The Criterion Collection

[Jobla]

On laserdisc, I bought Sam Fuller's THE NAKED KISS and SHOCK CORRIDOR. Those were the first two laserdiscs that I ever bought, and I didn't even have a player then. I knew that I would have a player someday, and I did.

[Namuhana]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

Greta Gerwig's Ladybird was reviewed on this site and scored a 10/10. It also has 155 critics contributing to its unanimously positive score on Rotten Tomatoes. It's pretty darn hard to get 155 people to agree on anything, so the "RT tomato-meter is B.S" retort (something I don't understand in the first place as it is an aggregate score of many critics) isn't really going to hold water.

"Haters gonna hate."

As for me, I'm very much looking forward to seeing it.

I saw Lady Bird today and was floored by how genuine and real the film is. It's definitely one of the best films I've seen in the past few years.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by llj

I find D'Angelo to be something of a tough-guy "no bullshit" poser. He can write, but you always get the feeling he's always trying to be "that" guy who's telling people "He's just being real" about something. I dunno. With some people you know they're speaking from the heart but others, they're putting up a front for some reason. I find D'Angelo to be among the latter. Nonetheless, he is respected by his peers and I can't completely ignore him because of this.

They way he interjects his opinion on whats hot at the moment can appear forced. There's no doubt about that. But, man, he can dismantle the "bullshit" unlike any other critic. Again, I'll refer to the two cited examples for evidence of that.

Sometimes film criticism becomes a big PC echo chamber. Your David Ehrlichs, your Matt Singers, etc, etc. It's just really nice to have someone out there that isn't afraid to ruffle some feathers.

Originally Posted by mja345

D'Angelo's fine. I called him an idiot in the course of the rant. I disagree with him sometimes, agree sometimes. But his review of "Sundays and Cybele" was way off the mark and it made the hivemind at the AV Club go on about things like, "Should we re-evaluate 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest' because Randall McMurphy had sex with an underage girl?" Very few have ever said that the McMurphy character is an upstanding individual, just watch the movie for f**k's sake. That type of stuff really bothers me.

I suggest you avoid the AVClub's recent stuff at all costs. IIRC there was a recent article calling for the total boycotting of movies made by Woody Allen and all perverts (don't quote me on that).

I'm probably going on a tangent, but the way "enlightened" cinephiles are trying to write out John Ford and Griffith from the canon is just as egregious, if not more.

[mja345]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

I suggest you avoid the AVClub's recent stuff at all costs. IIRC there was a recent article calling for the total boycotting of movies made by Woody Allen and all perverts (don't quote me on that).

I'm probably going on a tangent, but the way "enlightened" cinephiles are trying to write out John Ford and Griffith from the canon is just as egregious, if not more.

I completely agree. I've been lectured by several people when I say that I am a big Woody Allen fan. I say something like, "Look, I don't know about the guy's personal life, I like his films, so that's all there is to it. I'm a good guy, completely respectful of women, and I'm not going to be the morality police of actors and directors. End of story."

It's ridiculous. People have confused being progressive with being authoritarian and telling people what they should watch and what they should believe. I'm a progressive person, but I'm never going to tell people, "This is how I think and you should think like that too." Film analysis should almost never have political opinions brought into it. The worst is when conservatives say they won't watch Sean Penn films or when liberals say they won't watch James Woods films or things like that. I just have to laugh because they're missing out on so many great films if they take that approach.

[SammyJankis]

Originally Posted by mja345

I completely agree. I've been lectured by several people when I say that I am a big Woody Allen fan. I say something like, "Look, I don't know about the guy's personal life, I like his films, so that's all there is to it. I'm a good guy, completely respectful of women, and I'm not going to be the morality police of actors and directors. End of story."

It's ridiculous. People have confused being progressive with being authoritarian and telling people what they should watch and what they should believe. I'm a progressive person, but I'm never going to tell people, "This is how I think and you should think like that too." Film analysis should almost never have political opinions brought into it. The worst is when conservatives say they won't watch Sean Penn films or when liberals say they won't watch James Woods films or things like that. I just have to laugh because they're missing out on so many great films if they take that approach.

Not to derail this thread too much, but your post reminded me of the Matt Zoller Seitz review for I Love You, Daddy. It does the exact thing a review shouldn't do, leaving little to no room for insight on the particular piece at hand while showcasing the moral values of the critic. It's empty nonsense that's coming from a writer I tend to agree with.

