:



Now you know I also created an alternate avatar too:



Which one do you like more?

The second. Ive always found it so ridiculous!

Does anybody know if Punch Drunk love will be a scanovo or digipak? I'm hoping it's not a digipak so I can simply put my DVD set inside a three disc scanovo case.

[Banned User]

So excited!! Just got my Cat People Bluray in the mail. I hope Criterion goes after all the Val Lewton movies. Would be the holy grail of releases for me.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by Banned User

So excited!! Just got my Cat People Bluray in the mail. I hope Criterion goes after all the Val Lewton movies. Would be the holy grail of releases for me.

I just got mine today, as well.

[RojD]

Originally Posted by Pequod

Snagged for $88 from eBay; very happy to add it to my collection

Good deal! I just sold two of these for $150 each on Amazon, so you did great.

I had those listed for a long time, but they went within a day of each other. Any idea why the sudden demand?

(looks like a real comfy room in the background, btw)

[Banned User]

Best Boxset ever. Wish someone would give the TV series a proper restoration and release it. Never wanted my Zatoichi viewings to end

[Reddington]

The Region B release of The Human Condition is now available. Would be a blind-buy. But as it is limited to 3,000 copies, and with the exchange rate still very favourable (and a discount at AmazonUK), I'm tempted to jump straight on it.

The Criterion DVD is still in print, so I'm thinking there is also a good chance of an upgrade. Can't recall any discussion here. Anyone have any info? Thanks.

[Pequod]

Originally Posted by RojD

Good deal! I just sold two of these for $150 each on Amazon, so you did great.

I had those listed for a long time, but they went within a day of each other. Any idea why the sudden demand?

(looks like a real comfy room in the background, btw)

Thanks! It is indeed a comfy living room at my folks' house – alas, I'm off to graduate school very soon, so I'll have to say my goodbyes to this awesome house in the coming week.

I had no idea this was in high demand at all; I had it on my radar for a while and happened to get lucky on eBay. I don't think it's going OOP any time soon.

[812crew]

Just watched my Criterion DVD copy of Hitchcock's Spellbound. Oof.

I remember when I was in my early 20's, Hitchcock was definitely my favorite director. Now, in my late 30's, when I see some of these movies again for the first time in years, I can't believe how ridiculous some of them are. Spellbound is such a clunky movie. The dialogue is pretty embarrassing at times and the logical leaps it takes in the solution of plots (the dream sequence) is pretty goofy. I get that it's somewhat a product of its time, but the thing that's surprised me in revisiting Hitchcock's movies is how poorly melodramatic a lot of some of the acting is (especially considering the quality of most of the talent). Gregory Peck fainting multiple times in Spellbound is so corny. There's no denying his work behind the camera, but it's very hard for me as I get older to watch a Hitchcock or Spielberg movie the way I used to (excluding some of their better movies like Rear Window or Schindler's List). Both of these directors now just seem too in love with themselves for me, like they're substituting audience engagement for their own ego in many sequences. The skiing sequence, for instance, in Spellbound is beyond bad...and I don't think it can be blamed all on effects. I also watched The Lady Vanishes recently and though that too just got "silly", and not in a good screwball way.

I didn't come just to complain. One thing I'm enjoying about revisiting my Criterions is to realize how much my tastes have changed over time. Now that I'm 39, I'm leaning far more towards introspective movies like some Bergman or Ozu films. And I've watched a lot of Kurosawa movies recently and truly believe that he was better than Hitchcock when it comes to mass entertainment action or suspense films.

[belcherman]

Originally Posted by 812crew

Just watched my Criterion DVD copy of Hitchcock's Spellbound. Oof.

I remember when I was in my early 20's, Hitchcock was definitely my favorite director. Now, in my late 30's, when I see some of these movies again for the first time in years, I can't believe how ridiculous some of them are. Spellbound is such a clunky movie. The dialogue is pretty embarrassing at times and the logical leaps it takes in the solution of plots (the dream sequence) is pretty goofy. I get that it's somewhat a product of its time, but the thing that's surprised me in revisiting Hitchcock's movies is how poorly melodramatic a lot of some of the acting is (especially considering the quality of most of the talent). Gregory Peck fainting multiple times in Spellbound is so corny. There's no denying his work behind the camera, but it's very hard for me as I get older to watch a Hitchcock or Spielberg movie the way I used to (excluding some of their better movies like Rear Window or Schindler's List). Both of these directors now just seem too in love with themselves for me, like they're substituting audience engagement for their own ego in many sequences. The skiing sequence, for instance, in Spellbound is beyond bad...and I don't think it can be blamed all on effects. I also watched The Lady Vanishes recently and though that too just got "silly", and not in a good screwball way.

