The Criterion Collection

[javy]

Originally Posted by senseabove

Yeah, if you made it that far, just refresh your memory—several explainers have been making the rounds in anticipation, so just look around (the NYTimes one was pretty good)—and watch the last two episodes and FWwM and you'll be good to go.






Season 1 is great, the first half of Season 2 is great—I think it's highs are better than S1, as it gets truly Lynchian, but it definitely has some questionable subplots—and the ending is fantastic (and it truly is unbelievable that it was shown on TV in the early 90s). I don't think you'll find anyone arguing the middle of Season 2 is worth watching for anyone but die hard fans who want to know all the ins and outs of the Twin Peaks world.

Yes, Fire Walk with Me divided people, but that's because at the time, a lot of folks were wanting Twin Peaks: Explained, and FWwM is NOT that. It does tie up a lot of loose ends and explain what happened WRT to the main story in more detail, but not so much the why or how it happened. It's a David Lynch movie, featuring the cast of Twin Peaks. It won't make any sense at all without knowing Twin Peaks, but it doesn't make much more sense than any other later David Lynch movie, other than its own internal logic. If you go in expecting a Lynch movie (and you like Lynch movies), you'll probably like it.

And if you like Lynch, the show (and movie) is definitely worth watching. If you don't like Lynch, the show ain't gonna sell you on him.

I like shit that doesn't make sense which is a paradox for me because I want to know everything, that is, how the universe works etc. etc. But that's whole different thing. I'll shut up about that.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by MassiveMovieBuff

Yeah I've heard it takes a major dive in it's last couple seasons or something like that which is one of the reasons Lynch did the film was due to the negative reception....atleast from what I heard.

It was only 2 seasons, and yeah, it's not as strong once ABC forced them to solve the Laura Palmer murder. But what you heard is pretty much 100% all false, which is why people shouldn't believe everything they hear.

[shadedpain4]

Hey folks, if you're going to discuss details of the Twin Peaks series, probably best to use spoilers.

[senseabove]

Originally Posted by biglou114

They need to watch Episode 13 because it's Gordon Cole's first physical appearance and he definitely a key player for FWWM and S3. Plus he's the best.

I was numbering seasons separately, so S1, Episodes 1-8 and S2, Episodes 1-22. Folks should watch through at least the 10th episode of S2. I've found it's easier than explaining that some count the Pilot as episode 0 and some count it as episode 1, which throws all the other numbers off.

[senseabove]

Originally Posted by shadedpain4

Hey folks, if you're going to discuss details of the Twin Peaks series, probably best to use spoilers.

I don't think anybody said anything plot-wise other than that Laura Palmer gets murdered, that at some point in the second season we find out who the killer is, and that at some point Gordon Cole shows up in person... The first is literally the first five minutes of the show, the second is something mentioned in probably every article about Twin Peaks ever written, and the third... well, it's hardly a spoiler to say that you see a character at some point and we didn't even reveal anything significant about him.

[malakaheso]

Originally Posted by baheidstu

If you think Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid is a lousy movie then don't watch it but if your reasoning is that it's lousy because it plays fast and loose with the historical facts, then you've clearly missed the point of the film. But that's fine, you'll always have the Young Guns movies.

Pat Garrett...... is a very flawed work to me, but it is fascinating and presents an interesting point of view. The Young Guns films are just pop westerns. The second film uses one of the most corny frame devices that film makers can use.

[malakaheso]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

sure, but it isn't like one has to go to great lengths to make the connection I made. I've said this before, but after a work of art has left the hands of its creator, its meaning belongs to the viewer and not the artist.

I've seen considerably more far-fetched symbolism attached to other films.

what I said is just my read.

What you said can be found in the new Criterion edition and other sources. It isn't a view I disagree with necessarily, but I believe one should exercise caution and not overstate the case for its depth or greatness.

Good Morning is largely appealing because of its surface charms and general playfulness.

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by malakaheso

[Show spoiler]Pat Garrett...... is a very flawed work to me, but it is fascinating and presents an interesting point of view.

The Young Guns films are just pop westerns. The second film uses one of the most corny frame devices that film makers can use.

RayJ's gettin upset!!!!

[Show spoiler]

[malakaheso]

They are glorified hangout movies bro featuring the who's who of hot young actors of the time

They are entertaining, but to claim they are deconstructivist works is a bit of a joke

Spoilers? C'mon!

[javy]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

RayJ's gettin upset!!!!

