The Criterion Collection

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by hoytereden

They've really dumbed down these clues of late. They used to be a challenge. I want to see Polaroid turn this one into The Tree of Life. I still have my ancient Criterion dvd of Silence... and for some reason never got around to getting the $5 BD copy at Target so I'll wait and see what this edition offers.

This was a real missed opportunity to have sent out a teaser cartoon of a little bottle of lotion in a basket.

[jw007]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

The cartoon hint reminds me that I upgraded my old Criterion DVD of Louis Malle's Black Moon to Blu-ray a year or so ago, but I still haven't summoned the nerve to watch the movie again. Soon...

Oh, you must! Black Moon is one amazing surrealist film!

[jw007]

I'll tell you, I'm usually bad at guessing these clues, but this is one I immediately figured out!

[TylerDurden]

Third Man Criterion Collection
http://www.ebay.com/itm/282674726578

[20th Century Boy]

Originally Posted by PBateman87

Yep, a very straightforward clue there. No mistaking that one.

Yeah, well that's what I said about 16 candles strewn about their drawing. And, well...

[theater dreamer]

I'm intrigued by this film after reading about it. Plus, I like David Thewlis as an actor. I think I'll pick it up during the Flash sale.

Originally Posted by blujazz

Mike Leigh signed my copy of Naked at a screening of Life is Sweet.

[jedidarrick]

Originally Posted by 20th Century Boy

Yeah, well that's what I said about 16 candles strewn about their drawing. And, well...

Give it time. They teased Eraserhead years before it came out.

[Polaroid]

Originally Posted by blujazz

Mike Leigh signed my copy of Naked at a screening of Life is Sweet.

Awesome! My brother recently worked with him on his latest film and gave me the little gift that they give cast/crew :P Was a box of badges but still really awesome to own and have!

Was going to ask my brother to get my blurays signed but he was too busy

[Polaroid]

Originally Posted by hoytereden

They've really dumbed down these clues of late. They used to be a challenge. I want to see Polaroid turn this one into The Tree of Life. I still have my ancient Criterion dvd of Silence... and for some reason never got around to getting the $5 BD copy at Target so I'll wait and see what this edition offers.

Close enough

-

Or the lambs could represent the two brothers, pure and innocent, the one 'shhhhh' is is the young boy corrupting and trying to destroy that innocence of the brother.

[mja345]

Originally Posted by theater dreamer

I'm intrigued by this film after reading about it. Plus, I like David Thewlis as an actor. I think I'll pick it up during the Flash sale.

"Naked" is one of the most well-written films I've ever seen, no hyperbole. Thewlis gives a performance that is among the best in modern cinema. You start out thinking that Thewlis' character is a completely despicable piece of shit, but Gregg Crutwell's character manages to one up him. The inclusion of those two characters end up being a brilliant commentary on society in general in terms of how people who are absolutely abhorrent are often excused because there is always someone worse waiting in the wings. It's not a comfortable film by any stretch of the imagination, but it is one of those rare films that will leave you completely awestruck by the end. It's a true 10/10 in my mind.

[theater dreamer]

I'm sold. I have the utmost respect for your opinion, mja, so when Criterion holds their biannual shindig, I'm jumping all over it. I expect that I'll watch it the night it comes in.

Your comments on Naked echoes what I hold true about cinema, in general. To me, some of the greatest films, the ones that leave truly enduring impressions, are those that make me feel uncomfortable watching. They're the ones that make me think long after the credits have rolled. Movies with darker subject matter, often with characters that are so decidedly unlikable, can have us searching for deeper truths about society in general. They lead to introspection, especially when one character trait resonates within us. We might even question our own humanity. And these kinds of films come out far too infrequently.

Hollywood, in particular, has dumbed down the art form. Everything needs to be explained, and everything has to be neatly wrapped up with a bow. I hate that. I watched John Frankenheimer's The Train for the first time a few weeks ago. This might not be the best example to illustrate my point, but it's the one that immediately comes to mind.

[Show spoiler]I love the final scene of the film, when Burt Lancaster's Labiche shoots Paul Scofield's Colonel Von Waldheim. The derailed train, and all those beautiful works of art lay strewn along the hillside, along with the bodies of the captives. We're not told what happens to the works of art, or Labiche. We don't see the Allies swooping in to rescue the Monets, Picassos, etc. That's because the objective of the film was to stop the Nazi's from shipping the works of art to Berlin. What happened to one resistance fighter was incidental. But Hollywood rarely makes a film like that today. Heaven forbid that the viewer is left to draw their own conclusions about what happened next, or that we don't ultimately learn the fate of the protagonist. I've not yet seen Dunkirk, but some of the reviews I've read are filled with complaints that the story doesn't have any real character development. Can't the film be about the massive operation in Dunkirk, itself? Isn't that the true star of the film? Do we need to know what goes on in the minds of the soldiers fighting there? They want to survive the battle, and the war. Does every war film now have to have an emotional anchor like in Saving Private Ryan?

