The Criterion Collection

[scorsetinogilliam]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

I agree with you. Dr. Svet always gives very high ratings for the technical qualities even when the film doesn't deserve it, such as Paris, Texas and Chungking. I can understand wanting to give high marks simply because it's the best the print has ever looked, but when you see the ratings you usually compare it to other films who have the same ratings, and oftentimes they're nowhere near as good. You have to take it with a grain of salt. Granted, at the end of the day it's all about the film.

Paris, Texas is literally breathtaking concerning the technical qualities. I'm not sure which blu ray you watched...must have been something else.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by scorsetinogilliam

Paris, Texas is literally breathtaking concerning the technical qualities. I'm not sure which blu ray you watched...must have been something else.

You're right, I watched something else. You're telling me that it deserves a perfect AQ rating, a la Band of Brothers, Saving Private Ryan, etc.? You're telling me it deserves a 4.5 for PQ, a la Monster's Inc. and Atonement? Give me a break.

I love the film, it's one my favorite Criterions on blu, and I'm sure it's the best it ever looked and sounded. But that doesn't mean it is anywhere near as good in the technical areas as other films of the same rating. It got its ratings because it's Criterion.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by dag

Sorry, didn't mean to be confusing or, most definitely, condescending.

At the beginning of the year, I began renting DVDs from Zip.ca, a Canadian equivalent to Netflix. Thus far, I've rented 92 movies from them. I've also taken advantage of the Cinematheque here (actually, a very good institution), and I just watched a couple of movies I had gotten from the library (Z and Closely Watched Trains). I love films, and I feel enriched especially by Criterion releases and foreign films generally.

I was just (needlessly) remarking about how contributors to Blu-ray.com spend their money on movies. I've been really happy renting these movies, which average out to just over $2 a film; on occasion, I'll specifically request a new Criterion Blu-ray release, and that will cost me $5. But I have to admit that the vast majority of these films aren't those that I would expect to revisit any time in the medium future. I'm glad I saw them, and definitely would recommend them, but I can't imagine owning them. So such titles as Walkabout, Black Orpheus, Playtime, Chungking Express, Last Year at Marienbad, Gomorrah, Revanche, Lola Montes, Hunger, Summer Hours, Everlasting Moments, Red Desert, The Secret of the Grain, or Crumb (especially), are all movies, among others, I've really appreciated seeing, and some I've really loved. I just couldn't imagine myself owning these, though. And don't get me started on typical Hollywood stuff!

I'm not making a value judgment about other peoples' tastes in films, their purchase decisions, or their predilection for collecting. I, too, have assembled some things in my time, and my tastes may not be shared by all.

But then, I can't believe what I'm spending to attend 17 screenings at the Toronto International Film Festival. It's ridiculous! I may be better off just buying Blu-rays. So what do I know?

Cheers

I do the same as you, I use ZIP to get a lot of Criterion. While I am curious to see most of the Criterion Collection movies, some I would not buy since I just will not see them again. ZIP is just the best solution for me, I rent them, get to see them without having to buy the movies. If after seeing I think this might be a movie I would enjoy buying so I can see it again I do so. Renting is just a safe way of finding out about it without going on a blind buy which I find just too expensive with Criterion, even more so here in Canada where the prices for them is always $10 to $20 more then the USA.

I as well never judge the buying choices of people, it's their money and as such they are free to do as they wish.

[stobbart]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

You're right, I watched something else. You're telling me that it deserves a perfect AQ rating, a la Band of Brothers, Saving Private Ryan, etc.? You're telling me it deserves a 4.5 for PQ, a la Monster's Inc. and Atonement? Give me a break.

I love the film, it's one my favorite Criterions on blu, and I'm sure it's the best it ever looked and sounded. But that doesn't mean it is anywhere near as good in the technical areas as other films of the same rating. It got its ratings because it's Criterion.

or because it is the closest you can get to what it would look like in theatres, which is what movies are filmed for and is what blu-ray helps replicate.

So I think that if a movie accurately represents HOW it was intended to look, should equate a good rating for PQ.

The recent blair witch review that is up on DVDbeaver, had they removed all the grain and polished it up to the quality of WALL-e (I know this is either impossible or would just never happen, its just an example) would you rate that complete disregard for how the movie was intended to be just for a pretty picture a good PQ rating? No, you would complain on how they butchered the movie. Paris, texas has a certain look to it that would be lost/ruined, had Criterion just focused on making their movies look pretty. Quality over quantity my friend

[ShellOilJunior]

Thankfully Criterion is smart and great at what they do and they'd never give us a Patton-like Blu-ray.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by stobbart

or because it is the closest you can get to what it would look like in theatres, which is what movies are filmed for and is what blu-ray helps replicate.

So I think that if a movie accurately represents HOW it was intended to look, should equate a good rating for PQ.

The recent blair witch review that is up on DVDbeaver, had they removed all the grain and polished it up to the quality of WALL-e (I know this is either impossible or would just never happen, its just an example) would you rate that complete disregard for how the movie was intended to be just for a pretty picture a good PQ rating? No, you would complain on how they butchered the movie. Paris, texas has a certain look to it that would be lost/ruined, had Criterion just focused on making their movies look pretty. Quality over quantity my friend

Thank you for proving my point. Just because a film is the best it's ever looked or accurately represents how it was intended to look, doesn't mean it automatically deserves the highest marks imaginable in technical ratings. According to your logic, Blair Witch deserves a perfect PQ and AQ rating simply because it looks and sounds how it was intended to, which is laughable.

