The Criterion Collection

[baheidstu]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

It's worth noting as well that the popularity of certain movies reflects the political and socioeconomic climates of any given era.

A couple of months ago, I watched the 1942 film, Holiday Inn. In overall terms, I absolutely loved the movie, but I was also taken aback by one particular scene where the characters performed in blackface. I had to remind myself that, when this movie was filmed, this sort of thing was probably not offensive to the masses, and, in fact, it was probably quite innocuous.

On the flipside, though, the Criterion films, The Big Chill and Tootsie, seem sort of quaint to me now, although I still find them entertaining for nostalgia's sake. Back in the day, they made waves in popular culture, but their effect is somewhat diminished now.

Most people today would probably watch Design for Living (1933) and wonder what the big deal is with that movie.

On a closer-to-home note, I'd be willing to bet that younger people who visit this forum get the impression that John Carpenter's The Thing was a much more popular movie than E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial was back in 1982, while it was actually the other way around back then.

Exactly. Look at Vertigo. That article even notes the fact that it got middling reviews and wasn't exactly a huge hit at the time of release, so at the time it not getting nominated for Best Picture wouldn't have been a huge deal. And as much as I like Singin' in the Rain, it's still by and large a silly comedy, it's only after the dust has settled that people now regard it as a "classic". Even Gene Kelly himself preferred An American In Paris.

[dwk]

[jw007]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

Not sure if anyone has told you this, but you have at least one dumb friend

I agree. I see "dumbness" in a different sort of way... like I saw this guy buy a carton of cheap donuts and ate all 12 of them right before my eye for dinner. This is also the same guy who told me microwave ovens are completely safe (which I disagree, as food molecules are disrupted by the waves)...This is a guy who chain smokes and doesn't care about his health (dumb too)... This is a guy who I was told does heroin too (very dumb)... I mean, the list goes on and on. He's a nice guy but soooo dumb about being "healthy".

Oh, I forgot to mention, after he walked out of La La Land in the first 3 minutes, he went to see Star Wars: Rogue One playing in an adjacent screening room, and apparently walked out of the theater 20 minutes before the movie ended cause he lost interest. What! Dumb.

[MifuneFan]

New phantom page added

Bahman Ghobadi

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by rocknblues81

I'm not a big fan of the remake.

The Coens didn't change enough to make it worthwhile. The banter between the charactefs just isn't as good. The scenes between Darbyand Strother Martin are great. Those scenes fall flat in the remake.

I've got to say I'm a much bigger fan of the remake than of the original. Then again, I'm not a John Wayne fan in any way, shape, or form. So that has a lot to do with it, I suppose. And Steinfeld is so much better than Darby that it's ridiculous. They aren't even on the same planet, AFAIC. Finally, I think that the Coens' direction is far, far superior to that of Hathaway's. It's a beautiful, embracing film.

Plus, you know, The Dude.

[MassiveMovieBuff]

Originally Posted by rocknblues81

I'm not a big fan of the remake.

The Coens didn't change enough to make it worthwhile. The banter between the charactefs just isn't as good. The scenes between Darbyand Strother Martin are great. Those scenes fall flat in the remake.

I agree. I was pretty disappointed by the remake to be honest especially from the Coens.

[malakaheso]

The remake of True Grit was bland and faceless to me. It's one of their worst films, right up there with Intolerable Cruelty, Ladykillers and Hail Caesar.

[malakaheso]

Originally Posted by the one who knocks

Black Sheep sucks compared to Tommy Boy. But compared to Farley's only other starring roles -- Beverly Hills Ninja and Almost Heroes -- it's a masterpiece. And since there is sadly not much Farley to go around, I don't mind giving Black Sheep a watch now and then.

I have a soft spot for Farley too. Can't believe it has been 20 years since I saw Beverly Hills Ninja. Time flies.

Rewatched Trilogy of Life. I much prefer Pasolini's black and white films now. His late works seem too ideologically motivated and influenced by simplistic left wing ideas of the 50s and 60s like Godard's, except made with less skill.

[Helikaon]

Originally Posted by malakaheso

The remake of True Grit was bland and faceless to me. It's one of their worst films, right up there with Intolerable Cruelty, Ladykillers and Hail Caesar.

Hail, Caesar! will become known as one of their greatest ensemble pieces in the future, mark my words! Mind you, it took a second viewing for me to realise this.

[malakaheso]

Originally Posted by Helikaon

Hail, Caesar! will become known as one of their greatest ensemble pieces in the future, mark my words! Mind you, it took a second viewing for me to realise this.

Perhaps, but their films tend to be immediate with me, including Lebowski.let's wait and see

[Edward J Grug III]

Originally Posted by belcherman

I've seen both versions of True Grit and would be hard-pressed to choose between them. They are both great. I also think that Kim Darby was very good in the original, even if if she was old for the part. Her character is supposed to be annoying. Glen Campbell's character, the Texas Ranger, was supposed to be a bit of a goody two-shoes, and I thought he handled the role capably. It's a Henry Hathaway western, what's not to love?

The Coen Brothers' remake is great, too. I read where they did the remake because they loved the language of the novel and wanted to capture it in the film. I've read the novel and I don't think that the original was that far off, but the remake does hew more closely to the novel's language. Once again, Bridges gives a terrific performance.

Whether you choose the Duke or the Dude, you can't go wrong with True Grit.

My three favorite Coen films, in order.

Fargo
Miller's Crossing
Raising Arizona

Yes, I favor their earlier films.

Finally someone mentioned the Coen's best film: Miller's Crossing. It's so quotable and rewatchable. It's my favourite film.

