The Criterion Collection

[Idioteque...]

Originally Posted by retablo

Criterion doesn't do slipcovers.

Really that sucks. Or instead of slipcovers they could have done with something with their digipak holders, for example like WB did with Batman Begins Deluxe Edition. I'm debating if I should get Bottle Rocket or not, I love Wes but I thought this was his weakest film.

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

Am I the only one that would love to see Terrence Malick's beautifully shot "Days of Heaven" on Criterian blu? It has a Criterian dvd release....

I would love to own The Thin Red Line before that. Speaking of Malick, I have yet to finish Badlands and I think I need to check out Days of Heaven. How's The New World btw? I heard it's Malick's weakest.

[Kevtronn]

Originally Posted by retablo

Is Third Man Blu-ray the only replacement case available right now? YES

Do we know when the other replacement cases will be available? NO

Do the replacement cases come with cover artwork & booklets? YES to Cover Art, NO to Booklets (You should have them form the digipack already)

Thanks retablo!!!

[Beta Man]

I'm not going to order the replacement cases....... I guess I'll just deal with the "non-uniformity" for now.... perhaps if they offer a deal for "all" of them in the future, then I'll bite.

EDIT:

Bottle Rocket, Wes' weakest film????? really......

[Idioteque...]

Originally Posted by Beta Man

I'm not going to order the replacement cases....... I guess I'll just deal with the "non-uniformity" for now.... perhaps if they offer a deal for "all" of them in the future, then I'll bite.

EDIT:

Bottle Rocket, Wes' weakest film????? really......

Yeah, I didn't enjoy it as much as I enjoyed his other films. Then again his worst reviewed film (Life Aquatic) is my second favorite Anderson film.

[banned user105]

Originally Posted by Beta Man

Bottle Rocket, Wes' weakest film????? really......

Funny, it's the only Wes Anderson film I don't hate.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by Idioteque...

I would love to own The Thin Red Line before that. Speaking of Malick, I have yet to finish Badlands and I think I need to check out Days of Heaven. How's The New World btw? I heard it's Malick's weakest.

It probably IS Malick's weakest overall... however, his weakest is still better than many director's best. I love Days of Heaven, but the narration doesn;t work for me in that one as much. Thin Red Line is my favorite, followed by Badlands.

The blu for The New World is amazing though. If nothing else, it's beautiful to look at. Its like he took the first 10 minutes of Thin Red Line and expanded it into a film of its own.

[Idioteque...]

Originally Posted by retablo

It probably IS Malick's weakest overall... however, his weakest is still better than many director's best. I love Days of Heaven, but the narration doesn;t work for me in that one as much. Thin Red Line is my favorite, followed by Badlands.

The blu for The New World is amazing though. If nothing else, it's beautiful to look at. Its like he took the first 10 minutes of Thin Red Line and expanded it into a film of its own.

Lol interesting, I guess I'll just stick with Disney version of Pocahontas anyway, what's the point of owning 2 different movies of the same story? Badlands is quite slow for me, halfway into it but nothing captivating yet. It's kind of a bore to me.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by Idioteque...

Really that sucks. Or instead of slipcovers they could have done with something with their digipak holders, for example like WB did with Batman Begins Deluxe Edition. I'm debating if I should get Bottle Rocket or not, I love Wes but I thought this was his weakest film.



I would love to own The Thin Red Line before that. Speaking of Malick, I have yet to finish Badlands and I think I need to check out Days of Heaven. How's The New World btw? I heard it's Malick's weakest.

Let me preface this by saying that I am completely biased...I spent two whole years working on a very well-received thesis entitled "Idealism in the Face of Nature: The Films of Terrence Malick." The thesis focused on Malick's use of nature and voice-over. I am waiting to add a chapter next year after the release of Tree of Life before publishing it in an extended book form. That being said, I coincidentally just finished watching my blu of The New World 10 minutes ago (ironic). Here is what I think of his four films:


Badlands--the least complex (by comparison) of his films but there is still so much there. It is a story we've seen before--murderers on the run--but the way Malick constructs the film is completely original. he never tries to find an answer to why these two ppl kill, but that is not his purpose. a great film and the most accessible of Malick's works.

Days of Heaven--an amazing film but my least favorite of Malick's four films. A very complex moral and religious tale, the problem with the film is sometimes there is a disconnect between the narration and the story, although I believe this is intentional (the use of an unreliable narrator, a la Catcher in the Rye). That being said, it is the most beautiful movie ever filmed and I had the pleasure to watch it in a movie theater three years ago while working on my thesis. Gorgeous, in a word.

