The Criterion Collection

[Dr_Bedlo]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

I'm sure you've seen Russian Ark, but have you seen Mother & Son? It's very powerful.

UGH! I think I'm one of the only people who was bored to tears by that film. I know the film was an artistic visual statement, but not a darn thing happened. I've seen way more interesting grass grow!

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by Dr_Bedlo

UGH! I think I'm one of the only people who was bored to tears by that film. I know the film was an artistic visual statement, but not a darn thing happened. I've seen way more interesting grass grow!

I loved Russian Ark. I can't afford to visit that particular museum, but the movie gave me a chance to go through it in thorough detail. It was a fascinating filmmaking endeavor.

[Banned User]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

Soderbergh's Solaris remake did not improve on the Tarkovsky version (I haven't read the book yet, so I can't compare the book to the film yet) but it's a hell of a film. I'm still baffled how it got an F-Cinemascore (which ultimately means nothing), why does "slow" have to be a dealbreaker with modern audiences?

I'm not particularly a fan of slow moving pictures, but I was captivated with Solaris from beginning to end. Never felt slow or long to me. Haven't seen the remake.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by gates70

Help! I'm ordering "12 Angry Men", "Paths of Glory" and one of these two; "The Night of the Hunter" or "Badlands", but which one of the last two is the question!

Neither one

[gates70]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

Neither one

Really ? They aren't any good ? Both are blind buys.

[ShellOilJunior]

Originally Posted by ravenus

Woody seems to be having film ideas based on where he wants to vacation next

Can't blame him. He's going to throw in some romance, culture, neurosis and maybe a jewel thief.

[Banned User]

Originally Posted by gates70

Really ? They aren't any good ? Both are blind buys.

I think the wink means you can't go wrong with either one.

[gates70]

Originally Posted by Banned User

I think the wink means you can't go wrong with either one.

Oh lol. If that's what it is, it completely went way over my head

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Edward J Grug III

Maybe of interest to this crowd: Steven Soderberg's address on the state of the movie industry:

http://www.deadline.com/2013/04/stev...inema-address/

Yegods, I don't really know much about the guy beyond seeing several of his films.

If he routinely this bitter and whiney?

Long-winded didn't surprise me though. I have seen Che, after all

[lemonski]

Originally Posted by Snicket

HYPE TRAIN!!

2. Malick doing a director's cut to put things BACK into a film? That sounds crazy. If this does land on Criterion I would go so completely crazy it will be a sight to behold. Brace yourselves.

If any of this turns out to be true I would be ecstatic.

Let me on board that hype train

I'd like the option of the theatrical cut and the directors cut, maybe with seamless branching (are there any seamless branching BD's?). A second disk of extras would be nice, no cardboard packaging though.

Now, if they could somehow license The New World and To The Wonder as well....

Choo choo

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by octagon

Yegods, I don't really know much about the guy beyond seeing several of his films.

If he routinely this bitter and whiney?

No sir.

Here's another nice interview he did for Mubi
http://mubi.com/notebook/posts/troja...ven-soderbergh

[Sherlock_Jr]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

Soderbergh's Solaris remake did not improve on the Tarkovsky version (I haven't read the book yet, so I can't compare the book to the film yet) but it's a hell of a film. I'm still baffled how it got an F-Cinemascore (which ultimately means nothing), why does "slow" have to be a dealbreaker with modern audiences?

I think it improved on the original in several ways... but in no way does it discount what the original film achieved. I think they are both interesting and slightly different adaptations of the novel, but I wouldn't personally call one better than the other. I'd probably re-visit the Soderbergh film more often because, to me, it had more heart to the love story, and was IMO the more visual experience.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by Sherlock_Jr

I think it improved on the original in several ways... but in no way does it discount what the original film achieved. I think they are both interesting and slightly different adaptations of the novel, but I wouldn't personally call one better than the other. I'd probably re-visit the Soderbergh film more often because, to me, it had more heart to the love story, and was IMO the more visual experience.

I Disagree. The original has me in tears every time. Also, visually I feel the original is better. Sure the effects for the planet are better in the remake, but Soderbergh (whom I adore) doesn't come close to matching Tarkovsky.

[hoytereden]

Originally Posted by lemonski

Let me on board that hype train

I'd like the option of the theatrical cut and the directors cut, maybe with seamless branching (are there any seamless branching BD's?). A second disk of extras would be nice, no cardboard packaging though.

