The Criterion Collection

[BluLobsta]

Originally Posted by jayembee

Criterion was not only around back then, but they were instrumental in promoting (a) audio and video extras, (b) letterboxing widescreen films, and (c) getting filmmakers involved in the production and presentation of their films on home video.

It would be difficult to make the argument that these things wouldn't have happened if Criterion hadn't been there to do it. But the fact that these things are so prevalent on home video is the result of Criterion leading the way.

I had no idea, literally. I didn't realize what they stood for and that they hold the appreciation of film in such high regard. So much passion is really inspiring.

[dkelly26666]

Originally Posted by Cinema84

What are the odds of a Lars Von Trier set? Any hints of one in one of their teasers? Particularly interested in The Element of Crime.

I think, sadly, that Lars von Trier is on their taboo list, now.

Just like Polanski and Woody.

Criterion was OFFERED "The House That Jack Built" by Zentropa and IFC, and Criterion passed on it. It ended up with Shout.

[BluLobsta]

So...on that note, the inspiration for this weekend will be the following, which just arrived as I was typing my previous post. How appropriate

[DaBargainHunta]

See below for my mini-review of Paper Moon, which is expiring from The Criterion Channel in a few days...

From my write-up of What's Up, Doc, which expired from The Criterion Channel last month:

Originally Posted by DaBargainHunta

I've never considered Ryan O'Neal a particularly great actor - when I first saw Barry Lyndon, I honestly confused him with Buddy Lembeck from Charles in Charge (the acting was about equivalent!) - but I can't deny that he picks his roles well and is somehow appealing in them despite not being all that appealing himself. In this movie, he plays an uncharismatic bore, which suits him perfectly.

Originally Posted by HaroldnMaude

As for O'Neal's acting, I hope you have seen Paper Moon.

Originally Posted by DaBargainHunta

I saw Paper Moon many, many, many years ago - and remember Tatum O'Neal being the standout - but my recollections are far too vague and distant for me to comment fairly on her father's performance. I would have to watch it again. Truthfully, it would probably be like watching it for the first time because it was that long ago that I saw it.

Luckily, it's on the Criterion Channel now, so I will eventually re-watch it.

Originally Posted by DimitriL

Tatum is the stunner (and Madeleine Kahn), but subsequent viewings made me deeply appreciate how natural and absolutely committed Ryan O'Neal is in Paper Moon. It's the best performance of his career by a country mile.

Originally Posted by floor pie

I think O'Neal falls into the Tom Cruise category: they're both these perfect looking poster boys with limited acting abilities, but when used well – usually a little against type – they work. For O'Neal it's Barry Lyndon and The Driver. I think both of the characters he plays in these films are supposed to be blank and emotionless, so he's a perfect fit.

Originally Posted by FragnitoM

I think Cruise is a pretty good actor ... he also has a ton more screen charisma than O’Neal, who I’ve never been impressed with

Originally Posted by floor pie

Ok, maybe it's a little unfair to lump him in with O'Neal. I didn't say either was bad, just that they're limited. But Magnolia is the perfect example of what I was talking about going against type. I hope that Cruise, once he gets too old to do M:I movies, starts doing roles like that again.

And O'Neal's not that bad either...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3fqR0yuWoU

Originally Posted by Professor Echo

As for Ryan O’Neal, I agree with the post above which cited THE DRIVER and BARRY LYNDON as his best performances. It takes just as much talent to play a seemingly emotionless enigma as any character loaded with depth and obvious (often too obvious) substance.

Paper Moon (1973)



Peter Bogdanovich's What's Up, Doc? was probably the best expiring movie I watched last month. His Paper Moon will probably be the best I watch this month. Both star Ryan O'Neal. In this, he's joined by his daughter, Tatum O'Neal, who famously won the Academy Award while her dad failed to garner even a nomination.

I've made no secret of the fact that I don't consider Ryan O'Neal a great actor (I actually thought Buddy Lembeck from Charles in Charge played the lead in Barry Lyndon because the acting was at about the same level). With that said, there's always been something undeniably appealing about Ryan O'Neal - for whatever reason. Of all the movies I've seen him in, this is easily his best role, his best performance, and proves that he wasn't just another pretty face. One thing he does better than almost anyone is express white hot, rumbling, ferocious anger. Not to be an armchair psychologist, but I have a feeling that's the case because he wasn't faking it. Needless to say, he was a very troubled man (more on that below).