I didn't come just to complain. One thing I'm enjoying about revisiting my Criterions is to realize how much my tastes have changed over time. Now that I'm 39, I'm leaning far more towards introspective movies like some Bergman or Ozu films. And I've watched a lot of Kurosawa movies recently and truly believe that he was better than Hitchcock when it comes to mass entertainment action or suspense films.

Spellbound is one of my least favorite Hitchcocks, at least of the one's I've seen (I think I've seen all of his American films, a couple of the British, none of the silents). Don't write him off based on this one film. It is clunky and the psychological Salvador Dali stuff hasn't aged well. But that can also be said of a lot of the post-war psycho-drama-themed movies.

Go watch Strangers on a Train. It does get better.

[812crew]

Originally Posted by belcherman

Spellbound is one of my least favorite Hitchcocks, at least of the one's I've seen (I think I've seen all of his American films, a couple of the British, none of the silents). Don't write him off based on this one film. It is clunky and the psychological Salvador Dali stuff hasn't aged well. But that can also be said of a lot of the post-war psycho-drama-themed movies.

Go watch Strangers on a Train. It does get better.

Ha. Yes. I appreciate that. I definitely will not judge him just based on Spellbound. I think it struck me more in the sense that, 15 years ago, I liked everything of his...and now I have a negative reaction to more of his stuff than I would imagine. As great as Vertigo is, some of the acting sticks out to me more than it used to.

I did watch Notorious the other night and really enjoyed it for the most part, especially the first hour or so (it drags a little when Cary Grant gets jealous of her and treats her like crap, but I understand why they did it narratively). After Spellbound though I'm a bit tentative to even watch my Criterion of Rebecca.

Also, yes, I do feel like kind of a tool for criticizing a guy like Hitchcock, when I know he had more genius in his pinky than I ever will have....but, hey, that doesn't mean he was infallible.

[theater dreamer]

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Originally Posted by Banned User

I'd personally prefer they focus on unreleased titles when a title is already available. I think what you find though is a lot of these films have seen newer 4k restorations recently while previously released Blurays were based off the older restoration work. So in those cases its not so much the benefit of a 4k restoration then it is the advancement of tools and restoration practices that yield the larger benefit. I assume everything from this point on is being scanned in 4k for an eventual UHD release down the line or for 4k streaming.

However some films have seen very recent restorations and have not made it to Bluray. Like Red Beard, Ugetsu and The Lodger. I'd much rather see these released then titles that are already available. Regardless of the quality difference between the previous and new releases of those titles.

God damn, that is sexy. I've never seen any of the Zatôichi adventures, but I'm extremely tempted to grab the new boxing in February. Something tells me that I'm going to love it. I should really watch some on Hulu before Filmstruck goes live, and remove the possibility that it won't be available to stream on the new service. But my watch list is a mile long right now.

Originally Posted by Pequod

Snagged for $88 from eBay; very happy to add it to my collection

Grab it, my friend, especially if it's a limited edition. The alternative will be very painful. Nothing worse than getting into the Criterion Collection within the last year, and finding so many of the movies you want now out of print. I'm going to have to back up the Brinks truck to get some of these. I am completely happy with the StudioCanal re-release of The Third Man, so that's one, at least, I won't need to get (I don't plan on being a completionist, though I might come fairly close). However, Last Year at Marienbad, Howard's End, The Man Who Fell to Earth, Chungking Express, etc...those are going to cost me a bloody fortune, as there is no better release, to my knowledge. I got a nice deal on Army of Shadows. That will not be the norm. And I'm buying other limited releases that are now OOP, like the Korean imports of The Pianist, and Malena. Those are $40-50 a pop. It all adds up quickly. If you can get a good deal, and really want to own it, do it now. Don't delay.

