Do you buy a movie just because it is a CRITERION set?
11-30-03, 04:56 PM
#52
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Right behind you.
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand what is being said -- that collecting all the Criterions for the sake of the spine number alone militates against the kind of personal choice in title selection that otherwise defines a collection (and, in ScandalUMD's formulation, defines a person) -- I just think it's a rather simplistic argument.
After all, any number of motivations beside the two suggested by ScandalUMD (ignorance of film or a Marxist-perspective personality disorder) might explain someone's desire to own the entirety of the Criterion Collection (eg., Criterion provides a great introduction to world cinema, so if you're given to blind purchases, you could do worse than Criterion). So reducing Criterion collectors to a set of glib cartoons does at least some of them a disservice.
Me, I collect the titles that sound interesting or are by directors whose other films I've liked.
After all, any number of motivations beside the two suggested by ScandalUMD (ignorance of film or a Marxist-perspective personality disorder) might explain someone's desire to own the entirety of the Criterion Collection (eg., Criterion provides a great introduction to world cinema, so if you're given to blind purchases, you could do worse than Criterion). So reducing Criterion collectors to a set of glib cartoons does at least some of them a disservice.
Me, I collect the titles that sound interesting or are by directors whose other films I've liked.
11-30-03, 06:06 PM
#53
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Right Behind You
Posts: 4,986
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by brizz
That is the wierdest thing i've ever heard. What in the hell does that even mean?
I think Superbit collecting makes the baby jesus cry. so there.
That is the wierdest thing i've ever heard. What in the hell does that even mean?
I think Superbit collecting makes the baby jesus cry. so there.
12-01-03, 12:22 AM
#54
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: You have moved into a dark place. It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Posts: 4,533
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I own about 40 Criterion discs, and have another 50 on my wish list.
I could see eventually buying them all, just to be a completist, but only if I were fabulously wealthy, which, alas, I'm not.
I've bought about a dozen Criterions as blind buys, usually the classic foreign films that were given a good SE treatment and received good reviews (the films and the DVDs).
I'm trying to see all of the films in Ebert's "Great Movies" list, and about 1/3 of the list is put out by Criterion in R1 DVD.
They're not all gems, but when they do it right they REALLY do it right. And they've exposed me to films I may not have seen otherwise.
I could see eventually buying them all, just to be a completist, but only if I were fabulously wealthy, which, alas, I'm not.
I've bought about a dozen Criterions as blind buys, usually the classic foreign films that were given a good SE treatment and received good reviews (the films and the DVDs).
I'm trying to see all of the films in Ebert's "Great Movies" list, and about 1/3 of the list is put out by Criterion in R1 DVD.
They're not all gems, but when they do it right they REALLY do it right. And they've exposed me to films I may not have seen otherwise.
12-01-03, 12:44 AM
#55
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 2,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by FilmFanSea
That last sentence is what's known as a non sequitur, and is pure nonsense. So you're saying that great works of art are dehumanizing??? (it also begs the question of how one "dehumanizes" a DVD collection, which is an inanimate object)
Yet another argument against taking Logic 101 pass/fail.
That last sentence is what's known as a non sequitur, and is pure nonsense. So you're saying that great works of art are dehumanizing??? (it also begs the question of how one "dehumanizes" a DVD collection, which is an inanimate object)
Yet another argument against taking Logic 101 pass/fail.
If you let Criterion pick your movies for you, then your DVD collection, then your collection says nothing about you, except that you'll buy anything with a spine number.
12-01-03, 01:05 AM
#56
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hughson, CA
Posts: 5,160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm a completist, so I'm guilty of this.
I appreicate all of the titles that I've been introduced to under the CC banner. No, they weren't all great movies, but I think it just evens out the awesome ones I would never have had the knowledge or the foresight to see.
I appreicate all of the titles that I've been introduced to under the CC banner. No, they weren't all great movies, but I think it just evens out the awesome ones I would never have had the knowledge or the foresight to see.
12-01-03, 01:12 AM
#57
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 2,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by celluloidwisdom
I understand what is being said -- that collecting all the Criterions for the sake of the spine number alone militates against the kind of personal choice in title selection that otherwise defines a collection (and, in ScandalUMD's formulation, defines a person) -- I just think it's a rather simplistic argument.
After all, any number of motivations beside the two suggested by ScandalUMD (ignorance of film or a Marxist-perspective personality disorder) might explain someone's desire to own the entirety of the Criterion Collection (eg., Criterion provides a great introduction to world cinema, so if you're given to blind purchases, you could do worse than Criterion). So reducing Criterion collectors to a set of glib cartoons does at least some of them a disservice.
Me, I collect the titles that sound interesting or are by directors whose other films I've liked.
I understand what is being said -- that collecting all the Criterions for the sake of the spine number alone militates against the kind of personal choice in title selection that otherwise defines a collection (and, in ScandalUMD's formulation, defines a person) -- I just think it's a rather simplistic argument.
