The Criterion Collection

[Dragon Ranger]

Originally Posted by theater dreamer

I enjoyed The Hobbit trilogy, as did a whole lot of other people. It wasn’t as good as The Lord of the Rings, but it was still enjoyable, and returning to Middle Earth, and a much beloved story from my youth, was worth every penny I spent in the theater, and on the blu-ray releases.

I really liked the first one but found the other two a slog; too much padding; too many repetitive action scenes; too many jokes that just didn't land (for me and I appreciate humour is the most subjective of things); too much CGI (the Orcs looked terrible); everything was too glossy and had none of the natural quality that Lord of the Rings had. I wanted to love them; I really did but they were a sign to me that Jackson had become further lost in his own self indulgence (which started with King Kong) and more interested in technology than storytelling. I still rate him very highly as a director but he needs someone to put a leash on his indulgences for his next movie; I get the feeling that like latter day George Lucas he is surrounded by yes men who won't dare tell him any of his ideas are bad. Love to see what he could do if he went back to a smaller budget.

[Abdrewes]

Are there any Naruse fans here? After being completely blown away by Floating Clouds and When a Woman Ascends the Stairs, I now feel compelled to see as much of his 50s and 60s work as possible (16 total films on film struck wooooo!). It's premature, but it may be possible that one of those ends up being my favorite Japanese film. Both are thrilling and heartbreaking steady descents into less savory parts of human nature. They're dark, but like the very best of, say, Haneke, it's deeply unsettling material you can't pry your eyes from. It doesn't hurt that Hideko Takamine has the saddest eyes in the history of cinema.

Does anybody have a few favorite Naruse films they'd like to share? Yearning (given the subject matter it's one I'll probably love) and Late Chrysanthemums seem to be his next two highest acclaimed films

[ravenus]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

Are there any Naruse fans here? After being completely blown away by Floating Clouds and When a Woman Ascends the Stairs...They're dark, but like the very best of, say, Haneke, it's deeply unsettling material you can't pry your eyes from.

I have seen only Floating Clouds but I must say I don't see any kind of Haneke connection. FC is a melodrama pure and simple, nicely done to its credit, but hardly exploring the darkness of human psyche like Haneke's films.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by ravenus

I have seen only Floating Clouds but I must say I don't see any kind of Haneke connection. FC is a melodrama pure and simple, nicely done to its credit, but hardly exploring the darkness of human psyche like Haneke's films.

I think you are underselling Floating Clouds, especially if you are using the word "melodrama" as a pejorative. There's a scathing depiction of human nature in that film. Both characters are deeply flawed: Yukiko Koda for her somewhat irrational emotional dependence on Kengo Tomioka, and Kengo Tomioka for his self absorption and cruelty.

My Haneke comparison was not a be all end all. I was just illustrating what other filmmakers have unsettled me in a similar regard. The machinery of human "darkness" is more internal in Haneke films, whereas with these two Naruse films it's more external, plot driven.

I'm not a huge Haneke guy mind you. Piano Teacher is his sole masterpiece in my opinion. So when I say the best of Haneke, I'm really just referring to that film.

[malakaheso]

Naruse smokes Haneke, but in truth they shouldn't even been compared.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by malakaheso

Naruse smokes Haneke, but in truth they shouldn't even been compared.

What are your favorites?

[malakaheso]

Sound of The Mountain, Flowing, Floating Clouds, When a Woman Ascends The Stairs, Yearning and Late Chrysanthemums.

and not in that order.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by malakaheso

Sound of The Mountain, Flowing, Floating Clouds, When a Woman Ascends The Stairs, Yearning and Late Chrysanthemums.

and not in that order.

All those are on filmstruck. Nice! I'll be making my way through those and the rest of the 10 other films on there.

I'm guessing Naruse die hards have to resort to file-sharing or retrospectives if they want to see the bulk of his filmography. He has very little representation on DVD (only 11 with english subs ever released of his 70 or so films!)

[Scottie]

Belle de Jour has been removed from Janus Film's website, which leads me to believe we'll get a Remastered Blu-ray announcement in the next month or two.

[ShellOilJunior]

Originally Posted by Scottie

Belle de Jour has been removed from Janus Film's website, which leads me to believe we'll get a Remastered Blu-ray announcement in the next month or two.

It's still up there.

http://www.janusfilms.com/films/1504

[Scottie]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

It's still up there.

http://www.janusfilms.com/films/1504

I should have clarified it was on the front page spotlight due to it's new restoration.

[Rich Pure Doom]

Originally Posted by theater dreamer

I enjoyed The Hobbit trilogy, as did a whole lot of other people. It wasn’t as good as The Lord of the Rings, but it was still enjoyable, and returning to Middle Earth, and a much beloved story from my youth, was worth every penny I spent in the theater, and on the blu-ray releases.

I honestly think these Hobbit films have aged well even though it hasn't been long. I seem to enjoy them more each time I rewatch them which is 3 times each now. Sure, there are some downright awful things in them but they are fun and have their merit. I have an interesting take on Five Armies, in that is the closest thing to Dead/Alive he has made since that film. What is Dead/Alive but elaborately choreographed violence and gore? Five Armies is VERY similar, but with CGI. I have fun with it.