The great thing about Criterion, as you point out, is they focus on making the films look and sound how they were intended. That's one thing I love about Criterion. Everlasting Moments, for example, is one of the best examples of a film looking exactly how it was supposed to look and the result is incredible. Paris, Texas, while looking and sounding better than ever and representing the intended look and sound of the film, doesn't mean it deserves high ratings. You have an apparent difficulty separating appreciation for restoration/film's intention and somewhat meaningless technical quality number ratings. They're distinct entities.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

Thankfully Criterion is smart and great at what they do and they'd never give us a Patton-like Blu-ray.

Agreed. They never cease to amaze me, even though I always expect quality.

[42041]

Originally Posted by scorsetinogilliam

Paris, Texas is literally breathtaking concerning the technical qualities. I'm not sure which blu ray you watched...must have been something else.

The screengrabs on this site and DVDbeaver look more like a third-rate Warner release than a quality 35mm print. i've long taken the technical sections of Criterion reviews on this site with a grain of salt, because there's too much hype at work. Some of them deserve it, others don't. The 400 Blows is very vaguely HD, yet gets 4.5 stars in video quality... the same rating as the far superior-looking Lola Montes. Silly.

[kpkelley]

This is bad?


This too?


Besides, a third-rate warner release would have much more DNR and lossy audio.

[PowellPressburger]

Originally Posted by 42041

The screengrabs on this site and DVDbeaver look more like a third-rate Warner release than a quality 35mm print. i've long taken the technical sections of Criterion reviews on this site with a grain of salt, because there's too much hype at work. Some of them deserve it, others don't. The 400 Blows is very vaguely HD, yet gets 4.5 stars in video quality... the same rating as the far superior-looking Lola Montes. Silly.

You can't ever judge a film by a site's screen grabs. 400 Blows and films like The Seventh Seal are a film grain lovers wet dream. I own the old DVD counterparts.

Plus seeing them in person on a calibrated TV etc will always look better than screen grabs.

[Deviation]

Originally Posted by PowellPressburger

You can't ever judge a film by a site's screen grabs. 400 Blows and films like The Seventh Seal are a film grain lovers wet dream. I own the old DVD counterparts.

Plus seeing them in person on a calibrated TV etc will always look better than screen grabs.

This is such a strange thing to say, in my opinion. A calibrated TV (or projector) and a calibrated computer monitor will show the exact same image. Why would it look better on the TV? Do you just have an awful computer monitor?

For me, the screenshots for The Seventh Seal sold me on the movie. I couldn't believe how great it looked in stills and it's those screenshots that showed me that a movie that was over 50 years old could absolutely worth buying in HD.

[42041]

Originally Posted by kpkelley

This is bad?

Well, it certainly left me disappointed. Since it's a 50 year old film and high quality elements may be lost, I'll cut it some slack, but 4.5/5 is still way too high for a movie that's super blurry 80% of the running time. If a major studio put out the same transfer, I don't think it would get high praise.

[PowellPressburger]

As far as Ratings go with image quality I always rate them based on the transfer itself. It is unfair to rate a film like The Seventh Seal etc against a pristine full out transfer like Up.

so I would give Seventh Seal a high rating. a solid 5.

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by 42041

Well, it certainly left me disappointed.

I don't share the notion that there is a set look that justifies a certain score.

Film negatives do not age equally, and in most cases most certainly aren't handled equally by the parties who own them. Hence, the reason why I review what is sent to me avoiding dogmatic categorizations, and on a case by case basis, not according to a set number of rules. As recent developments have shown, neither do the men - with a lot more authority and knowledge about film than me - who create these films.

Disappointments are natural, as they are part of this hobby, but they are not as common when one attempts to understand why perfection - whatever today's definition of it might be - isn't possible.

Pro-B

[TJS_Blu]

Originally Posted by zombeaner

Yeah, but the latter two of those are mainly problems of the past, what was the last non-anamorphic disc they released? Color-timing is a tricky thing to complain about, since a lot of people have a lot of very different memories.

Just noting that Criterion releases are and have been criticized...

[SpiderBaby]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

when one attempts to understand why perfection - whatever today's definition of it might be - isn't possible.

13 year olds right now across the world are pulling their "Justin Bieber" hair out right now reading that perfection isn't possible.

[ChadFL]

Originally Posted by TJS_Blu

Just noting that Criterion releases are and have been criticized...

HERESY!

[HumanMedia]

Originally Posted by Deviation

This is such a strange thing to say, in my opinion. A calibrated TV (or projector) and a calibrated computer monitor will show the exact same image. Why would it look better on the TV? Do you just have an awful computer monitor?

If they were both calibrated to the REC609 or 709 standard. But 99% of the time they are not. Computer monitors are usually calibrated to a different color temperature (not 6500K). Most screenshots of blu-rys from DVDBeaver almost never look like my calibrated projector image. In fact from the grayscale and color in DVDBeaver BD shots, I'd say that their screen dumping computer is wrongly calibrated.

[neo78956]

Originally Posted by CassavetesGodard

13 year olds right now across the world are pulling their "Justin Bieber" hair out right now reading that perfection isn't possible.

If this were twitter, I would have retweeted the hell out of that. QFT for now

[SpiderBaby]

Originally Posted by ChadFL

HERESY!

I don't have an opinion on this post. Just thought I back up Chad's post with a gang of smilies to back his up.