The Criterion Collection

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

Yes indeed. Thanks for the reccomended reads too.

Wow, the Ennio Morricone score only sweetens the deal.

Pro-B, I've only seen two films by her: The Night Porter and Ripley's Game. It was interesting to note how much better the former looks than the latter. I am wondering, was Cavani just working with a better cinematographer (The shot when he leaves her one night as the light from the hallways kisses her body was unforgettable. One of the best shots I've seen recently) or did she just become less interested in the visuals?

Hi Abdrewes

Cavani's best work is her early films - at least as far as I am concerned. The other really well lensed film is Beyond Good and Evil, with Dominique Sanda (The Conformist) and Virna Lisi (The Cricket).

Her evolution as a director reminds me a bit of Marco Bellocchio's - after Fists in the Pocket none of his other films have been as angry/edgy (excluding perhaps only Good Morning, Night, but you have to know Italian history to appreciate what it accomplishes).

The Night Porter is without a doubt Cavani's most complete film - it is her edgiest film and the best directed one. As you have noticed, the cast and crew there are really good.

I also really like Francesco. Mickey Rourke is really good in it.

Forgot to mention, this is a good film to see too - wonderful look at Rampling's life and career.



Pro-B

p.s.

The Cricket is a very good film. Really hope that one day someone will bring it to Blu-ray so that I could replace my Mya disc. The framing is off.

[Mr. Thomsen]

Originally Posted by Sherlock_Jr

Seconds was a Paramount film, and shot in 1.85:1. Always has been.

Well, Paramount seems to differ.

According to this old article from the November 1997 issue of American Cinematographer, Paramount had just released it on video in a 1.75:1 transfer. Being the house magazine for the ASC, I am sure they would have noted if that was wrong.

Of course I don't have the resources handy to know whether that aspect ratio is right or not. But at least it shows that your statement that SECONDS "always has been" 1.85:1 is wrong. There's a history of releasing it in 1.75:1.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

Hi Abdrewes

Cavani's best work is her early films - at least as far as I am concerned. The other really well lensed film is Beyond Good and Evil, with Dominique Sanda (The Conformist) and Virna Lisi (The Cricket).

Her evolution as a director reminds me a bit of Marco Bellocchio's - after Fists in the Pocket none of his other films have been as angry/edgy (excluding perhaps only Good Morning, Night, but you have to know Italian history to appreciate what it accomplishes).

The Night Porter is without a doubt Cavani's most complete film - it is her edgiest film and the best directed one. As you have noticed, the cast and crew there are really good.

I also really like Francesco. Mickey Rourke is really good in it.

Forgot to mention, this is a good film to see too - wonderful look at Rampling's life and career.



Pro-B

p.s.

The Cricket is a very good film. Really hope that one day someone will bring it to Blu-ray so that I could replace my Mya disc. The framing is off.

I just added Beyond Good and Evil and The Cricket to my "rent list." It goes without saying that Dominique Sanda's cinematography on The Conformist was some of the best to be committed to film. His presence alone has made it into a must see.

I really must dive a bit deeper into Italian cinema of the 1970's. It shames me to say I have only seen the "big" works by Bertolucci, Fellini, Pasolini, Antonioni, De Sica, Sergio Leone, Fernando Di Leo, Argento, Lina Wertmuller, etc. from this era. I will now add the early works of Cavani to the list of films to see (in addition to the solid recommendations you have given in the past).

As for the Charlotte Rampling documentary, my theaters did not get that one during its run. With the sole exception of The Night Porter, I have only seen her in roles in American films from the mid-80's to present, but her performance in the film was so exceptional that I must now check it out. Hopefully I will do so in conjunction with Visconti's The Damned.

Thanks!

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by jw007

This doesn't exactly answer my question, but yes, the moron who assumed there would be a BD upgrade of this film made a foolish decision.

Yeah, I made the assumption when I was upgrading a lot of my old DVDs to Blu-ray a few months ago, and then kicked myself later on. I think that it was the relatively recent release time of the Downhill Racer DVD that sparked my erroneous train of thought.

At any rate, I'm not giving up hope that there may be a print restoration at some point in the future. It's an understated, but excellent film.

[R o d]

Originally Posted by jw007

This doesn't exactly answer my question, but yes, the moron who assumed there would be a BD upgrade of this film made a foolish decision.

I'm not that moron, I'm the other moron who assumed there would be no BD upgrade of a film.

Things happen. I sort of overreacted to it at first, but it's all fine.

[brandon_260]

Has anyone seen Marketa Lazarova? Aside from Shoah and maybe The Devil's Backbone, it's my most anticipated upcoming release.

[UNCMT9]

Originally Posted by brandon_260

Has anyone seen Marketa Lazarova? Aside from Shoah and maybe The Devil's Backbone, it's my most anticipated upcoming release.

