The Criterion Collection

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by 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.

For the most part, I don't have any problems with Chicago audiences either. I don't enjoy the super hero movies and a lot of other genres that would attract a wide audience so maybe that's why.

My theater problem recently has been with the quality of the projected image. I don't know a terrible lot about it but I think some NW side theaters need to have their projection bulbs changed a bit more often. I had to walk out of Lion and Logan Lucky was a little dim, too.

[SammyJankis]

I've literally heard people shout out death threats, twice, in a New York theater (the Lincoln Center, to be specific.) The last incident I had was at a screening for Flowers of Shanghai at MoMA, where a woman down in the front row shouted for the entire sold out theater to hear, "You smell like shit! You smell like shit! You never take a bath!" There was consistent nervous laughter for the following minute. You could just tell that everyone was hoping she wasn't going to open her mouth again to ruin this rare screening.

[Knaldskalle]

Originally Posted by SammyJankis

I've literally heard people shout out death threats, twice, in a New York theater (the Lincoln Center, to be specific.) The last incident I had was at a screening for Flowers of Shanghai at MoMA, where a woman down in the front row shouted for the entire sold out theater to hear, "You smell like shit! You smell like shit! You never take a bath!" There was consistent nervous laughter for the following minute. You could just tell that everyone was hoping she wasn't going to open her mouth again to ruin this rare screening.

Huh. Never had an issue at the MoMA. Mostly going to see silent movies probably helps cut down on the issues (although kooks can be found anywhere in NY).

[moviflicilm]

Originally Posted by mja345

When I was about 9, my dad started to take me to basically everything he wanted to see in theaters. In a span from ages 9-11, I remember going to "Trainspotting", "Hurlyburly", "Deconstructing Harry", "Fear and Loathing", "LA Confidential", "The People vs. Larry Flynt", "Pi", "Jackie Brown", "The Game", "Henry Fool", "Zero Effect", and a bunch of others. There were all these people in their 30s, 40s, and 50s who would look at my dad like, "Why's he bringing his kid to this?" I remember after watching "Pi", some guy joked with my dad, "Great movie to take your kid to" and they had a laugh about it.

My mom didn't really care what my dad took me to, but oddly enough, the only time I remember her getting upset was when we went to this really bad Andy Garcia film called "The Man From Elysian Fields". It was a pretty tame movie, but it's basic premise is Andy Garcia moonlighting as a gigolo. I remember her saying to my dad, "Jesus, John, you and Mark went to a film about a male prostitute?" The weird thing is I was like 13 or 14 at the time and he had taken me to "Fear and Loathing" when I was 10, but she didn't really care about that one.

In the span of my adolescence, when I was getting really into movies that weren't blockbusters, when I wasn't doing homework, I would be watching a bunch of adult faire that bemused my acquaintances. My parents couldn't get how I could watch that "artsy-artsy crap", even when the films came from the speciality studios with star actors. When my classmates would raves about the latest blockbuster or Adam Sandler flick, I wanted to rave and recommend the weird indie film I saw on IFC(back when the channel initials meant Independent Films). My best friend vowed to never listen to my recommendations after raving Blue Velvet to him. There wasn't any trouble with my film viewing habits that caused caution until when I was a senior in high school and my sister, a few years older, was searching for my dvd collection and read the plot description of Last Tango in Paris. That was awkward to explain to my sister, that I had interested in watching this controversial art film from the early seventies. I was always the quirky oddball in my blue collar high school educated family not to disparage in any elitist takedown of their taste.

[Shrunkenhead]

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.

Silence of the Lambs is one of those rare cases where the movie is far superior to the novel.

[CyberpunkCentral]

Originally Posted by Shrunkenhead

Silence of the Lambs is one of those rare cases where the movie is far superior to the novel.

I like both the film and novel equally. But in some ways I get with what you are saying. Because The Silence of the Lambs always felt like Red Dragon-lite to me, which I think made it easier to adapt of film. Where as Red Dragon was a more meatier (no pun intended) and more complex story. You can even tell by how thicker the Red Dragon novel is compared to The Silence of the Lambs novel. However, as much as I LOVE Manhunter, Red Dragon has far more potential than what was given on screen. Hell, not even Hannibal (TV series) did any better. They had like six hour long episodes to re-tell the Red Dragon story and it still wasn't an improvement. Still really liked the Red Dragon-arc of Hannibal, though. It just wasn't a proper adaptation is all. But I also expect a LOT of changes being made to The Silence of the Lambs-arc in Hannibal as well. That is IF they renew the show for a fourth season anyway.

[zw94]

So with Silence of the Lambs on the horizon, are there any other unannounced/rumoured/hinted at titles to expect? I don't follow this thread often but I love the label.

[CyberpunkCentral]

Originally Posted by zw94

So with Silence of the Lambs on the horizon, are there any other unannounced/rumoured/hinted at titles to expect? I don't follow this thread often but I love the label.