After all, any number of motivations beside the two suggested by ScandalUMD (ignorance of film or a Marxist-perspective personality disorder) might explain someone's desire to own the entirety of the Criterion Collection (eg., Criterion provides a great introduction to world cinema, so if you're given to blind purchases, you could do worse than Criterion). So reducing Criterion collectors to a set of glib cartoons does at least some of them a disservice.
Me, I collect the titles that sound interesting or are by directors whose other films I've liked.
I also think there are better ways to "blind buy," such as by collecting the works of favorite directors. Collecting Criterions hardly guarantees a great film collection. Criterion aesthetes will own "Time Bandits" and not "12 Monkeys." They'll buy "The 39 Steps" and "The Lady Vanishes," and skipped "North By Northwest" and "Vertigo."
12-01-03, 01:48 AM
#58
DVD Talk Legend
I also think there are better ways to "blind buy," such as by collecting the works of favorite directors. Collecting Criterions hardly guarantees a great film collection. Criterion aesthetes will own "Time Bandits" and not "12 Monkeys." They'll buy "The 39 Steps" and "The Lady Vanishes," and skipped "North By Northwest" and "Vertigo."
you are, in a word, wrong. There's nothing impersonal about buying the films issued by a company that has a proven track record of releasing quality discs of quality, and perhaps relatively unknown, films. It merely reflects a passion for the history and art of filmmaking. How on earth you can interpret that as impersonal is beyond me.
12-01-03, 02:10 AM
#59
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Seattle
Posts: 788
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by brizz
That is utterly and completely ridiculous. In the real world where the rest of us reside, what actually happens is that you buy a criterion title like Time Bandits and then become intrigued by Terry Gilliam and then buy other films he has done. Same with Hitchcock or any other director. Just because someone likes to buy Criterions to experience new things doesn't mean they'll refuse to buy anything from any other company. I personally have been introduced to a variety of directors and genres through Criterion that I otherwise would not know and have bought other titles not in their catalog....it's about expanding horizons and trying new things. I've sold off just as many as I've kept...but never regretted a single purchase.
you are, in a word, wrong. There's nothing impersonal about buying the films issued by a company that has a proven track record of releasing quality discs of quality, and perhaps relatively unknown, films. It merely reflects a passion for the history and art of filmmaking. How on earth you can interpret that as impersonal is beyond me.
That is utterly and completely ridiculous. In the real world where the rest of us reside, what actually happens is that you buy a criterion title like Time Bandits and then become intrigued by Terry Gilliam and then buy other films he has done. Same with Hitchcock or any other director. Just because someone likes to buy Criterions to experience new things doesn't mean they'll refuse to buy anything from any other company. I personally have been introduced to a variety of directors and genres through Criterion that I otherwise would not know and have bought other titles not in their catalog....it's about expanding horizons and trying new things. I've sold off just as many as I've kept...but never regretted a single purchase.
you are, in a word, wrong. There's nothing impersonal about buying the films issued by a company that has a proven track record of releasing quality discs of quality, and perhaps relatively unknown, films. It merely reflects a passion for the history and art of filmmaking. How on earth you can interpret that as impersonal is beyond me.
12-01-03, 08:40 AM
#60
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: You have moved into a dark place. It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Posts: 4,533
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think ScandalUMD is trolling a little, since he has over a thousand posts here and obviously is a bit obsessive himself.
The point is, Criterion has a well-deserved reputation for delivering great discs of nearly always interesting films. I'd blind-buy a Criterion title over another studio's random blind buy list any time, because at least with Criterion you know that the film will be treated with respect, whether you believe that film worthy of respect or not.
I happen to love "The Rock" and "Robocop" (although I wish the transfer was anamorphic on the latter) and if you don't, that's your deal.
When Criterion releases new titles, the chances are I haven't heard of about 50% of them. Sometimes I haven't even heard of the director. But I usually will at least look up a review of the film to see if it sounds like it would interest me.
I don't care about the spine number, but Criterion is one of the few companies out there making DVDs that put SO MUCH care into their product. They tend to focus on niche (i.e. not that profitable) titles because they believe them to be important films.
The reason so many are seemingly so devoted to buying many new Criterions is that we've found them to be just THAT good.
Should that change, I'm sure you'll hear the backlash. DVD Collectors aren't exactly a quiet or forgiving lot.
The point is, Criterion has a well-deserved reputation for delivering great discs of nearly always interesting films. I'd blind-buy a Criterion title over another studio's random blind buy list any time, because at least with Criterion you know that the film will be treated with respect, whether you believe that film worthy of respect or not.
I happen to love "The Rock" and "Robocop" (although I wish the transfer was anamorphic on the latter) and if you don't, that's your deal.
When Criterion releases new titles, the chances are I haven't heard of about 50% of them. Sometimes I haven't even heard of the director. But I usually will at least look up a review of the film to see if it sounds like it would interest me.