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by Dragon Ranger

I get the feeling that like latter day George Lucas he is surrounded by yes men who won't dare tell him any of his ideas are bad. Love to see what he could do if he went back to a smaller budget.

I think he has a fairly specific and unique problem too -- imagine being responsible for the bulk of work for an entire country's film industry. If he decided to make a small movie like "Braindead" again, New Zealand might go into a depression.

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by Rich Pure Doom

What is Dead/Alive but elaborately choreographed violence and gore?

Funny characters with intriguing motivations doing unusual things while delivering amusing dialogue.

[Rich Pure Doom]

Originally Posted by thatguamguy

Funny characters with intriguing motivations doing unusual things while delivering amusing dialogue.

We see the film differently. The comedy is there but the dialogue isn't the stuff of Shakespeare nor are the characters that compelling. The film takes off when the blood starts to flow by the gallons and Jackson's choreography of all this is nonstop and complex.

[theater dreamer]

Originally Posted by Dragon Ranger

I really liked the first one but found the other two a slog; too much padding; too many repetitive action scenes; too many jokes that just didn't land (for me and I appreciate humour is the most subjective of things); too much CGI (the Orcs looked terrible); everything was too glossy and had none of the natural quality that Lord of the Rings had. I wanted to love them; I really did but they were a sign to me that Jackson had become further lost in his own self indulgence (which started with King Kong) and more interested in technology than storytelling. I still rate him very highly as a director but he needs someone to put a leash on his indulgences for his next movie; I get the feeling that like latter day George Lucas he is surrounded by yes men who won't dare tell him any of his ideas are bad. Love to see what he could do if he went back to a smaller budget.

I agree with everything you said.

There is a sickness in Hollywood. I don't know where its origins lie, but it's clear that movies have, for the most part, become more style over substance. I've found that a great number of the movies held up as "the year's best" are over-hyped. This, in my opinion, is indicative of an overall lack of quality options. So, when The Hobbit was confirmed, I was incredibly excited. Knowing that pretty much the entire creative team behind The Lord of the Rings was returning, I felt like another fantasy masterpiece was forthcoming. Well, parts of the three films were great. But Peter Jackson, for whatever reason, lost his touch, and what we ended up with was a mixed bag. So, while I say I enjoyed the trilogy, that statement comes with a caveat. It could have, and should have been, on par with The Lord of the Rings.

It's interesting that you brought up George Lucas, because I remember the amount of hype surrounding The Phantom Menace prior to its release, and feeling completely let down when I saw it. It was built up in our minds with a relentless promotional push, so I don't know if could have ever fully lived up to expectations. But, I feel the movie failed on a fundamental level. Considering the fascinating back story that moviegoers had waited to see for two decades, it should have been a home run. Instead, elements of the film felt almost campy, and it left me scratching my head. George Lucas is famous for saying, "faster, and more intense" when speaking with his actors. This goes back to the original Star Wars film. When he was shooting what has since been branded A New Hope, Lucas and his team revolutionized how movies were made-the special effects ILM developed pushed the envelope, and made the impossible possible. Now, some forty years later, ironically, "faster, and more intense" could almost serve as an epitaph for the movie industry.

In this sense, Jackson and Lucas are linked. It seems to me, as you alluded, they've become so preoccupied with wowing everybody in the theater, that they've forgotten the principal reason to make a movie is to tell a great story. The story should always be the focal point, and technology should merely be a tool to make the story they tell a reality. When a director becomes focused on "doing what's never been done before", like creating a character completely rendered by CGI, he or she is not serving the story. And I got the feeling that Peter Jackson was out to wow audiences, to the detriment of the source material.

Firstly, The Hobbit should have never been a trilogy. This is a clear case of Hollywood putting profit before art and creativity. There simply was not enough source material to make three films; what we were given was, in essence, "butter scraped over too much bread". Action sequences that should have lasted a few minutes seemed interminable and groan-worthy, and the Erebor Dwarves and Legolas were seemingly immune to the laws of gravity. The action sequences in The Lord of the Rings were thrilling. I never felt that they were purposely dragged out. In An Unexpected Journey, the Battle of Goblin Town, and in The Desolation of Smaug the Escape from the Woodland Realm sequences felt like filler, and certain aspects were comical in ways that were unintended. Then, there is the character of Tauriel, a creation of Jackson and the scriptwriters. We didn't need Aragorn and Arwen part two. It's insulting to suggest that moviegoers cannot enjoy an epic film unless there's a love story. And don't get me started on Legolas. He was one of my favorite characters in the Tolkien novels, and in the original trilogy. Yet the Legolas we got in The Hobbit was brooding with CGI-enhanced eyes.

I have re-watched The Hobbit trilogy extended editions, all nine hours, or so, a few times, and have grown to accept some of Jackson's embellishments. But I cannot escape the sense of sadness I feel when I see the clear missteps along the way that should have been avoided. Considering the incredible book the movies are based upon, and some of the elements that worked so well, like Martin Freeman's brilliant performance as Bilbo Baggins, it could have been so much more.