In contrast to that, the movie is a sheer delight. Tatum O'Neal is a 9-year-old girl whose mother just died, and con man Ryan O'Neal - whose character may or may not be her biological father - shows up at the funeral and offers to drive her to some relatives in another state. It isn't long before she's out-conning the con man. Pretty quickly, they become reluctant partners-in-crime. Their relationship and its evolution is the heart and soul of the movie.

Sadly, things were much rockier in real life: Peter Bogdanovich tyrannically required 40-50 takes to coax that performance out of Tatum - or so he claims - which makes me wonder if the usually wooden Ryan benefited from the same process. Even worse: According to Tatum O'Neal's autobiography, Ryan O'Neal struck her after she was nominated and he wasn't. I wish I hadn't read the Trivia section of IMDb after watching the movie!

DaBargainHunta's Decree: Despite everything, Paper Moon is still considered a classic for a reason - it's a genuinely great film, and tons of fun to boot. You won't forget the image of a 9-year-old girl chain smoking cigarettes like it's going out of style! (Subtitles included? Yes!)

[jw007]

Originally Posted by HillSprinter

Being done upgrading is incredibly liberating and, I would claim, good for your health.

Originally Posted by regeyer

We've all said that before. When HD DVD was defeated I said that I'd never go Blu. That lasted about a week.

I'll probably upgrade again but wouldn't it be great if obsolescence became a thing of the past? (pun intended)

My health definitely could use an upgrade though. Less television radiation, more hydration satiation.

[HillSprinter]

Originally Posted by dkelly26666

I think, sadly, that Lars von Trier is on their taboo list, now.

Just like Polanski and Woody.

Criterion was OFFERED "The House That Jack Built" by Zentropa and IFC, and Criterion passed on it. It ended up with Shout.

Criterion shouldn’t have a taboo list.....except for Michael Bay.

[jshaide]

Originally Posted by HillSprinter

Criterion shouldn’t have a taboo list.....except for Michael Bay.

Yeah, maybe they just thought that THE HOUSE THAT JACK BUILT sucked.

[gregmtl92]

Originally Posted by dkelly26666

I think, sadly, that Lars von Trier is on their taboo list, now.

Why would that be? Was he involved in a scandal too?

[Xtempo]

Inland Sea Question:

Is it normal to have black jump cuts that are jarring and cut off dialogue or is my copy defective. It doesn't skip, plays fine just these cuts a scene is missing or something.

[NeoNical]

Originally Posted by gregmtl92

Why would that be? Was he involved in a scandal too?

https://variety.com/2017/film/news/l...-1202591050/#!

Just looked it up. A big ouch especially coming from a well-known artist.

EDIT: According to Deneuve back in 2005 for her memoir that she wrote, she mentioned Bjork and Von Trier are both very difficult people to work with back when making Dancer in the Dark (2000). That sounds like two bombs colliding together

[Mike0284]

Originally Posted by gregmtl92

Why would that be? Was he involved in a scandal too?

Probably about this.

[dkelly26666]

Originally Posted by gregmtl92

Why would that be? Was he involved in a scandal too?

Yes, a couple.

There were his infamous Cannes remarks, followed by some allegations in Denmark a few years later that a number of women had been sexually harassed or discriminated against at his production company, Zentropa. In Denmark, it was a bit of a MeToo moment.

Add to that the constant allegations of misogyny thrown his way, and I believe they are not too keen on him, anymore, in the current climate.

And, yes, they and every other label most certainly have a 'taboo' list, now.

Kino Lorber JUST said that they turned down a Bill Cosby movie because they'd previously released one of his films, and that, "The PC people were all over us about that".

No one in the US is touching Woody Allen or Roman Polanski these days.

Bernardo Bertolucci is on that list, too.

Criterion's FB page posted a tribute to Bertolucci when he'd just died and tons of people were all over that post, being super nasty to Criterion. There were several attacks when they released, "Midnight Cowboy", as well ('A Dustin Hoffman movie? Seriously?') .

It's pretty absurd, actually.

If you don't want to support a particular artist's work, JUST DON'T BUY IT.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by dkelly26666

I think, sadly, that Lars von Trier is on their taboo list, now.

Just like Polanski and Woody.

Criterion was OFFERED "The House That Jack Built" by Zentropa and IFC, and Criterion passed on it. It ended up with Shout.

And Shout screwed up the audio (incorrectly pitched just like Kino screwed up Bitter Moon), so that's what we are left with.