I think even the worst Coen Bros films have at least something something worthwhile in them - Even The Ladykillers, which is a major missfire but still has moments.

[oliver_67]

Originally Posted by Rzzzz

Have you ever seen a movie at a theater and really enjoyed it and then a few years later you rent it or buy it and think to yourself "WTF was I thinking? This movie really sucks". Yeah, mark my words, thats going to happen a lot with La La Land. Its a stale, average, cheesy movie that was nominated for an embarrassingly large amount of nominations for one reason and one reason only. It was made in L.A. The academy sucks, the oscars suck, the people who go to the oscars suck, the presenters all suck and they can all f**k off. Maybe somebody can make a thread about how many thousands of times the Oscars got it wrong in their short history. They ignore classic, great movies

I am not sure that you need to wait for years to realize 3L is just a cheap mimicry of some great musicals in the history of cinema with a laughable super thin plot. With bothe critics and audience alike becoming more and more basic in their tastes for arts, maybe 3L is just the best kind of thing they could absorb in current environment.

Searchers, 2001, Umbrellas of Cherbourg, Young girls of Rochefort, Citizen Kane, Vertigo, Raging bull, Taxi driver altogether likely win only a fraction of Oscars 3L will win. That really tells you how meaningless and shitty the Oscars are.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by oliver_67

I am not sure that you need to wait for years to realize 3L is just a cheap mimicry of some great musicals in the history of cinema with a laughable super thin plot. With bothe critics and audience alike becoming more and more basic in their tastes for arts, maybe 3L is just the best kind of thing they could absorb in current environment.

Searchers, 2001, Umbrellas of Cherbourg, Young girls of Rochefort, Citizen Kane, Vertigo, Raging bull, Taxi driver altogether likely win only a fraction of Oscars 3L will win. That really tells you how meaningless and shitty the Oscars are.

Well, I couldn't care less about whether or not it has a "paper thin plot" since plot is pretty much the least important thing to me (unless we're talking about a film that very dependent on plot, like a mystery).

As to the films you named, I would argue that most of them are not really films that should be used for comparison in this situation The Searchers is clearly well-constructed by Ford, and it is held in the highest regard. I find it ugly (content, not look) and a film that I never wish I could re-visit. 2001 is a very difficult film for many (most?) audience members. Citizen Kane obviously had a very complicated situation that it needed to traverse. And even with that, it received nine nominations (though only winning one for writing). While Vertigo is today considered by many to be not only Hitchcock's masterpiece, but also one of the greatest films ever made, the response at the time was quite different. It had mixed reviews and was only mediocre success at the box office. Films such as Raging Bull and Taxi Driver are rarely highly rewarded by the Academy. They are too grim, too violent, too dark.

Finally, the two Demy classics you named are, obviously, foreign films and as such are working at a massive disadvantage. That is what -- in this case -- the Césars are for. Even with that being said, Umbrellas of Cherbourg was nominated for five Academy Awards.

Anyhow, the Academy Awards are what they are. They aren't a critical examination of the year in film, nor are they a venue for complex deconstruction of cinematic efforts. They never have been and they never will be. That is what critical journals are for.

The Oscars are simply a celebration of the past year in Hollywood film. Anyone looking for more than that is missing the point of what the Awards themselves are intended to be.

Whether that makes the proceedings and results "meaningless and shitty" is up to each individual, of course. But I get sort of fatigued after hearing, year after year, people criticizing the Academy Awards for not living up to some bar which the Awards themselves never attempted to reach in the first place.

OK, rant over.

[theater dreamer]

Raises hand. I much prefer the original, too. The remake isn't bad; I enjoyed it, and will probably end up buying it at some point. But it's not up to par with some of the Coen's best films, that much I can say without any hesitation. It didn't have the magic of Fargo, The Big Lebowski or No Country For Old Men.

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

I thought most preferred the original True Grit out there from what I've read.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by theater dreamer

Raises hand. I much prefer the original, too. The remake isn't bad; I enjoyed it, and will probably end up buying it at some point. But it's not up to par with some of the Coen's best films, that much I can say without any hesitation. It didn't have the magic of Fargo, The Big Lebowski or No Country For Old Men.

I wonder what the overlap would be for those who prefer either the original or the remake for both True Grit and 3:10 to Yuma. We need a Venn diagram.

PS: I prefer the remake in both instances, by a long shot.

[Gacivory]

I hope the Wong Kar-wai polaroid leads to a boxset of his films! Individually would be fine, but a set like Jacques Tati and Demy would make me happy!

[theater dreamer]

I would wager a guess that the people who prefer the originals(s) actually know what a Venn diagram is?

But I digress.

Originally Posted by AaronJ

I wonder what the overlap would be for those who prefer either the original or the remake for both True Grit and 3:10 to Yuma. We need a Venn diagram.

PS: I prefer the remake in both instances, by a long shot.

[mrjohnnyb]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

New phantom page added

Bahman Ghobadi

My first thought was Turtles Can Fly.

My second thought was The Wind Will Carry Us; a blu-ray release is currently available on the Cohen Media Group label, and along with the review of this website, I highly recommend it as well.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by theater dreamer

I would wager a guess that the people who prefer the originals(s) actually know what a Venn diagram is?

But I digress.

Oh snap!

[Edward J Grug III]

Originally Posted by AaronJ

I wonder what the overlap would be for those who prefer either the original or the remake for both True Grit and 3:10 to Yuma. We need a Venn diagram.

PS: I prefer the remake in both instances, by a long shot.

True Grit = Remake (The original is fine)

3:10 = Original (The remake we found nearly unwatchable)