Should Criterion issue it on blu-ray, you could always sell the limited edition version you purchased, and get a good deal of your money back. Or, you might just own both, especially if there are extras that are exclusive to one release. Listen to your gut. If you want it, go for it! We all could second guess ourselves to death. I'm trying so hard to hold off on buying any more DVDs. But if some of the movies I really want don't get a bump soon, I'm jumping in. Le Samourai, Jeanne Dielman....I could list at least ten films, if not more.

Originally Posted by Reddington

The Region B release of The Human Condition is now available. Would be a blind-buy. But as it is limited to 3,000 copies, and with the exchange rate still very favourable (and a discount at AmazonUK), I'm tempted to jump straight on it.

The Criterion DVD is still in print, so I'm thinking there is also a good chance of an upgrade. Can't recall any discussion here. Anyone have any info? Thanks.

Oddly enough, I like Hitchcock now more than I did when I was younger. It's all personal taste, and there's nothing wrong with not enjoying his work as much as you used to. When I watch a Hitch film now, it's with the knowledge that has come with reading his interviews with Truffaut. I've gained a different perspective. It's not so much his ego that's showing in his movies (though Hitchcock clearly had an ego - but all great directors do). It's that he ignores convention. Yes, he absolutely takes logical leaps, and openly admitted to doing so. People who go into one of his films expecting everything to make sense are going to be sorely disappointed.

"There is something more important than logic: imagination"
--Alfred Hitchcock

Hitchcock is all about the emotional response of the audience. If a movie watcher is too busy concerning themselves with the machinations of a murder, they're not paying attention to what Hitchcock is showing them. He's very much like a magician. Magicians use slight of hand. You have to focus on what you are seeing to fully enjoy the trick.

As far as the dialogue, or acting in some of his films go, yes, both are going to be dated. But that's true for any film I watch from several decades ago. Acting has evolved, just as the spoken English language has. Jump into a Delorean, go back to the earliest part of the 20th Century, and walk around New York City, or Boston. You're hearing English, for the most part, but the vernacular is completely different. I recently read Christy Mathewson's Pitching in a Pinch (Matty was a Hall of Fame pitcher for the New York Giants). It's amazing, to me, how much the language has changed in a century. So many of the colloquialisms from that time have gone the way of the dodo bird. I had to look a good number of them up. People simply don't talk the same way they used to. Acting is the same way. I always keep that in the back of my mind when watching a classic, and just enjoy what is bring presented without overthinking the dialogue, or the logic behind a scene.

Originally Posted by 812crew

Just watched my Criterion DVD copy of Hitchcock's Spellbound. Oof.

I remember when I was in my early 20's, Hitchcock was definitely my favorite director. Now, in my late 30's, when I see some of these movies again for the first time in years, I can't believe how ridiculous some of them are. Spellbound is such a clunky movie. The dialogue is pretty embarrassing at times and the logical leaps it takes in the solution of plots (the dream sequence) is pretty goofy. I get that it's somewhat a product of its time, but the thing that's surprised me in revisiting Hitchcock's movies is how poorly melodramatic a lot of some of the acting is (especially considering the quality of most of the talent). Gregory Peck fainting multiple times in Spellbound is so corny. There's no denying his work behind the camera, but it's very hard for me as I get older to watch a Hitchcock or Spielberg movie the way I used to (excluding some of their better movies like Rear Window or Schindler's List). Both of these directors now just seem too in love with themselves for me, like they're substituting audience engagement for their own ego in many sequences. The skiing sequence, for instance, in Spellbound is beyond bad...and I don't think it can be blamed all on effects. I also watched The Lady Vanishes recently and though that too just got "silly", and not in a good screwball way.

I didn't come just to complain. One thing I'm enjoying about revisiting my Criterions is to realize how much my tastes have changed over time. Now that I'm 39, I'm leaning far more towards introspective movies like some Bergman or Ozu films. And I've watched a lot of Kurosawa movies recently and truly believe that he was better than Hitchcock when it comes to mass entertainment action or suspense films.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by 812crew

Just watched my Criterion DVD copy of Hitchcock's Spellbound. Oof.