The Thin Red Line--the most unique war movie ever made. this is also the most complex of Malick's films and his first foray into the use of multiple narrators. the questions Malick asked in this film are deep and are continued in The New World.

The New World--believe it or not, this is my favorite of Malick's films. The reason for this is because it feels like a continuation of The Thin Red Line and it really delves deeper into the questions asked in that film. The fact that Malick took such a cliche topic as the Pocahontas tale and made it into what he did is absolute genius. Like all of Malick's films, this film was shot almost exclusively at the "magic hours", which led to the unique look of the film. I think it his best film, although it is problematic.


For any that are interested, I would gladly send my 20+ page thesis for your consideration. It analyzes all four films.

Btw, the blu of The New World immediately places itself among the top 5 best looking blus ever released. The detail and depth of the picture are that good. The extended version also greatly improves upon the theater version, with the addition of 25-30 minutes. It makes the film more cohesive.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by retablo

It probably IS Malick's weakest overall... however, his weakest is still better than many director's best. I love Days of Heaven, but the narration doesn;t work for me in that one as much. Thin Red Line is my favorite, followed by Badlands.

The blu for The New World is amazing though. If nothing else, it's beautiful to look at. Its like he took the first 10 minutes of Thin Red Line and expanded it into a film of its own.

I agree that even if one considers it to be his weakest (although I disagree), it is still better than most director's best. You are spot on.

[Idioteque...]

Jhiggy are you a film studies major?

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by Idioteque...

Jhiggy are you a film studies major?

No, I was an English major who had a passion for film and decided to go that route for one of my theses, bc my advisor was a well-known film critic in the 70s. He had written about Malick after Days of Heaven came out, so after reading his article I became very interested in Malick and then inundated myself for the following two years. I am now getting ready to finish law school but have been working on extending my thesis into a book involving symbolism on film. What about yourself? You seem to have a good knowledge of film.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by Idioteque...

Lol interesting, I guess I'll just stick with Disney version of Pocahontas anyway, what's the point of owning 2 different movies of the same story? Badlands is quite slow for me, halfway into it but nothing captivating yet. It's kind of a bore to me.

The point is that, even if they have elements of the same story, they are different cinematic experiences. You should know that without asking.

People have no problem watching Star Wars, even though it was ripped from Kurosawa's Hidden Fortress. Or The Matrix, which was essentially Dune, which was essentially the story of Jesus. Mission Impossible 2 ripped Hitchcock's Notorious.

Same, but different.

[Idioteque...]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

No, I was an English major who had a passion for film and decided to go that route for one of my theses, bc my advisor was a well-known film critic in the 70s. He had written about Malick after Days of Heaven came out, so after reading his article I became very interested in Malick and then inundated myself for the following two years. I am now getting ready to finish law school but have been working on extending my thesis into a book involving symbolism on film. What about yourself? You seem to have a good knowledge of film.

I'm a film major (trying to be a director and writer and actor), it's the only career I feel comfortable in because film is such a huge part of my life and I've began the hobby of paying attention to special features to learn more about how the movie was made.

Originally Posted by retablo

The point is that, even if they have elements of the same story, they are different cinematic experiences. You should know that without asking.

People have no problem watching Star Wars, even though it was ripped from Kurosawa's Hidden Fortress. Or The Matrix, which was essentially Dune, which was essentially the story of Jesus. Mission Impossible 2 ripped Hitchcock's Notorious.

Same, but different.

Different experiences, but the problem with your examples same core story but presented in different settings, different characters. Pocahontas and New World have similar characters and both are about Pocahontas. What if one day, I'm in the mood for a film about Pocahontas? They're different experiences but for some people, would they watch both movies all the time? Besides Christian Bale is in both versions. =D

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by Idioteque...

I'm a film major (trying to be a director and writer and actor), it's the only career I feel comfortable in because film is such a huge part of my life and I've began the hobby of paying attention to special features to learn more about how the movie was made.



Different experiences, but the problem with your examples same core story but presented in different settings, different characters. Pocahontas and New World have similar characters and both are about Pocahontas. What if one day, I'm in the mood for a film about Pocahontas? They're different experiences but for some people, would they watch both movies all the time?

