The Criterion Collection

[theater dreamer]

Michael Fassbender is quickly becoming one of my favorite actors. The X-Men movies are always going to be, essentially, popcorn flicks, even though they are well-crafted for what they are; but after just seeing him in both First Class and Days of Future Past, it was clear that there was some real depth of ability. The dynamic between his Erik Lehnsherr and James McAvoy's Charles Xavier (another fine, and criminally underrated actor. If you haven't seen The Conspirator, I highly recommend it!) is well played by both men, and there's this wonderful mix of foreboding and rage just beneath the surface in Fassbender's performances. He was outstanding in 12 Years a Slave, and though Prometheus was a slight miss, I thought he was the best part of the film. But, it was when I saw Steve Jobs that I really started to clue into just how good he truly was. Hunger and Shame just clinched it for me. The guy's got a magnificent future.

Originally Posted by mja345

I agree, theater dreamer. I like Brad Pitt a lot, dude's an excellent actor. He's actually made some fairly risky choices in his career. But a lot of women love the guy (I had an ex-GF who loved him, my current GF's guy is Michael Fassbender) and will go see anything he's in, even if it's something they normally wouldn't like. Two of his first starring roles were "Johnny Suede" and "Kalifornia", which are two very non-traditional films. It's harder these days to carve out an interesting career if you're a "handsome actor". It's really true. DiCaprio has done it well, so have Fassbender and Ryan Gosling. Pitt's done a hell of a job of it, all things considered and how much god-awful shit I'm sure he was offered. It's not the 1970s, where you look at the filmographies of guys like Newman and Redford, who women swooned over, and you go, "Man, these guys did it on their own terms and mostly made really interesting films". I give these current leading-man actors a lot of credit for carving out fairly interesting careers in a current environment of cinema where that is a lot more difficult.

[Member-167298]

Originally Posted by Poya

What you just said is considered to be the equivalent to a homicide for cinephiles.

I really like Silence of the Lambs and it is no doubt one of the best produced horror thrillers on nearly every level, but I agree with that poster's comments about Brian Cox being the superior Lecter. Hopkins gave one of the screen's most memorable performances for sure, but it was incredibly theatrical and it could be argued that he was chewing scenery.

[Arawn]

Originally Posted by mja345

Brian Cox is more menacing as Lecter in "Manhunter". It's a very subdued performance, but evokes actual serial killers far more than Hopkins' performance.

Yeah, it's great how he tries to get Graham & family killed by Dolarhyde but then in their next conversation he's just amicably chatting and acting like nothing happened.

[WrathOfHan]

I genuinely don't know what is worse in the theater: talking or phones. I encounter people using their phones less often, but it is incredibly annoying when it does happen. Two days after I had to get a refund for Cars 3, I saw The Last Knight. There was a guy two rows in front of me who would use his phone for 5 minute periods going through Instagram/Snapchat/etc. I had enough of his shit in the third act (or second; hard to tell with that movie) and yelled "DUDE, WE CAN ALL SEE YOUR PHONE!" He IMMEDIATELY put it away.... only to bring it back out again about 15-20 minutes later. This time he tried hiding it a little, but it was still pretty visible. I called him out again by saying "You're not doing a good job at hiding it!" He made it even more visible after I called him out, and an old lady in my row gave me a dirty look. Maybe if The Last Knight wasn't an absolutely horrendous film I would have actually gotten a manager to do something, but I was ready for it to end.

A few weeks later when I saw The Big Sick, an old lady (who also made semi-loud comments a couple of times) forgot to silence her phone, and in a crucial scene about 5 minutes before the movie ended, her ringtone was loudly blasting a high pitched version of "I Just Called to Say I Love You." It took her about 15 seconds to silence it, and it rang AGAIN 30 seconds later. Someone behind me shushed her, and she took it outside and never returned due to the movie being over.

I didn't have any other bad phone experiences until September, where I had THREE encounters of cell phone usage at It, mother!, and LEGO Ninjago. At It, the guy next to me started using his phone during the final battle. He was hiding it decently but not good enough. I gave him a dirty look and he covered it up even further. I just had to use my hand to block my right peripheral vision. At mother!, a teen girl at the end of my row used her phone a few times during the first half of the film. She was far enough away for it to not be really annoying, but again, I had to block my peripheral vision. I have no idea if she used it later in the film because I was so mesmerized by mother!

Things were really bad at Ninjago, though. In this showing, it was only me and a family of four at the front of the theater. The entire family was getting really fidgety in the second half; they were using phones, throwing food, and generally getting impatient. It was almost like they forgot one other person was in the theater! I went up one row to help block the cellphone brightness, but the father's phone went REALLY bright once to the point the light was reflecting onto the screen. I had my phone's flashlight ready to shine onto them if they did it again, but they never did. Like Transformers, I probably would have gotten management sooner if I liked the movie.