I'm also interested in this release. I have heard some good things about Marketa.

[brandon_260]

Originally Posted by UNCMT9

I'm also interested in this release. I have heard some good things about Marketa.

That fact that one of the films Criterion deems as "Related" is a Tarkovsky film only raises my excitement.

[jw007]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

Yeah, I made the assumption when I was upgrading a lot of my old DVDs to Blu-ray a few months ago, and then kicked myself later on. I think that it was the relatively recent release time of the Downhill Racer DVD that sparked my erroneous train of thought.

At any rate, I'm not giving up hope that there may be a print restoration at some point in the future. It's an understated, but excellent film.

Well, the way you write it sounds like the film has gone out of print, but fortunately, you'll just need about $12 to buy a used DVD copy on Amazon. I actually don't own this title myself so I am planning on buying this at the next B&N sale when I get the chance. And finally, I didn't realize that you were the "moron" (dohh!).

Originally Posted by R o d

I'm not that moron, I'm the other moron who assumed there would be no BD upgrade of a film.

Things happen. I sort of overreacted to it at first, but it's all fine.

Apparently, even though this was released on DVD, Criterion claims this was restored from a high-definition digital transfer. I am sure this DVD edition will suffice until the day this comes to BD. Nobody is a moron here. We're heroes.

[Scottie]

Originally Posted by brandon_260

That fact that one of the films Criterion deems as "Related" is a Tarkovsky film only raises my excitement.

Speaking of Tarkovsky, I just ordered The Sacrifice the other day. I've seen Ivan's Childhood and I still have Solaris to watch. None of these will be watched yet, as I still have the last 4 films of the Hitchcock box set to watch, as well as An Affair To Remember (as part of my alphabetical order watching).

I'm really interested in checking out some of these before I continue back on my journey of alphabeticalness.

The last Hitchcock film I watched today was Marnie and it was a lot better than I expected it to be. It seemed to be a bit predictable, as I knew that something that occurred in her childhood triggered her current impulses. I'm not really a big fan of the more modern actors taking on the roles in these films, i.e. Sean Connery and Paul Newman. I'm not even a big Tippi Hedren fan either. I think for her first performance in The Birds, she did a good job, but she got on my nerves quite a lot.

Give me James Stewart, Cary Grant, Grace Kelly, and Kim Novak, and I'm a happy boy.

This is my ranking after seeing these two films today. Just for the fun of it, I threw in the other Hitchcock films that I've seen in parentheses. I still need to see the three Essential Hitchcocks (Notorious, Rebecca, Spellbound) and the last four in the box set (Torn Curtain, Topaz, Frenzy, and Family Plot).

1. Rear Window
2. Vertigo
3. The Trouble With Harry
4. Psycho
(The Lady Vanishes)
5. North By Northwest
(Dial M For Murder)
6. The Birds
7. The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956)
8. Shadow Of A Doubt
(The 39 Steps)
(To Catch A Thief)
9. Marnie
(Strangers On A Train)
(The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934))
10. Saboteur
11. Rope

[Hawkguy]

Originally Posted by iScottie

Give me James Stewart, Cary Grant, Grace Kelly, and Kim Novak, and I'm a happy boy.

I really love Kim Novak. I don't even think she's a good actress, so maybe it's more of a nostalgia thing, but I've always really liked her roles. They rarely disappointed me.

[Edward J Grug III]

Originally Posted by iScottie

I'm not really a big fan of the more modern actors taking on the roles in these films, i.e. Sean Connery and Paul Newman.

Not a fan of Paul Newman? What kind of topsy-turvy world am I peering into right now?!

But, seriously, what have you seen him in, because he is a tremendous actor.

[spanky87]

Hey criterion...

The Road Home

Make it happen.

[QuestForRedemption]

Originally Posted by RomanBlade86

I just went to Amazon to look at Léon Morin, Priest and here is the following message that's listed:

While this item is available from other marketplace sellers on this page, it is not currently offered by Amazon.com because customers have told us there may be something wrong with our inventory of the item, the way we are shipping it, or the way it's described here. (Thanks for the tip!)

We're working to fix the problem as quickly as possible.

I should be getting it on Thursday and see what they mean exactly.

So, have you received your copy yet? Is anything wrong with it?
I ordered a copy as well but it'll be at least another week before it arrives in Belgium.

[SpiderBaby]

Originally Posted by brandon_260

Has anyone seen Marketa Lazarova?

Yes, one of my favorite filmmakers Vlacil. Marketa Lazarova is the best film IMO they have released/announced this year (actually longer) and give a full recommendation on picking it up.

[jrsl76]

Originally Posted by CoopFilm

I really love Kim Novak. I don't even think she's a good actress, so maybe it's more of a nostalgia thing, but I've always really liked her roles. They rarely disappointed me.