That's awesome. I dabbled in screenwriting a bit and would've loved to continue on as a film critic but was advised to take the "smarter" route and go to law school. I hope things work out for you; you def have a good knowledge of film and I enjoy discussing it with you, even when we disagree.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by Idioteque...

Different experiences, but the problem with your examples same core story but presented in different settings, different characters. Pocahontas and New World have similar characters and both are about Pocahontas. What if one day, I'm in the mood for a film about Pocahontas? They're different experiences but for some people, would they watch both movies all the time? Besides Christian Bale is in both versions. =D

I'd watch both because they are NOTHING alike. I doubt you could even tell they are the same story. As far as I know, they never even call her Pocohontas in The New World. Most of the characters are different. Different endings as well. Plus, one is a cartoon for kids filled with songs. They couldn't be more different.

[Idioteque...]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

That's awesome. I dabbled in screenwriting a bit and would've loved to continue on as a film critic but was advised to take the "smarter" route and go to law school. I hope things work out for you; you def have a good knowledge of film and I enjoy discussing it with you, even when we disagree.

Thank you thank you. Screenwriting is such a pain, I'm currently doodling between scripts right now because I need to produce a film for my transfer applications and it's been agitating and yes it's good to disagree when discussing film because it broadens your knowledge and makes you a little bit more understanding of the films you watch.

Originally Posted by retablo

I'd watch both because they are NOTHING alike. I doubt you could even tell they are the same story. As far as I know, they never even call her Pocohontas in The New World. Most of the characters are different. Different endings as well. Plus, one is a cartoon for kids filled with songs. They couldn't be more different.

I think I'll have to check it out because of my respect for Malick and Bale. Though Colin Farrell as a lead? That's a huge turn off and wasn't the girl 14 when she made the movie?

[retablo]

Originally Posted by Idioteque...

I think I'll have to check it out because of my respect for Malick and Bale. Though Colin Farrell as a lead? That's a huge turn off and wasn't the girl 14 when she made the movie?

Well, you should check it out just because you want to be a filmmaker. You should check out everything you can, or you'll never know. Just because Disney made a kid's version of a story that's been told countless times doesn't mean a thing. That's like saying you'll never watch The Maltese Falcon because you already saw Satan Met a Lady, which came first but is in all ways inferior.

So you don;t like Colin Farrell? How do you know you won't like him in the hands of a great director like Malick? And so what if the girl was 14, does that matter? Do you have an issue with Taxi Driver because Jodie Foster played a hooker at the age of 12?

[Idioteque...]

Originally Posted by retablo

Well, you should check it out just because you want to be a filmmaker. You should check out everything you can, or you'll never know. Just because Disney made a kid's version of a story that's been told countless times doesn't mean a thing. That's like saying you'll never watch The Maltese Falcon because you already saw Satan Met a Lady, which came first but is in all ways inferior.

So you don;t like Colin Farrell? How do you know you won't like him in the hands of a great director like Malick? And so what if the girl was 14, does that matter? Do you have an issue with Taxi Driver because Jodie Foster played a hooker at the age of 12?

I'm not saying that it ruins the film for me because of age but it just feels odd. You're right about the Malick thing, he made us believe James Caviezel is an awesome actor, so maybe Farrell does a great job. Would love to see Malick take Reeves and make an actor out of him. I'm very souped to see Tree of Life, in imax and the lead is one of my favorite actors, Pitt. and I did not know Jodie was 12 during Taxi Driver.

[Kevtronn]

Saw Monsoon Wedding Blu-ray in my local Best Buy today priced at $42!

BTW, I also really liked "The New World"...

[J. J. Hunsecker]

Originally Posted by retablo

Well, you should check it out just because you want to be a filmmaker. You should check out everything you can, or you'll never know.

I agree with this 100%!

Just because Disney made a kid's version of a story that's been told countless times doesn't mean a thing. That's like saying you'll never watch The Maltese Falcon because you already saw Satan Met a Lady, which came first but is in all ways inferior.

So you don;t like Colin Farrell? How do you know you won't like him in the hands of a great director like Malick? And so what if the girl was 14, does that matter? Do you have an issue with Taxi Driver because Jodie Foster played a hooker at the age of 12?

I like your analogy with Satan Met a Lady. Actually, the first Maltese Falcon version from 1931 is also infereior, and it stuck closer to the book than did Satan Met a Lady.

The real Pocahantas was 11 years old when she first met John Smith. http://pocahontas.morenus.org/