[jw007]

First Criterion DVD: Fishing with John



First Criterion BD: Naked (as an upgrade to the DVD I already had)

[BluRayBuddy98]

First was Paths of Glory used on eBay.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by mja345

I completely agree. I've been lectured by several people when I say that I am a big Woody Allen fan. I say something like, "Look, I don't know about the guy's personal life, I like his films, so that's all there is to it. I'm a good guy, completely respectful of women, and I'm not going to be the morality police of actors and directors. End of story."

It's ridiculous. People have confused being progressive with being authoritarian and telling people what they should watch and what they should believe. I'm a progressive person, but I'm never going to tell people, "This is how I think and you should think like that too." Film analysis should almost never have political opinions brought into it. The worst is when conservatives say they won't watch Sean Penn films or when liberals say they won't watch James Woods films or things like that. I just have to laugh because they're missing out on so many great films if they take that approach.

(This may be just me conflating two different issues but...)
Now you have Ridley Scott completely wiping out Kevin Spacey's material from his new film. And he has top three billing (!!). So not only are they trying to tell you how to think, actual productions and release dates are at the mercy of this new moral police.

Thoughtful criticism has also been infiltrated by the moral police, so now you have "Think Pieces" (which are usually anything but) that parse through political readings of a given film and give you ten reasons to hate something. But they often fail on those grounds and are just an excuse for someone to vent their political angst or simply mask the fact that they can't discuss film with any technical acumen.

Originally Posted by SammyJankis

Not to derail this thread too much, but your post reminded me of the Matt Zoller Seitz review for I Love You, Daddy. It does the exact thing a review shouldn't do, leaving little to no room for insight on the particular piece at hand while showcasing the moral values of the critic. It's empty nonsense that's coming from a writer I tend to agree with.

MZS used to be one of my go to critics. His video essays were always first class.

I was so disappointed to read that piece last week. You could tell he was seething with disgust before he even entered the theater (although he certainly tried to dispel the notion he went in biased with the bit that reads: "it was that bad before the news broke")

[llj]

I suspect Scott is reshooting those Spacey parts less out of moral concern and more because of how much is invested in the film in terms of money and awards. There is a lot riding on it.

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

I've just started reading Joe Bob Goes to the Drive-In by Joe Bob Briggs (John Bloom).

Way back when I first got internet access, the first thing I got really excited about was that Joe Bob Briggs had a website and responded to his e-mails. I remember he was exactly what you'd want and expect, but I especially like that book you're reading, which to me seemed like the same character's voice, but presenting ideas more typically associated with film criticism. (Before Joe Bob, he was a legit film critic.)

[mja345]

My thing is if you're that bothered by someone's personal transgressions or views, don't review the film. If someone is watching a Roman Polanski film and can't separate his transgressions from the work, then don't put the review out there as film criticism. Because, inevitably, what will be put out there is a discussion of morality and personal politics and will not be objective. The MZS review is reflective of a person who couldn't do that, and he will have a lot people who will support it, thus re-enforcing that it is good.

Another aspect is that if you're going to play the morality police, how far does it go back? Are you going to stop watching Kirk Douglas films because of the alleged story involving Natalie Wood? Are you going to stop watching Joan Crawford films because she was a terrible mother by all accounts? Where does it stop? If you're going to play PC cop with current individuals, then it would be hypocritical to not go back and do that with people from the past.

[SlickDamian]

Originally Posted by llj

I suspect Scott is reshooting those Spacey parts less out of moral concern and more because of how much is invested in the film in terms of money and awards. There is a lot riding on it.

I think it has a lot to do with moral concerns, and rightfully so.

American Beauty is one of my favorite films, and Spacey one of my favorite actors. However now whenever I see his face, I will be reminded of his predatory behaviour. Of the damage and scars that he caused to so many people, many of them children. So I'm sure that Scott and others feel the same. And it really sucks because a lot of fantastic work will now be forever blemished by this.

[mrjohnnyb]

My first Criterion product was:



The year was 2004.

My first blu-ray was:

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by llj

I suspect Scott is reshooting those Spacey parts less out of moral concern and more because of how much is invested in the film in terms of money and awards. There is a lot riding on it.

Theres no moral concern on their part. Money is money. You're right. I just wish his personal conduct didn't have to impact the marketability of the film.

