The Criterion Collection

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by Doctor Jack

Can say whatever you want about Coppola’s inconsistent career output, but he had the greatest 4 movie run in history. The Godfather, The Conversation, The Godfather Part 2, and Apocalypse Now. Can’t rwally think of any other director who made 4 of the greatest movies ever made, some would say greatest ever, in a row.

I'd extend that run all the way to 88 with Tucker: A man and His Dream. I haven't seen Gardens of Stone, however, so that all may be moot.

I resent the fact everyone cuts the run before One From the Heart . That movie is GREEEEAT! The soundtrack is one of my personal favorites too.

The Rainmaker is also a near masterpiece.
-------------


Re: Altman.

His debut is probably one of the worst by a major director. The Delinquents is a truly awful 50's teen rebel movie.

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

I'd extend that run all the way to 88 with Tucker: A man and His Dream. I haven't seen Gardens of Stone, however, so that all may be moot.

I resent the fact everyone cuts the run before One From the Heart . That movie is GREEEEAT! The soundtrack is one of my personal favorites too.

The Rainmaker is also a near masterpiece.

I think Tucker is great and Rainmaker is solid entertainment with a great cast. Gardens of Stone is good, nothing really stands out but it's worth watching. It's a really interesting B-side to "Apocalypse Now", because it's a quiet reflection on the effects of the war rather than being a MOVIEABOUTTHEWAR. I would complain that nobody ever extends it back the other way; I haven't seen Finian's Rainbow, but The Rain People is a really good movie, very underrated, it gets ignored because it's sort of his "Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore" but it might be my favorite Caan performance that I've seen in anything.

Re: Altman.

His debut is probably one of the worst by a major director. The Delinquents is a truly awful 50's teen rebel movie.

That and "Fear and Desire" and "Good Times".

[captainron_howdy]

Originally Posted by mja345

I disagree totally. Both were not afraid to stray outside of genres that were right in their wheelhouse and took a lot of chances. Both could have taken the safe route and gone 4-5 years between films and had a higher percentage of complete bullseyes, but they liked to work frequently and made some misfires. Eastwood isn't even close to Lumet as a director IMO, and that's not to shit on Clint's body of work because he's made many good films

I think Altman may be the best out of them all.

Images
Nashville
McCabe
Brewster
Vincent & Theo
Gosford Park
Secret Honor
Short Cuts
The Player
MASH
3women
The Long Goodbye

He always stayed true to his cause & never "sold out." & I'd rather watch Popeye before Peggy Sue again.

[Al_The_Strange]

Well...sh*t.

I swung by B&N today, but Le Samourai was nowhere to be seen. On the plus side, the guy behind the counter was able to put an order in for me.

On the other plus side, I perused the Criterion aisle one more time. I remembered to pick up Vampyr (upgrading my old DVD). Few more blind buys: Lost in America, Hopscotch, Persona, and Europa. Don't want to think about the price of all that, especially since I threw in some more Rick and Morty comics. All that before swinging by Best Buy for Atomic Blonde and Westworld Season 1.

As far as my latest viewings go...

• Sansho the Bailiff: seemed a bit slow, but the cinematography is beautiful and it is a fairly brutal story.
• Thin Blue Line: wow, I was impressed by the visual presentation of this movie. I picked it up to kinda muse over social issues of crime, punishment, injustice, etc, and the film does cover those topics quite poignantly.
• Rebecca: much slower type of Hitchcock movie, but it entertained me more than I expected.
• The Philadelphia Story: there are some movies that are just grade-A cinema, but don't really seem to move or connect with me much. This is one of those. I'll probably pass this one off to my mom as a Christmas present.
• The Freshman: eh, bigger fan of Safety Last. Harry Lloyd always manages to play a sympathetic character though, and I can't fault the film for much. Just a little lightweight for my tastes--didn't make me laugh much.
• More Brakhage: saw a bunch of the ones that were basically paintings and moth wings and such put on celluloid. Zoned out and eventually fell asleep. Thank goodness I didn't have a seizure first. That's some crazy stuff. Also, that one with the baby...holy crap. Some things just can not be unseen.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by thatguamguy

I think Tucker is great and Rainmaker is solid entertainment with a great cast. Gardens of Stone is good, nothing really stands out but it's worth watching. It's a really interesting B-side to "Apocalypse Now", because it's a quiet reflection on the effects of the war rather than being a MOVIEABOUTTHEWAR. I would complain that nobody ever extends it back the other way; I haven't seen Finian's Rainbow, but The Rain People is a really good movie, very underrated, it gets ignored because it's sort of his "Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore" but it might be my favorite Caan performance that I've seen in anything.

That and "Fear and Desire" and "Good Times".

I've tried to venture into Coppola's early films, but I haven't gotten past the first half of Finian's Rainbow.

Wow. Calling it Caan's best is quite something. I'll have to cave in and rent both of these Caan/Coppola films on vudu over the holidays. Gardens of Stone also has Anjelica Huston. I'm so in now.

Originally Posted by captainron_howdy

I'd rather watch Popeye before Peggy Sue again.