I remember when I was in my early 20's, Hitchcock was definitely my favorite director. Now, in my late 30's, when I see some of these movies again for the first time in years, I can't believe how ridiculous some of them are. Spellbound is such a clunky movie. The dialogue is pretty embarrassing at times and the logical leaps it takes in the solution of plots (the dream sequence) is pretty goofy. I get that it's somewhat a product of its time, but the thing that's surprised me in revisiting Hitchcock's movies is how poorly melodramatic a lot of some of the acting is (especially considering the quality of most of the talent). Gregory Peck fainting multiple times in Spellbound is so corny. There's no denying his work behind the camera, but it's very hard for me as I get older to watch a Hitchcock or Spielberg movie the way I used to (excluding some of their better movies like Rear Window or Schindler's List). Both of these directors now just seem too in love with themselves for me, like they're substituting audience engagement for their own ego in many sequences. The skiing sequence, for instance, in Spellbound is beyond bad...and I don't think it can be blamed all on effects. I also watched The Lady Vanishes recently and though that too just got "silly", and not in a good screwball way.

I didn't come just to complain. One thing I'm enjoying about revisiting my Criterions is to realize how much my tastes have changed over time. Now that I'm 39, I'm leaning far more towards introspective movies like some Bergman or Ozu films. And I've watched a lot of Kurosawa movies recently and truly believe that he was better than Hitchcock when it comes to mass entertainment action or suspense films.

If you are basing your adult re-evaluation of Hitchcock on one of his weaker films, then yes, you might say that his works are corny and chock full of bad acting. One of the few blu-ray reviews that I took the time to write a few years ago was for Spellbound: (it's spoiler free)

"The only real problem with this film is that it isn't terribly interesting. Although a mystery is solved at the film's conclusion, the source of most of the suspense during the greater part of the film's duration stems from whether Dr. Peterson's (Bergman) female intuition is to be trusted or if she has let her heart get the best of her. Peck overplays his double-mindedness and their chemistry is average at best. Nevertheless, the film's pacing is fine and isn't as 'dated' as some have made it out to be."

But otherwise, I have to strongly disagree. Notorious has, IMO, one of the best screenplays ever. Thank you, Ben Hecht! (who also wrote the screenplay for Ride The Pink Horse.) ...and The Lady Vanishes is just a lot of fun; its mystery plays itself out in quite an engaging fashion.

I don't think that Bergman could even shake a stick at what Hitchcock accomplished, but that's just a matter of personal taste. I'm very fond of Ozu and like Kurosawa, too, but for me, they aren't Hitchcock. Not infallible, but out of his 50 + films, you'd have a hard time finding one that wasn't at least somewhat entertaining.

[RojD]

Originally Posted by 812crew

Ha. Yes. I appreciate that. I definitely will not judge him just based on Spellbound. I think it struck me more in the sense that, 15 years ago, I liked everything of his...and now I have a negative reaction to more of his stuff than I would imagine. As great as Vertigo is, some of the acting sticks out to me more than it used to.

I did watch Notorious the other night and really enjoyed it for the most part, especially the first hour or so (it drags a little when Cary Grant gets jealous of her and treats her like crap, but I understand why they did it narratively). After Spellbound though I'm a bit tentative to even watch my Criterion of Rebecca.

Also, yes, I do feel like kind of a tool for criticizing a guy like Hitchcock, when I know he had more genius in his pinky than I ever will have....but, hey, that doesn't mean he was infallible.

I have the problem you mention with Notorious every time I see it--why does Devlin have to act like such a d*** towards Alicia? There's such a thing as being aloof and resentful, but his mistreatment of her crosses a line for me at times when he seems to relish it a bit much. Yeah, I know.....21st century sensibilities. But I can't deny that his (occasional) enthusiasm for mistreating her nips some of my enthusiasm for the film. Even though it is Notorious.

I had the same response to the same issue in Gilda -- why does Johnny have to act like such a d*** towards Gilda? It's not the misogyny but its gusto in both those films that dampens some of my pleasure in watching them.

It's the same frustration I feel with Birth of a Nation (racism) and Rome, Open City (homophobia). I'm far from a bleeding heart and even further from censorship based on content, but at the same time, I can't help that my values are part of my response to a movie.