[Show spoiler]

"You know, Sir, I do admire you, and I sure would like to touch the gun that's gonna kill Billy the Kid."

I love Young Guns, especially the first one. Hell yeah.

[jw007]

I just wanted to add my 2 cents to the Twin Peaks discussion here in the Criterion thread.

Well, I don't have a lot to say...except that... I watched the first 4 episodes of the new "return" on SHOWTIME the last 2 nights and have officially been blown away. It might be "too soon", but I'm going to say this is David Lynch's finest material he's ever done, EVER. Yes, I know, he's created some legendary films, but the fact that he received Carte Blanche for this revival series means his imagination and vision has absolutely no obstacles. The original Twin Peaks that aired in 1990 and 1991 was extremely low budget (and CGI really wasn't utilized yet, even though it was in its early existence). This new Twin Peaks is so far one of the greatest things I've ever experienced on television. It is everything opposite today's fast paced, rushed, tightly scripted television shows. Twin Peaks: The Return is delicious, slow burning entertainment that has not one single dull moment. The fact that nobody knows where this is going is absolutely thrilling. The best part is, David Lynch directed all 18 hours (episodes) of this unbelievable show.

I am compelled to go back and watch my Twin Peaks box set that is still sealed so I can properly get caught up... and hell, I'll wait till the whole new (3rd) season is finished and I'll go and rewatch those first 4 episodes and then binge watch the rest of it in 4 or 5 nights! The new Twin Peaks is amazing, brilliant shit that is beyond disturbing and esoteric.

[tenia]

Originally Posted by Trekkie313

This seems rather pointless. Unless they plan on doing a whole new cut to fix the movie, why not just spend $40 more for the whole series and the movie?

We have the same issue in France.
FWWM is going to have a seperate release (without the Missing Pieces !) and the first 2 seasons are going to have theirs too, but this is going to be a financially much less interesting configuration than the CBS set for the consumer. So it just feels pointless.

[zakzak]

A wish list:

[oildude]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

The River is the oldest unwatched CC title that I own. "Old" as in I've owned it the longest w/o a watch.

Maybe I can help you with that. Here are my thoughts on Jean Renoir's The River that I wrote up almost two years ago. A captivating, gorgeous, and spellbinding film. It is an example of why I love cinema and how it can touch our lives in ways we might not expect going into the experience.



I watched Jean Renoir's The River earlier this week. This is the only film I have watched recently that I could not comment on after viewing it and needed a few days to absorb how it affected me. I cannot convey how this wonderful but devastating film had such an emotional impact on me without spoiling it for those who have not seen it. I will just say that for me the film's most beautiful and lasting lessons are especially poignant to those of us who have children regularly in our lives, whether our own, a relative, or through a relationship with someone else. The River is a testament to family love and a reminder of what a great gift children are for us to cherish and protect. Never, not even for a moment, can we forget that family is the most important anchoring element around which our lives orbit. Renoir has created something extraordinary by reminding us of this universally binding truth in a captivating and beautiful cinema experience.

Based closely on the memoir-novel by Rumer Godden (who also wrote the book on which the film Black Narcissus is based), The River is the story of a group of Western expats living in India, and we see the nation through their eyes. Those eyes are respectful, loving, and joyous of India and its people. This is not a political screed against colonialism or capitalism, as it no doubt would have been in the hands of a director like Godard. Instead, we are reminded throughout that this is a Renoir film, flowing as calmly, relentlessly, and powerfully as the Ganges for which the film is named and around whose waters the circle of life plays out. The River is a deceptively simple film. Like any great body of water, it exists from one season to the next, sustaining those who inhabit its shores, is occasionally turbulent, and implies in its long course through many lands an inexorable march toward a distant and unknown future.

The plot involves two upper middle class British families living next door to each other. One family is completely English - expat parents, six children all under the age of 18, and their Indian servants and nanny. The eldest daughter Harriet is our guide to the story, a budding young writer who acts as the narrator in what might be the best voiceover ever captured in a film. The other family is a much smaller affair consisting of an English widower and his half-Indian daughter Melanie, who has just returned home after graduating from a boarding school. A third entity is also integral to the plot - Harriet's best friend, a slightly older redheaded girl from a rich expat family living further down the river.