I wouldn't go that far but Popeye 4k. Name your damn pice. I'll buy it.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Reddington

I'm not an Altman fan so can't really speak to his filmography, but I certainly wouldn't call Lumet "overrated." I mean, 12 Angry Men alone would be enough to cement his reputation. I haven't seen all his output by any stretch, but films like The Offence (a personal favourite), The Hill, Fail Safe, Equus, plus the famous Pacino flicks, is quite a body work for a mere "craftsman" (which is sort of damning with faint praise like "journeyman"). There was a similar discussion about Richard Fleischer in the Twilight Time thread. Another great director like Lumet.

Yup, throw in Network, The Pawnbroker, The Verdict and Deathtrap and you're still just looking at the A+++ stuff on his resume.

The guy was good.

[malakaheso]

I'm in a minority on here in that I find Altman's 90's work kind of bland and overrated (yes including The Player---toothless 'satire'--and Short Cuts i.e high grade soap) and don't really care for his films after the mid 80's; and his best 80's films aren't a patch on his best 70's ones.

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

I've tried to venture into Coppola's early films, but I haven't gotten past the first half of Finian's Rainbow.

Wow. Calling it Caan's best is quite something. I'll have to cave in and rent both of these Caan/Coppola films on vudu over the holidays. Gardens of Stone also has Anjelica Huston. I'm so in now.

I had "Finian's Rainbow" on DVD for years and I've had this Blu for a year and I still haven't gotten around to it. That's the one Coppola I haven't watched yet, and I really should, but I'm semi-dreading it because it's long and it just doesn't sound like a good fit for him. "Rain People" is a really different performance than I've ever seen Caan give in anything, I think that was what appealed to me, but I don't want to say too much about it before you see it. But if you're a big enough Coppola fan to stand up for "One From The Heart", it's definitely worth watching. Happy vuduing!

[Abdrewes]

No love for The Verdict and Before the Devil Knows You're Dead? Those are my two favorite Lumets.

Man, it's becoming a New Hollywood circle jerk. It's only a meter of time we get to the Cimino, Ashby, Bogdanovich, Boorman, Speilberg, Lucas love

Originally Posted by thatguamguy

I had "Finian's Rainbow" on DVD for years and I've had this Blu for a year and I still haven't gotten around to it. That's the one Coppola I haven't watched yet, and I really should, but I'm semi-dreading it because it's long and it just doesn't sound like a good fit for him. "Rain People" is a really different performance than I've ever seen Caan give in anything, I think that was what appealed to me, but I don't want to say too much about it before you see it. But if you're a big enough Coppola fan to stand up for "One From The Heart", it's definitely worth watching. Happy vuduing!

To be honest, it may be my Tom Waits love that puts it over the top. It's still no doubt a crazy idiosyncratic vision on behalf of Coppola.

Nice. Thanks for the stoking my interest. It's awesome to know that I have some great Caan
performances to take in in the near future.

[I KEEL YOU]

Originally Posted by Nicolawicz

Kubrick, for instance (2001, A Clockwork Orange, Barry Lyndon and The Shining). And they're much better than Coppola's, in my opinion.

Kubrick movie's are more stylistically defined, but the greatness of Coppola cannot be denied. Kubrick himself said that The Godfather was possibly the greatest movie ever made.

I think the thing that hurts Coppola's legacy is that his movies don't have a characteristic style, unlike for example Kubrick. When you watch a Kubrick, you know that you're watching a Kubrick. Especially his films from 2001 and onward. His careful compositions and the use of perspective:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flq0t4jrqJQ

The same can be said for someone like Altman: The soft and grainy 2:35.1 cinematography with an often gently moving voyeuristic camera, as well as the overlapping dialogue.

Coppola's movies on the other hand are so different, you'd have a hard time guessing that they were made by the same director if you didn't know it in advance. Just about the only characteristic thing I've noticed about Coppola is his constant use of fog and smoke.

I think that this "lack" of a distinct style could be seen as an asset though. Because I don't think that other great directors could've made movies that looked so different.

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

Man, it's becoming a New Hollywood circle jerk. It's only a meter of time we get to the Cimino, Ashby, Bogdanovich, Boorman, Speilberg, Lucas love

Hal Ashby was seven for seven, but unfortunately he was also seven for eleven.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by malakaheso

It was a melodrama, like a slightly pretentious telenova. The 3rd act doesn't quite work, but it is more of a sensualist film that is aesthetically coherent. That was enough for me.

Then again, I don't really think film is a writer's medium. No huge fan of De Palma could possibly think that either

It depends on the film. I have different expectations of a small character driven drama than an OTT sex thriller. I think sharp writing is more crucial to the success of the former than the latter.

For the record, I didn't hate Tetro. I just found it to be disappointing because of my expectations for that type of film as well as who directed it. I did think the cinematography was gorgeous and Alden Ehrenreich great in the lead role, but found Vincent Gallo to be extremely grating and the plotting, especially the big reveal at the end, to be below the standard of someone like Coppola particularly because I thought his writing on Patton and the Conversation to be of a much higher standard.