Originally Posted by mja345

"Naked" is one of the most well-written films I've ever seen, no hyperbole. Thewlis gives a performance that is among the best in modern cinema. You start out thinking that Thewlis' character is a completely despicable piece of shit, but Gregg Crutwell's character manages to one up him. The inclusion of those two characters end up being a brilliant commentary on society in general in terms of how people who are absolutely abhorrent are often excused because there is always someone worse waiting in the wings. It's not a comfortable film by any stretch of the imagination, but it is one of those rare films that will leave you completely awestruck by the end. It's a true 10/10 in my mind.

[jw007]

Originally Posted by mja345

"Naked" is one of the most well-written films I've ever seen, no hyperbole. Thewlis gives a performance that is among the best in modern cinema. You start out thinking that Thewlis' character is a completely despicable piece of shit, but Gregg Crutwell's character manages to one up him. The inclusion of those two characters end up being a brilliant commentary on society in general in terms of how people who are absolutely abhorrent are often excused because there is always someone worse waiting in the wings. It's not a comfortable film by any stretch of the imagination, but it is one of those rare films that will leave you completely awestruck by the end. It's a true 10/10 in my mind.

If only there were more films like Naked out there!

Which leads into my next posting below.....

[jw007]

Originally Posted by theater dreamer

I'm sold. I have the utmost respect for your opinion, mja, so when Criterion holds their biannual shindig, I'm jumping all over it. I expect that I'll watch it the night it comes in.

Your comments on Naked echoes what I hold true about cinema, in general. To me, some of the greatest films, the ones that leave truly enduring impressions, are those that make me feel uncomfortable watching. They're the ones that make me think long after the credits have rolled. Movies with darker subject matter, often with characters that are so decidedly unlikable, can have us searching for deeper truths about society in general. They lead to introspection, especially when one character trait resonates within us. We might even question our own humanity. And these kinds of films come out far too infrequently.

Hollywood, in particular, has dumbed down the art form. Everything needs to be explained, and everything has to be neatly wrapped up with a bow. I hate that. I watched John Frankenheimer's The Train for the first time a few weeks ago. This might not be the best example to illuminate my point, but it's the one that immediately comes to mind.

[Show spoiler]I love the final scene of the film, when Burt Lancaster's Labiche shoots Paul Scofield's Colonel Von Waldheim. The derailed train, and all those beautiful works of art lay strewn along the hillside, along with the bodies of the captives. We're not told what happens to the works of art, or Labiche. We don't see the Allies swooping in to rescue the Monets, Picassos, etc. That's because the objective of the film was to stop the Nazi's from shipping the works of art to Berlin. What happened to one resistance fighter was incidental. But Hollywood rarely makes a film like that today. Heaven forbid that the viewer is left to draw their own conclusions about what happened next,
or that we don't ultimately learn the fate of the protagonist. I've not yet seen Dunkirk, but some of the reviews I've read are filled with complaints that the story doesn't have any real character development. Can't the film be about the massive operation in Dunkirk, itself? Does every war film now have to have an emotional anchor like in Saving Private Ryan?

theater dreamer: I second that opinion too. Naked is a masterpiece and I was so inspired by it, that I spent over a month learning a Manchester accent and memorizing a 2 min. monologue from that film for my acting class a few years ago, thanks to David Thewlis' character.

I think that the film industry is so tightly wound, that directors and their creative expressions are heavily processed through the producers' lens. After a film like Michael Cimino's Heaven's Gate came out, Hollywood really gave less freedom to directors and their visions. The Hollywood industry today is so homogeneous and so carefully executed (to avoid lawsuits/controversy/etc.), that profits and money and box office sales come first above all else. Keep in mind that Naked is a British film and my reasons I stated above is why Hollywood would never have sold this film to the public in 1993. Things got so conservative and uptight, that crazy blockbuster art films by visionary directors became less commonplace by the time the mid to late 1980s rolled around (with a few exceptions, such as Martin Scorcese and Terry Gilliam). Anyway, the dumbing down of Hollywood has happened only because the executive producers are protecting their own asses from losing money. This is why superhero films and action stars with predictable storylines are so ubiquitous these days and cathartic films like Naked just are not released any longer.

[Poya]

Originally Posted by jw007

theater dreamer: I second that opinion too. Naked is a masterpiece and I was so inspired by it, that I spent over a month learning a Manchester accent and memorizing a 2 min. monologue from that film for my acting class a few years ago, thanks to David Thewlis' character.