I actually really like her as an actress. Her range seems a bit limited, but she's great. I recently picked up the additional 2 Twilight Time Novaks that I hadn't seen before (Picnic & Pal Joey) and they were both highly enjoyable. Novak was great. I think the thing is, at least for me, is her demure quality. She really makes you fall in love with her on screen. She also seems to have a sadness to her that is interesting.

I have heard that the heavy drama from her DVD boxset (Middle Of The Night) shows a wider range than she really got to normally show.

Outside of the Hitchcocks, my favorite of her roles that I've seen are in Bell, Book And Candle and in Billy Wilder's Kiss Me, Stupid.

[Hawkguy]

Originally Posted by jrsl76

I actually really like her as an actress. Her range seems a bit limited, but she's great. I recently picked up the additional 2 Twilight Time Novaks that I hadn't seen before (Picnic & Pal Joey) and they were both highly enjoyable. Novak was great. I think the thing is, at least for me, is her demure quality. She really makes you fall in love with her on screen. She also seems to have a sadness to her that is interesting.

I have heard that the heavy drama from her DVD boxset (Middle Of The Night) shows a wider range than she really got to normally show.

Outside of the Hitchcocks, my favorite of her roles that I've seen are in Bell, Book And Candle and in Billy Wilder's Kiss Me, Stupid.

Kiss Me, Stupid is one of my favorites, and Pal Joey is also one of my favorites of her work. Really, I can't think of a film of hers I haven't liked.

It's really unfortunate the two previously-unreleased dramas from that DVD boxset aren't available anywhere else. The other three films are worth it for someone that doesn't have them on blu-ray or DVD, but if you own those already it's too bad to have to re-buy them in the boxset. Those two are really pretty good.

[Sherlock_Jr]

Originally Posted by Mr. Thomsen

Well, Paramount seems to differ.

According to this old article from the November 1997 issue of American Cinematographer, Paramount had just released it on video in a 1.75:1 transfer. Being the house magazine for the ASC, I am sure they would have noted if that was wrong.

Of course I don't have the resources handy to know whether that aspect ratio is right or not. But at least it shows that your statement that SECONDS "always has been" 1.85:1 is wrong. There's a history of releasing it in 1.75:1.

Again...

There may be a history of releasing it in 1.75 (incorrectly) on home video — which means zero, since studios have butchered OAR with pan & scan and the like for 30 years — but that's NOT it's OAR. By saying it's "always been" that way is in reference to how it was originally shot and framed. That will never change; hence, it's always been 1.85:1.

They didn't project 1.75:1 in theaters in 1966, not in the US or Europe. Period. It remains a 1.85:1 film regardless of how Paramount chooses to alter it on home video. The original 1997 DVD used the same master as the Laserdisc. But the 2002 edition appears to be 1.85:1. I just checked it against several other 1.85 films and the bars are the same.

http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/4210/...ect-ratio.html
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060955/...ef_=tt_dt_spec

I doubt opening up the top and bottom will amount to much - studios do it often with 1.85:1 films, opening them up to 1.78 — but that doesn't make it the OAR.

It's also entirely possibly that I'm 100% wrong. But it seems odd to shoot a film in an OAR that didn't even exist in 1966, unless the filmmakers were just trying to be trippy along with the film itself.

[brandon_260]

Originally Posted by iScottie

Speaking of Tarkovsky, I just ordered The Sacrifice the other day. I've seen Ivan's Childhood and I still have Solaris to watch. None of these will be watched yet, as I still have the last 4 films of the Hitchcock box set to watch, as well as An Affair To Remember (as part of my alphabetical order watching).

I'm really interested in checking out some of these before I continue back on my journey of alphabeticalness.

When you go to watch Solaris, make sure you're in the right mood for it. I know you had issues with 2001 the first time you watched it and I wouldn't want to see that happen again. For me, Solaris and 2001 are the two best sci-fi films ever made.

[Scottie]

Originally Posted by Edward J Grug III

Not a fan of Paul Newman? What kind of topsy-turvy world am I peering into right now?!

But, seriously, what have you seen him in, because he is a tremendous actor.

I think you're misunderstanding me

I meant I'm not a big fan of the modern actors in the Hitchcock films. But to answer your question, I've seen him in Absence of Malice, The Color of Money, and Road to Perdition. I may have seen him in Where The Money Is as well, but I don't remember.

Embarrassing, I know. I do also own Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Cars, Cool Hand Luke, The Hudsucker Proxy, The Sting, Torn Curtain, and The Verdict. I should probably watch them, huh?

I really want to see Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, Fat Man and Little Boy, and Hud. Maybe we'll see them hit Blu soon.

Originally Posted by brandon_260

When you go to watch Solaris, make sure you're in the right mood for it. I know you had issues with 2001 the first time you watched it and I wouldn't want to see that happen again. For me, Solaris and 2001 are the two best sci-fi films ever made.

Will do! Thanks for the advice!