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

Coppola's movies on the other hand are so different, you'd have a hard time guessing that they were made by the same director if you didn't know it in advance.

In some cases, he is aping the style of another director, like "The Conversation" (Antonioni) or "Tucker: A Man And His Dream" (Frank Capra) or "You're A Big Boy Now" (Richard Lester). I tried to develop a theory that he was always emulating somebody, but I could never figure out who "The Godfather"s or "Apocalypse Now" were, so I decided it wasn't a very good theory.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by thatguamguy

Hal Ashby was seven for seven, but unfortunately he was also seven for eleven.

Haha. Does it actually get worse after Second Hand Hearts?

Originally Posted by thatguamguy

I tried to develop a theory that he was always emulating somebody, but I could never figure out who "The Godfather"s or "Apocalypse Now" were, so I decided it wasn't a very good theory.

After my recent viewing of Rocco and His Brothers, I now draw a line connecting it to The Godfather. However, Apocalypse Now is singular. It beats me too.

[malakaheso]

The Godfather was clearly influenced by the Italians like Visconti. It isn't an ape job, but it's there.

I don't think The Conversation is an ape job of Antonioni. Influenced? Obviously, but it's a character piece.

Coppola = polystylist. What you need to look for is common themes that are expressed using different techniques. That's if you are seeking a definitive or 'total' reading of his filmography, which I'm not sure is possible.

Kubrick was a great director but his virtues were almost too easy to appreciate. His style was loud, esp compared to the film makers that influenced him.

[thatguamguy]

I should say I don't mean aping as a negative thing, it's not meant to suggest he's not adding anything, it's probably not the best word for what I mean. At the time, I was thinking about him in comparison to De Palma, but in that specific way as opposed to the more general way that this thread brought it up [it started as just thinking about how much more I liked "Blow Out" than "The Conversation" and grew from there].

[I KEEL YOU]

Originally Posted by thatguamguy

Like I say, they all have their defenders. That said, Scorsese wins that one for sure, even Boxcar Bertha isn't out-and-out terrible.

I haven't seen Boxcar Bertha, but New York, New York wasn't great. And I didn't like The Color of Money, but I know many others do. I think it's ridiculous that movie grossed more money than his other three 80s films (Raging Bull, After Hours and Last Temptation) COMBINED.

With that said, Scorsese probably has the most impressive "bad movie compared to movies made" ratio in history. He's made like 30 movies and very few of them have been bad IMO.

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

Haha. Does it actually get worse after Second Hand Hearts?

"Slugger's Wife" might be as bad. "Lookin' To Get Out" is similar in the way that they both feel as if the script got thrown out with no thought given to what should replace it, but Jon Voight and Burt Young keep it... I don't want to say "watchable" without qualification, but compared to the other two anyway. "8 Million Ways to Die" is generic, not particularly awful.

[Scholer]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

Kubrick movie's are more stylistically defined, but the greatness of Coppola cannot be denied. Kubrick himself said that The Godfather was possibly the greatest movie ever made.

I think the thing that hurts Coppola's legacy is that his movies don't have a characteristic style, unlike for example Kubrick. When you watch a Kubrick, you know that you're watching a Kubrick. Especially his films from 2001 and onward. His careful compositions and the use of perspective:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flq0t4jrqJQ

The same can be said for someone like Altman: The soft and grainy 2:35.1 cinematography with an often gently moving voyeuristic camera, as well as the overlapping dialogue.

Coppola's movies on the other hand are so different, you'd have a hard time guessing that they were made by the same director if you didn't know it in advance. Just about the only characteristic thing I've noticed about Coppola is his constant use of fog and smoke.

I think that this "lack" of a distinct style could be seen as an asset though. Because I don't think that other great directors could've made movies that looked so different.

Copolla has always been an enigma to me, he started mediocre, then suddenly made 4 of the greatest movies ever made (Godfather 1 and 2, Conversation and Apocalypse Now), then made bad films at a pathological rate. A few mediocre ones mixed in between, but mostly really bad.

Kubrick didn't make a film nearly as great as Copolla's 4 (well, maybe Dr. Strangelove), but he never made anything less than great films. Even his first amateur effort is notable.

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

I haven't seen Boxcar Bertha, but New York, New York wasn't great. And I didn't like The Color of Money, but I know many others do. I think it's ridiculous that movie grossed more money than his other three 80s films (Raging Bull, After Hours and Last Temptation) COMBINED.

With that said, Scorsese probably has the most impressive "bad movie compared to movies made" ratio in history. He's made like 30 movies and very few of them have been bad IMO.

Yeah, I was gonna say that his worst were clearly above the others, and then I remembered Boxcar Bertha. New York New York is a total misfire, but it's also a clearly realized vision. He achieved a lot there, and you can see things he would go back to later with much more success, but the material itself just wasn't strong enough. I think it's hard to argue that "Color of Money" isn't successful at what it sets out to do, it's just that it is very low ambition for a Scorsese movie. I agree with you, his ratio is remarkable.