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

I suggest you avoid the AVClub's recent stuff at all costs. IIRC there was a recent article calling for the total boycotting of movies made by Woody Allen and all perverts (don't quote me on that).

I'm probably going on a tangent, but the way "enlightened" cinephiles are trying to write out John Ford and Griffith from the canon is just as egregious, if not more.

I'm unnerved by the alleged real-life scandals involving the likes of Woody Allen, Kevin Spacey, Bill Cosby, Roman Polanski, and such.

No way I'm going to boycott their movies, though.

The way that I figure it, movies are massive collaborative efforts. When I watch Roman Polanski's Rosemary's Baby, I'm appreciating not only the work of Polanski himself. I'm also appreciating the acting by Mia Farrow, John Cassavetes, and the rest of the cast. I'm also appreciating the work by the set designers, the cinematographer, the camera crew, the costume and makeup department, the construction workers who put the stage sets together, the policemen who likely oversaw the street scenes to keep everyday traffic away, and even the caterers who fed the cast and crew so that they could eat and stay alive to make the movie.

A movie is a collaborative effort from many many people that is designed in a multi-faceted way to place my mind into a state of escapism, even if that escapism involves not worrying about the real-life antics of the cast and crew.

Also, when I'm watching a film, I tend not to think of the actors as actors, and, instead, I view them simply as their characters. For instance, I'm not watching Tom Cruise in Top Gun. I'm watching “Maverick.” I'm not watching Harrison Ford in Raiders of the Lost Ark. I'm watching “Indiana Jones.”

I get all of that real-world stuff out of my head while watching a film for the first time, and I immerse myself into the story. That's the main reason why I also don't get my tail in a blender about the visible mic on the Criterion Blu-ray presentation of Three Colors: Blue or why I don't get into a twist about edge enhancement or compression.

I just finished reading Corey Feldman's memoir, Coreyography. (Don't laugh, people. You all know that you want to read this book as well.) I'm repulsed by some of the icky behind the scenes things that went on at the sets of movies like The Lost Boys, but you'd better believe that I'll still be revisiting that movie on at least a yearly basis just as I have for the past three decades.

Kevin Spacey may have done some bad things, but Baby Driver is still one of my top five movies of 2017 so far.




Of course, I'm probably going to purchase the upcoming Kino Lorber Blu-ray of Blame It on Rio so that I can relive some nostalgia for my adolescence when I used to watch that movie. This probably really will make me a bad person. I dunno.

[Eufi721]

Gomorrah 1st criterion ever 2nd red shoes

[prkchopexpress]

I would stand by every criterion release I own....

but in the realm of the senses is one of the worst things I've ever seen in my life. I wish I could sell my copy to someone, but I don't know anyone I could even convince to watch it.

[mja345]

Originally Posted by prkchopexpress

I would stand by every criterion release I own....

but in the realm of the senses is one of the worst things I've ever seen in my life. I wish I could sell my copy to someone, but I don't know anyone I could even convince to watch it.

Do you know someone that has a sex swing in his or her place? Because that would be the person to sell it to.

[Rzzzz]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

I suppose it's called a rant for a reason, but I quite like Mike D'Angelo and often find he's one of the rare voices that squashes liberal PC bullshit film criticism (see his LB pieces on Sicario and Brawl in Cell Block 99). I don't agree with him all the time and I certainly don't on Sundays and Cybele, but he gets his points across much better than 95% of the critics out there. I think if he didn't bring in the "hindsight element", the brief DVD review would have been fine if too brief.

But other than coming to the defense of D'Angelo, I agree about PC bullshit having to stop and also the overall quality of this film. I'm way overdue for a rewatch, however. I'll probably make it a night and rewatch Kazan's Baby Doll again too. Man, what a freaking masterpiece that one is. WAC needs to get off their asses and release it.

I could not agree more, but I must warn you. You are in danger of being banned.

[Rzzzz]

Originally Posted by mja345

D'Angelo's fine. I called him an idiot in the course of the rant. I disagree with him sometimes, agree sometimes. But his review of "Sundays and Cybele" was way off the mark and it made the hivemind at the AV Club go on about things like, "Should we re-evaluate 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest' because Randall McMurphy had sex with an underage girl?" Very few have ever said that the McMurphy character is an upstanding individual, just watch the movie for f**k's sake. That type of stuff really bothers me.

Well said !! There is nothing I hate more than history being re-written or art being "modified" for modern day sensibilities.