I think that the film industry is so tightly wound, that directors and their creative expressions are heavily processed through the producers' lens. After a film like Michael Cimino's Heaven's Gate came out, Hollywood really gave less freedom to directors and their visions. The Hollywood industry today is so homogeneous and so carefully executed (to avoid lawsuits/controversy/etc.), that profits and money and box office sales come first above all else. Keep in mind that Naked is a British film and my reasons I stated above is why Hollywood would never have sold this film to the public in 1993. Things got so conservative and uptight, that crazy blockbuster art films by visionary directors became less commonplace by the time the mid to late 1980s rolled around (with a few exceptions, such as Martin Scorcese and Terry Gilliam). Anyway, the dumbing down of Hollywood has happened only because the executive producers are protecting their own asses from losing money. This is why superhero films and action stars with predictable storylines are so ubiquitous these days and cathartic films like Naked just are not released any longer.

I agree with all of these. Thank god for someone like Paul Thomas Anderson and Darren Aronofsky and a studio like A24 for still challenging the art form and giving us something new for the public. Seriously, the F cinemascore for mother! really makes me lose faith in humanity (there are plenty of reasons for that, too, but I ain’t taking much space), especially when a poisonous POS like Home Again has a B. Films shouldn’t be just about entertainment; they need to stick with you. They need to question who you are. They need to make you think and feel. This is why I rarely go to the cinemas anymore. Why when I have TCM and the Criterion Collection to help me remind myself that cinema is still our greatest art form?

[hoytereden]

Originally Posted by Polaroid

Close enough

-

Or the lambs could represent the two brothers, pure and innocent, the one 'shhhhh' is is the young boy corrupting and trying to destroy that innocence of the brother.

I should never have doubted you.

Criterion lately seems to be bringing lost lambs () home:
Sid and Nancy, Tokyo Olympiad, and now Silence of the Lambs.

[Scottie]

REVIEW

[Arawn]

nitpick: it's the "Man from Another Place", not the Man from Another Planet.

[jw007]

Originally Posted by Poya

I agree with all of these. Thank god for someone like Paul Thomas Anderson and Darren Aronofsky and a studio like A24 for still challenging the art form and giving us something new for the public. Seriously, the F cinemascore for mother! really makes me lose faith in humanity (there are plenty of reasons for that, too, but I ain’t taking much space), especially when a poisonous POS like Home Again has a B. Films shouldn’t be just about entertainment; they need to stick with you. They need to question who you are. They need to make you think and feel. This is why I rarely go to the cinemas anymore. Why when I have TCM and the Criterion Collection to help me remind myself that cinema is still our greatest art form?

Also, I've found myself enjoying cinema far more at home watching on my home theater without any distractions from other people... such as:

1. People talking/commenting out loud during the movie
2. The reeking stench of perfume
3. Adolescents texting with the annoying glow of their smartphones
4. Other people laughing out loud
5. Other people coughing out loud, possibly spreading the flu or the common cold
6. People having to walk past me and I miss a few seconds of the film because they're standing in front of me
7. The red "Exit" sign that glows and distracts me from time to time
8. Hearing the low rumble/sound and/or soundtrack of another film from the adjacent screening room
9. Babies crying
10. People checking the time on their phone, thus distracting me again with the annoying glow
11. Looking over and some person having their feet up right next to my seat
12. Feeling someone kick or bump my seat, thus irritating me
13. A theater attendant occasionally using his flashlight to help people find an open seat
14. Being distracted by people eating, especially with loud plastic bags
15. Having to hear someone with poor respiration breathing loudly, thus also distracting me
16. The climate control being really harsh as in an overly cold theater
17. The floor being sticky and chair I'm sitting in dusty and probably dirty
18. Not being able to relax and stretch my arms because the armrests are being used
19. Not being able to stretch my legs because I need to be careful not to bump the occupied chair in front of me
20. Not being able to eat a home cooked meal because I'm in a public theater
21. Too many advertisements before the film
22. I could go on and on and on!

I can avoid ALL OF THESE THINGS while watching a film on my home theater! It's wonderful!

Seriously, the quality and focus of purely being "one with the film" is achieved far easier watching at home. It's all about focusing on the film for me at least.

[mja345]

Originally Posted by Poya

I agree with all of these. Thank god for someone like Paul Thomas Anderson and Darren Aronofsky and a studio like A24 for still challenging the art form and giving us something new for the public. Seriously, the F cinemascore for mother! really makes me lose faith in humanity (there are plenty of reasons for that, too, but I ain’t taking much space), especially when a poisonous POS like Home Again has a B. Films shouldn’t be just about entertainment; they need to stick with you. They need to question who you are. They need to make you think and feel. This is why I rarely go to the cinemas anymore. Why when I have TCM and the Criterion Collection to help me remind myself that cinema is still our greatest art form?

Soderbergh's "Solaris", Friedkin's "Bug", and Andrew Dominik's "Killing Them Softly", one of the best films of the last 10 years IMO, got Fs from CinemaScore. Guess people don't like it when a movie doesn't make them feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

[malakaheso]

JW008: I agree with all that, but I wonder if that's just because I'm getting old. Most of that stuff wouldn't have bothered me 12-15 years ago.