TLDR: It's a really mixed bag deciding if phones or talking are worse. Both are terrible, but each one has unique properties to them.

[MifuneFan]

I really haven't had to deal with any of this in NYC theaters thankfully. One time a couple months back someone had their phone out for like 30 secs, and someone in the back yelled "turn off your phone!" and they did, and that was the end of that. New York doesn't mess around.

Occasionally at a kid's movie, kids will get hyper or fidgety, but they're kids, and that's what they do. To avoid that, it's better to go to such movies in the evening, or some other time that's not very kid-friendly. Avoid weekends, and A.M. Showtimes.

[Shrunkenhead]

Originally Posted by CyberpunkCentral

Mads Mikkelsen's Hannibal Lecter > All

Agreed.

Although Hopkins' iconic turn is undeniably important to the history of modern cinema. I think the "comedic" factor forumites are addressing has less to do with anything Hopkins actually did on camera and more to do with everything that's come after--the cultural impact, the sequels, the imitators, the parodies, etc.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by xHank_Hillx

Hello! Hope it's okay to have my first post here. I just joined and wanted to say hi to all. I've been lurking this thread since the first post and have been collecting Criterions for 15 years. Cheers!

Welcome!

[CyberpunkCentral]

Originally Posted by Shrunkenhead

Agreed.

Although Hopkins' iconic turn is undeniably important to the history of modern cinema. I think the "comedic" factor forumites are addressing has less to do with anything Hopkins actually did on camera and more to do with everything that's come after--the cultural impact, the sequels, the imitators, the parodies, etc.

I love Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lecter. But Brian Cox and Mads Mikkelsen's portrayal of the character are more accurate to the character in the novels.

[xHank_Hillx]

Could "…Benjamin Button" be Criterion's first foray into UHD? It seems like an obvious choice (gorgeous transfer, third party release, etcetera). It seems like a safe choice to test the waters, though I don't know how much control they had over that release.

[Archedamian]

Originally Posted by xHank_Hillx

Could "…Benjamin Button" be Criterion's first foray into UHD? It seems like an obvious choice (gorgeous transfer, third party release, etcetera). It seems like a safe choice to test the waters, though I don't know how much control they had over that release.

I hope not. I would not double dip for this film.

[Gacivory]

I feel like their UHD dip would be Breathless, 400 Blows, or Seven Samurai. One of their big catalogue titles, that they have sold in multiple versions.

[xHank_Hillx]

Originally Posted by Archedamian

I hope not. I would not double dip for this film.

I gave it another chance recently for the first time since theaters and found it incredibly moving and well made. I think behind the "gimmick" of the story there's an interesting film there. I know it's pretty much universally despised, but I'm a sucker for these kind of films and films set in New Orleans. To each their own though.

[xHank_Hillx]

Originally Posted by Gacivory

I feel like their UHD dip would be Breathless, 400 Blows, or Seven Samurai. One of their big catalogue titles, that they have sold in multiple versions.

Absolutely.

[scottpcusa]

Originally Posted by xHank_Hillx

Could "…Benjamin Button" be Criterion's first foray into UHD? It seems like an obvious choice (gorgeous transfer, third party release, etcetera). It seems like a safe choice to test the waters, though I don't know how much control they had over that release.

Originally Posted by Archedamian

I hope not. I would not double dip for this film.

I won't even single dip for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.

[kristoffer]

I would be all over Seven Samurai in HDR!

[Doctor Jack]

Originally Posted by CyberpunkCentral

I love Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lecter. But Brian Cox and Mads Mikkelsen's portrayal of the character are more accurate to the character in the novels.

Just because it's more accurate to the novels doesn't automatically mean better. I'll take Hopkins over the other two any day of the week.

[SammyJankis]

Here's something that might spin your heads: they're all great.

[Poya]

Originally Posted by SammyJankis

Here's something that might spin your heads: they're all great.

Nah. We can’t have ties here. Why else do we have a democracy?

[xHank_Hillx]

Originally Posted by SammyJankis

Here's something that might spin your heads: they're all great.

dingdingding

[CyberpunkCentral]

Originally Posted by Doctor Jack

Just because it's more accurate to the novels doesn't automatically mean better. I'll take Hopkins over the other two any day of the week.

Well that depends which characterization best suits the character. Hannibal Lecter is a "psychopath" and just like any psychopath, they look just like any other person. Then again, Hannibal Lecter's appearance in the novels is described as similar to that of Dracula, but that's besides the point. Anyway, there is nothing scarier than a demon in disguise you can't spot. And that's exactly what Brian Cox and Mads Mikkelsen got right about the character. Where as Anthony Hopkins' Hannibal Lecter acts like a cooky old man. Don't get me wrong, Anthony Hopkins is very entertaining in the role. But being entertain is not the same as being scary.