Night of the Living Dead?

[Scottie]

Originally Posted by CyberpunkCentral

Night of the Living Dead?

Long rumored, unofficially confirmed, and now reportedly confirmed by John Russo at a screening for the film.

https://twitter.com/HQ10/status/914581837594406918

[pedromvu]

So what happened to the supposed come back from OOP of The Tales of Hoffmann?

It's been ages since a new title of Michael Powell or Pressburger considering The Thief of Bagdad, 49th Parallel, A Canterbury Tale and I Know where I am Going are still in print.

And when is A Matter of Life and Death ever going to see the light of day on blu I wonder?

[CyberpunkCentral]

Originally Posted by iScottie

Long rumored, unofficially confirmed, and now reportedly confirmed by John Russo at a screening for the film.

https://twitter.com/HQ10/status/914581837594406918

I guess I should wait for the Criterion edition then, instead buying the Mill Creek version or whatever they're called.

[xHank_Hillx]

Originally Posted by CyberpunkCentral

I guess I should wait for the Criterion edition then, instead buying the Mill Creek version or whatever they're called.

Definitely...the Mill Creek is terrible.

[Sifox211]

Originally Posted by pedromvu

[Show spoiler]So what happened to the supposed come back from OOP of The Tales of Hoffmann?

It's been ages since a new title of Michael Powell or Pressburger considering The Thief of Bagdad, 49th Parallel, A Canterbury Tale and I Know where I am Going are still in print.

And when is A Matter of Life and Death ever going to see the light of day on blu I wonder?

I believe a new restoration is screening in Europe this December, so a new BD release will be likely to follow.

[mja345]

The difference between Cox's portrayal of Lecter vs. Hopkins' is that is seems like Cox studied actual serial killers, whereas Hopkins seemed to study actors playing psychopaths. Anthony Hopkins is a great actor who has given many brilliant performances, but his performance as Lecter is unbelievably over-praised. Any actor playing a serial killer should watch videos of Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer, two of the most twisted individuals to walk this earth. If you watch interviews with them, they have the ability to turn into seemingly normal, articulate individuals at the drop of a hat. Hopkins seems insane right away, like he's channeling an erudite version of Charles Manson. The thing with Manson, as awful a person as he is, he looks like Mr. Rogers compared to guys like Bundy and Dahmer.

Michael Rooker gives the gold standard of psychopath performances in "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer" because he's this sadsack who could take your order at a restaurant, change your oil, etc. who is a truly sadistic human being. Anthony Perkins is amazing in "Psycho" because it's so under the surface. Hopkins starts out from such an absurd place that it's never menacing. It's a good performance from an entertainment perspective, borderline campy and theatrical, but there isn't a hint of menace in it. I could truthfully imagine Nic Cage or Vincent Price or Divine playing Lecter in "Silence of the Lambs". That's how campy it is.

[Scottie]

REVIEW




PACKAGING

[ShellOilJunior]

Originally Posted by CyberpunkCentral

Mads Mikkelsen's Hannibal Lecter > All

I won't disagree with you.

Mikkelsen's Lecter is incredibly nuanced. He doesn't get visibly upset. He's always playing games with those around him and he's always working 3 steps ahead of any of them. He's much closer to the literary Lecter in that he kills and feels nothing - his heart rate remains the same.

I think what elevates the show is the artistic liberties it took with Graham and Lecter's relationship. Knocked it out of the park.

[SammyJankis]

Two episodes into The Dekalog. I know I'm a year late, but this transfer is revelatory. I've had the images from its appalling DVD set in my mind for years. Couldn't help but smile when I saw how pristine and clear the image was. One episode per night. Gonna be an introspective week.

[CyberpunkCentral]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

I won't disagree with you.

Mikkelsen's Lecter is incredibly nuanced. He doesn't get visibly upset. He's always playing games with those around him and he's always working 3 steps ahead of any of them. He's much closer to the literary Lecter in that he kills and feels nothing - his heart rate remains the same.

I think what elevates the show is the artistic liberties it took with Graham and Lecter's relationship. Knocked it out of the park.

Yeah, Mads Mikkelsen's Hannibal Lecter makes the whole Federal Bureau of Investigation look like idiots. You can't catch him unless he wants you to. Something that wasn't as well executed in the films. Like when you watch The Silence of the Lambs you go, if Hannibal Lecter can be this dangerous in his cell, imagine him when he's free. And that's exactly what they nailed about Mads Mikkelsen's Hannibal Lecter. Him being a free man gets very chaotic.

[javy]

I was going to wait for next month's sale to scoop up Vampyr. I'm not going to be able to wait now that I've seen those pics.

[jshaide]

Really unsure if I could grab the VAMPYR upgrade or not. I said if I could move my DVD for the price of the BLU and essentially get it for free, I'd bite, but that didn't happen. And I'm unsure if I see a real leap in the quality (and the two reviews I read were a bit different from each other).