Into the lives of these people arrives an American cousin, Captain John, who was grievously wounded in WWII and is coming to India on a spiritual journey to seek answers to questions in himself he is unable to find at home in the U.S. He is played wonderfully by non-professional actor Thomas Breen, who was in real life a WWII veteran who had lost a leg in battle, just like the character he plays. When we witness Captain John's struggles in The River with the fate life has dealt him, we are seeing the real struggles of Breen's life. Renoir translates this to the screen in a series of interactions between Captain John and the three young women Harriet, Melanie, and Harriet's best friend. The three compete for Captain John's attention and the sexual undercurrents tugging at the characters begins to upend their normally tranquil existence. In the course of events, we learn it is quiet and dignified Melanie, the half-Indian girl, who is most similar to Captain John in that she too is uncertain of where she belongs in the world. She sees right to the heart of Captain John's dilemma and to his questions and his traumatic search for a place where he belongs, she poses one of the most perceptively intelligent replies ever penned to a script: "But where will you find a nation of one-legged men?"

This is the film that has finally catapulted Renoir into my pantheon of top directors. I have seen Swamp Water, The Rules of the Game, A Day in the Country, and the brilliant Grand Illusion, but none of these impacted me nearly as much as The River.

Whatever you do, after watching The River, do not turn it off without also viewing the Martin Scorsese supplement about the film and its impact on his own life. It is a very personal interview with Scorsese as he talks about his first viewing of the movie as a kid and how it astounded and devastated him in a similar way to how it affected me. Scorsese also gives the film its rightful due as a cinematic marvel and provides a perspective on how it fits into Renoir's body of work. It was a low budget production and Scorsese believes this worked in the film's favor. Had the film been given lavish funding, the actors hired would have been known brands lacking the ultimately realistic, grounded, and satisfying quality we see captured, for example, in the performance of Thomas Breen.

This is one of the treasures of the Criterion Collection, brilliantly written, beautiful to look at, a gem you will carry in your pocket long afterward. I cannot recommend it highly enough, especially for those who enjoyed Black Narcissus.

[The Great Owl]

I forgot to post it here, but I revisited the Criterion Blu-ray of Terrence Malick's The Thin Red Line this past weekend.

Mainly, I wanted to see how it looks on my 49" 4K television set, since my previous viewings were on my old 32" 1080p television. As I expected, it looks darn amazing.

I reviewed The Thin Red Line here years ago, but my review sucks, because this is one of those movies that I've never been able to sum up in words, although I love it dearly.

Funnily enough, The New World is sitting in my still-unwatched Blu-ray stack (I've seen the movie before, but never the Criterion Blu-ray edition.), as are a great many other Criterion titles (the above-mentioned The River being another one).

Sometimes, though, you just have to shove your still-unwatched stack aside and watch The Thin Red Line again.

[Arch Stanton]

Originally Posted by zakzak

A wish list:

Thumbs up for Hour of the Wolf. Collateral seems like a possible Criterion title in a way, and I know Mann has a pretty big crowd of devotees.

No way do we need Alien or Drive, though.

[ShellOilJunior]

Originally Posted by shadedpain4

Hey folks, if you're going to discuss details of the Twin Peaks series, probably best to use spoilers.

Some time ago the use of spoiler tags shifted from plot details to not revealing news early.

[javy]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

Sometimes, though, you just have to shove your still-unwatched stack aside and watch The Thin Red Line again.

Absolutely.

[20th Century Boy]

Originally Posted by baheidstu

If you think Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid is a lousy movie then don't watch it but if your reasoning is that it's lousy because it plays fast and loose with the historical facts, then you've clearly missed the point of the film. But that's fine, you'll always have the Young Guns movies.

It's just a lousy film. Having a 30-40 year old man playing a teen is insult to injury. The fact that the actual events are so interesting and go unused is the third strike. Clear enough?

EDIT: The idea that not liking = missing the point is ridiculous.

[20th Century Boy]

Originally Posted by malakaheso

Pat Garrett...... is a very flawed work to me, but it is fascinating and presents an interesting point of view. The Young Guns films are just pop westerns. The second film uses one of the most corny frame devices that film makers can use.

I'll grant you that stylistically. But script wise, not a chance. It's the most accurate to the actual events. Some will argue the one with Val Kilmer is, but I disagree.

The framing device and the explanations for some unexplainable events are the most tasteful way of handling issues no one will ever know for sure.

I feel like YG would get more respect as a series if it weren't for that awful music. But again, the scripts are the most insightful and nuanced on the subject. If you disagree I'd like to hear specifics as to why, not just "It has a Bon Jovi song." We can take the discussion to the appropriate thread. Or we can just assume Garrett is better because it's older/more respected, etc.