Now, if they could somehow license The New World and To The Wonder as well....

Choo choo

It's nitpicking but, The New World has one of the worst cover art designs. Makes it look like an action film! I have the Advance 1 sheet poster (don't know how to post photos here but it's the one with the Native Americans looking out to sea) and it's much more in keeping with the tone of the film.

[Sherlock_Jr]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

I Disagree. The original has me in tears every time. Also, visually I feel the original is better. Sure the effects for the planet are better in the remake, but Soderbergh (whom I adore) doesn't come close to matching Tarkovsky.

Again, I think aspects of the original are better, but I also think Soderbergh improved on other aspects. But it's not really the same film. Soderbergh chose to highlight the romance more, and in effect tell a similar story in much more economical time. I think the first hour of the original is pretty boring personally, and I like Soderbergh's use of overlapping flashbacks. But hey, to each his own.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by gates70

Really ? They aren't any good ? Both are blind buys.

As others pointed out I was just being myself, you don't really know me that well. Either one make for greta viewing even if I would say Night Of The Hunter is the better movie

[Cinemach]

Originally Posted by Edward J Grug III

Maybe of interest to this crowd: Steven Soderberg's address on the state of the movie industry:

http://www.deadline.com/2013/04/stev...inema-address/

Solid read. There's nothing really new there if one pays attention to the current state of Hollywood cinema; he just iterated it all in one place. Fincher has mentioned this climate in similar tones as well. This era just might be the most frustrating time for creative filmmaking in the Hollywood system.

There are exceptions as Soderbergh mentioned - many of these fall into awards bait - but Hollywood is overwhelmingly interested in tentpoles, (with your silly raunch-com thrown in the mix). It was interesting to hear Soderbergh's thoughts on how meetings go and realize why such a large percentage of Hollywood films look the same, right down to their marketing. It is literally a film like The Player wrought forth.

The guy in the first paragraph, on the iPad: I laughed, but that's what the audience looks like to these guys.

Now I don't abhor Hollywood - they still do spectacle better than anyone for example (Man of Steel is highly anticipated by me), and much of what piques my interest from them at least pasts the watchable threshold. But it would be nice to see them do more films like Side Effects once in a while; that film showed that Hollywood can still crank out a great character-not-effects-based drama, and not just another in a factory line of films that all look like they received the same notes.

[READ: this is referencing Hollywood (major studio) as opposed to independent filmmaking - even though 'indie' has largely been conscripted as a genre by the majors now, there's still some distinction betwixt the two]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

Soderbergh's Solaris remake did not improve on the Tarkovsky version (I haven't read the book yet, so I can't compare the book to the film yet) but it's a hell of a film. I'm still baffled how it got an F-Cinemascore (which ultimately means nothing), why does "slow" have to be a dealbreaker with modern audiences?

See the guy on the iPad above.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by Sherlock_Jr

I think it improved on the original in several ways... but in no way does it discount what the original film achieved. I think they are both interesting and slightly different adaptations of the novel, but I wouldn't personally call one better than the other. I'd probably re-visit the Soderbergh film more often because, to me, it had more heart to the love story, and was IMO the more visual experience.

The remake is not a bad movie, I think it's misunderstood mostly. Still I prefer the atmosphere and ambiance that the original offer. I prefer the simple look and design of the original, it seem to fit better with the story somehow

[Edward J Grug III]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

I read every word of this last night, but was too sleepy to write any comments. Soderbergh makes some good points, but it's tough to tell whether or not he's showing excessive bitterness about the reception to his latest film, Side Effects.

I like several of Soderbergh's films, but I do not particularly love any of his films. He has a strangely clinical and detached manner of storytelling that has never reverberated with me. Still, I like the way that Soderbergh has always endorsed creativity for the sake of creativity, and his enthusiasm for cinema as an art has always been appreciated.

I don't think it's a reaction to how his most recent film did - He announced his possible retirement a few pictures ago now, and it was pretty obvious this is why.

Soderbergh doesn't make my favourite movies, but he makes really interesting movies that I am usually interested by and very often surprised by.

Recently Haywire was a very surprisingly fun film.

[octagon]

I liked Haywire a lot more than I expected to.

It had a really cool 70s vibe without being a cheap knockoff. Ditch Bill Paxton and it would have been perfect.