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by Rich Pure Doom

We see the film differently. The comedy is there but the dialogue isn't the stuff of Shakespeare nor are the characters that compelling. The film takes off when the blood starts to flow by the gallons and Jackson's choreography of all this is nonstop and complex.

Can you explain how Bilbo's emotional arc is integrated into the climax of the action in "The Hobbit"? That's a pretty basic element of screenwriting at which, to my eye, "The Hobbit" clearly fails.

Can you at least cite a single line of dialogue from "The Hobbit" remotely as memorable as "I kick ass for the Lord"? (Which comes well before the blood starts to flow.)

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by theater dreamer

Firstly, The Hobbit should have never been a trilogy.

I actually think it *could* work. I don't have a problem with a lot of the things Jackson added, in theory. The problem isn't that it couldn't be three movies, the problem is that he didn't make three movies. The second one ends before the real climax of its own story, leaving the third one awkward and misshapen. The original trilogy did a much better job of breaking the stories so that each individual movie was satisfying to watch on its own, though admittedly a lot more of the heavy lifting had been done by Tolkien.

But I do think it's possibly a fatal error (more or less baked into the material) that the entire "fellowship" in this trilogy is dwarves -- Gimli's make-up in the original was never that great, but it was fine as one guy. Combining that make-up *and* the 48fps experiments, that really hurt the whole thing. (In that sense, somebody who wasn't Jackson might have felt more freedom to stray from the "Rings" trilogy's look.)

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by theater dreamer

In this sense, Jackson and Lucas are linked. It seems to me, as you alluded, they've become so preoccupied with wowing everybody in the theater, that they've forgotten the principal reason to make a movie is to tell a great story. The story should always be the focal point, and technology should merely be a tool to make the story they tell a reality. When a director becomes focused on "doing what's never been done before", like creating a character completely rendered by CGI, he or she is not serving the story. And I got the feeling that Peter Jackson was out to wow audiences, to the detriment of the source material.

As a man who loves films and wants to write my own stories, I want to agree that a film's main purpose is storytelling. Except, I'm not so sure most directors care about story per se. They seem interested in crafting experiences, which means manipulating audience emotions, always pushing them towards catharsis and awe. This effect should be accomplished with good writing, but I'm not sure Hollywood really cares about writers enough. Seems like technique, showmanship, editing tricks, and performances are what they focus on, all of which is slathered over writing problems in favor of emotional responses.

I don't think it's anything new though, it's just that CGI blockbusters are all the rage because they've been selling so well over the past few decades. Before CGI, studios banked harder on other showy things, like musicals, science fiction, monster movies, sword-and-sandal epics, vaudeville acts, screwball comedies--they all have built-in audiences, and each decade made a push in one direction or another. If anything, the free reign given to directors in the 70s for the whole New Hollywood movement opened the doors for the modern blockbusters, thanks not only to Lucas and Star Wars, but also in everyone's conscious efforts to move away from the mainstream of the past. The blessing of blockbusters is that the best of them appeal to all audiences--Titanic is a testament to that since it drew in literally everybody, those wanting romance, those wanting action and disaster porn, those wanting drama, it was all there.

As far as Jackson goes, I thought I saw a clip somewhere where he admits that he rushed the Hobbit movies and wasn't really "with it" like he really wanted. So even he sees its shortcomings, and I kinda wonder if we would have made a better product if he had his mind right in the first place.

All that being said, I often wonder if the time is imminent for another New Hollywood type of turnover. I am learning to embrace the films that exhibit good stories, scripts, and character-building more and more. More of these and less spectacle would be welcome, imo.

Nowadays, it seems like the Marvel movies are scaring the competition so much that it's fueling the streaming-exclusive markets more. Most Netflix exclusives haven't really wowed me to date, but some masterpiece is bound to pop up there if things keep up. It'll be strange, but maybe thrilling, to see what happens next.

[latehong]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

Are there any Naruse fans here? After being completely blown away by Floating Clouds and When a Woman Ascends the Stairs, I now feel compelled to see as much of his 50s and 60s work as possible (16 total films on film struck wooooo!). It's premature, but it may be possible that one of those ends up being my favorite Japanese film. Both are thrilling and heartbreaking steady descents into less savory parts of human nature. They're dark, but like the very best of, say, Haneke, it's deeply unsettling material you can't pry your eyes from. It doesn't hurt that Hideko Takamine has the saddest eyes in the history of cinema.

Does anybody have a few favorite Naruse films they'd like to share? Yearning (given the subject matter it's one I'll probably love) and Late Chrysanthemums seem to be his next two highest acclaimed films

Glad to hear about the ever-underappreciated NARUSE Mikio, whom I admire more than any other Japanese masters (except maybe MASUMURA Yasuzo). I like almost every Naruse film I've seen, especially his later cinemascope works. His films especially dear to my heart are: Actors Who Play the Horse (1940), The Conductress (1941), Lightning (1952), Sound of the Mountain (1954), Sudden Rain (1956), The Heart of a Wife (1956), Daughters, Wives and Mothers (1960), The Approach of Autumn (1960), A Wanderer's Notebook (1962), Yearning (1964), Scattered Clouds (1967).