[NeoNical]

Shoot. Now that you mentioned all those directors and actors, now I understand why I can't see a 4K restoration of Chinatown and Woody Allen films. Jesus, this #MeToo Movement is a little too crazy for me as a nonpolitical person so I'm going to mind my own business but all I hope is that those who actually did harass the victims do get arrested ASAP and those who accuse them will eventually admit that they lied. This entire thing is pushing back so many pieces of work that may become masterpieces in the future that don't deserve to be pushed back because of a controversy that doesn't relate to the work in any way. (Unless if the creator is stupid enough to sympathize crimes) They can be monsters in real life and losers like Steven Seagal but they still release millions of movies with them in it so there's nothing you can do because there's still millions of people who want to watch anyways. It really makes me mad that there are some films that aren't getting released but at the same time I wouldn't want to sympathize with the director at all if they really are that sh***y.

I feel like there's a lot of lies that's going around with the #MeToo on both sides (Accusers and Liars). When there's moments like these, it drives me mad that people are lying just to bring somebody down for no reason. But, it's also acceptable and I would love for those who were actually harassed to get their own justice and beat the bad ones legally. The fact that you can lie and abuse your power in the world of politics, whether you're poor or rich is why I hate people sometimes.

My View: History repeats itself because the human brain is incapable of handling change. Henceforth, people often practice altruism but at the same time practice objectivism. (My political scientist grandfather would disagree with me on this or perhaps give me a 2 hour lecture )

Side Note: Weird thing is that Polanski's, "The Tenant" is coming out on Blu-ray so I guess people are over with him

[BluLobsta]

Originally Posted by NeoNical

Shoot. Now that you mentioned all those directors and actors, now I understand why I can't see a 4K restoration of Chinatown and Woody Allen films. Jesus, this #MeToo Movement is a little too crazy for me as a nonpolitical person so I'm going to mind my own business but all I hope is that those who actually did harass the victims do get arrested ASAP and those who accuse them will eventually admit that they lied. This entire thing is pushing back so many pieces of work that may become masterpieces in the future that don't deserve to be pushed back because of a controversy that doesn't relate to the work in any way. (Unless if the creator is stupid enough to sympathize crimes) They can be monsters in real life and losers like Steven Seagal but they still release millions of movies with them in it so there's nothing you can do because there's still millions of people who want to watch anyways. It really makes me mad that there are some films that aren't getting released but at the same time I wouldn't want to sympathize with the director at all if they really are that sh***y.

I feel like there's a lot of lies that's going around with the #MeToo on both sides (Accusers and Liars). When there's moments like these, it drives me mad that people are lying just to bring somebody down for no reason. But, it's also acceptable and I would love for those who were actually harassed to get their own justice and beat the bad ones legally. The fact that you can lie and abuse your power in the world of politics, whether you're poor or rich is why I hate people sometimes.

My View: History repeats itself because the human brain is incapable of handling change. Henceforth, people often practice altruism but at the same time practice objectivism. (My political scientist grandfather would disagree with me on this or perhaps give me a 2 hour lecture )

Side Note: Weird thing is that Polanski's, "The Tenant" is coming out on Blu-ray so I guess people are over with him

What happened with Chinatown??

[ilenewoodsfan99]

Originally Posted by BluLobsta

What happened with Chinatown??

I just think they mentioning how little chance there is for the movie to get a 4K upgrade in today's climate.

As long as Polanski is alive, at least.

[yhzmr]

I heartily recommend Betty Blue to anyone who hasn’t experienced this gem. Clocking in at over 3 hours, not once did I ever find myself unengaged.

[rip63]

Originally Posted by DaBargainHunta

According to Tatum O'Neal's autobiography, Ryan O'Neal struck her after she was nominated and he wasn't.

I can believe that. Going back, O'Neal became notorious for his huge problem with booze and it basically sunk his career in the end. There was quite a lot of publicity about it around the time.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

And Shout screwed up the audio (incorrectly pitched just like Kino screwed up Bitter Moon), so that's what we are left with.

Well, the "we" who aren't region-free, anyway. Although, even that doesn't apply, since at least the Australian and German releases are not region locked.

[acroyear2]

Originally Posted by NeoNical

I know this is a weird but perhaps already answered question but what in the world happened to Criterion Contraption? Seems like the highest he went was all the way up to Rififi (Spine #115) and Tanner '88 (Spine #258). It's a shame he only landed up to #115

There's a few podcasts that are dedicated to reviewing every Criterion release in sequential order by spine numbers.

I've discovered Criterion Quest, Lost in Criterion, and Criterion Creeps ( as of this post are up to spines 246, 402, and 199 respectively). Any others did I miss?

Personally if I was tackling such an endeavor I'd be tempted to jump around the spine numbers to review the films best known and most dear to me first.