I don't care about the spine number, but Criterion is one of the few companies out there making DVDs that put SO MUCH care into their product. They tend to focus on niche (i.e. not that profitable) titles because they believe them to be important films.
The reason so many are seemingly so devoted to buying many new Criterions is that we've found them to be just THAT good.
Should that change, I'm sure you'll hear the backlash. DVD Collectors aren't exactly a quiet or forgiving lot.
12-01-03, 09:56 AM
#61
Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do I buy a movie because it says Criterion? No. Do I take a second look because it says Criterion? Certainly. Fact is that they make fantastic DVD's. Are they always the best? Certainly not and if the occasion arises between choosing a Criterion or other release I'll go with which ever I feel is better. I fail to understand this ambivalence that people have towards Criterion. I can understand why some feel this way about major studios as they often have sub par releases of movies. Criterion doesn't. They always (pretty much) put their best effort into their releases. So they release movies that you don't like. Big deal. Don't buy them. If someone wants them all, so what. I say more power to them. It's certainly something interesting to see someone with all of them. If someone comes out and says "Hey look at me, I have all the Criterions," then yeah they have problems. I understand the collecting mentality as I once collected Baseball Cards (not anymore mind you) and I wanted every card of a certain baseball player. I don't feel that Criterion collector's are any different. Horror movie collectors are similar (broad generalization obviously.) They have movies that I'd never even touch but since it's horror and they enjoy horror in all it's forms they have huge collections. This thread always seems to come up in one form or another every couple of months.
Edit-------------
Can't say that I'm immune to the collecting bug as I am getting all the Fox Studio Classics that have come out. Reason being that they are all (so far) classics and are rather cheap. Hard to beat in my opinion.
Edit-------------
Can't say that I'm immune to the collecting bug as I am getting all the Fox Studio Classics that have come out. Reason being that they are all (so far) classics and are rather cheap. Hard to beat in my opinion.
Last edited by Muah'dib; 12-01-03 at 10:00 AM.
12-01-03, 12:38 PM
#62
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Right Behind You
Posts: 4,986
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by ScandalUMD
I didn't say a collection defines a person, but I certainly think that something is discernable about a person by the films he chooses to own. A person who allows Criterion to decide which movies he will buy has an impersonal collection.
I also think there are better ways to "blind buy," such as by collecting the works of favorite directors. Collecting Criterions hardly guarantees a great film collection. Criterion aesthetes will own "Time Bandits" and not "12 Monkeys." They'll buy "The 39 Steps" and "The Lady Vanishes," and skipped "North By Northwest" and "Vertigo."
I didn't say a collection defines a person, but I certainly think that something is discernable about a person by the films he chooses to own. A person who allows Criterion to decide which movies he will buy has an impersonal collection.
I also think there are better ways to "blind buy," such as by collecting the works of favorite directors. Collecting Criterions hardly guarantees a great film collection. Criterion aesthetes will own "Time Bandits" and not "12 Monkeys." They'll buy "The 39 Steps" and "The Lady Vanishes," and skipped "North By Northwest" and "Vertigo."
12-01-03, 02:15 PM
#63
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just because one collects Criterions doesn't mean that they only collect Criterions.
12-01-03, 03:33 PM
#64
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 9,379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by insanecollector
I have the entire Criterion Collection as well as over 500 titles that are not Criterion. I am happy about my entire dvd collection.
I have the entire Criterion Collection as well as over 500 titles that are not Criterion. I am happy about my entire dvd collection.
The entire CC collection must be looking insanely cool on the shelf.
12-01-03, 03:55 PM
#65
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(it also begs the question of how one "dehumanizes" a DVD collection, which is an inanimate object)
Why are people listing the titles and number of CC dvds they own. If its not contributing to the discussion, THEN NO ONE CARES!
12-01-03, 11:20 PM
#66
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 2,597
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread is hilarious!
I strive to own the entire Criterion Collection - I own all but about 20 or so titles (most of them newer releases I'm crossing my fingers for when X-mas comes!)
I would like to point out the following Criterion facts:
1.) Criterion shows films that are 'important' meaning that they may not be the best film ever, but they will show a film that was either artistically or techincally a breakthrough. Lots of film inventions and styles that go through writing to directing to filming.
2.) Just because one does not like 'Summer Blockbusters' (i.e. Armegeddon, The Rock, etc.) does not mean that they do not represent a genre or perhaps a type of movie that someone else may love. Some people want escapist tripe as a release instead of a thinking man's movie. In other words, not all films are directed at YOUR taste.
3.) Criterion can't put out any movie they want to, as they have to obtain the rights - most studios won't give away their rights to more popular current movies (see the Criterion laserdisc collection for a more accurate list of what they WOULD release on DVD if they COULD.) So the contention that they will release anything for money is silly. They release what they can.
4.) Criterions cost a little more money because in almost every instance they pay more for rights, spend a LOT of time restoring old films from the point of destruction to almost new and helping bring a cinematic history back to modern day without having to pay a college tuition. The extra money helps make this possible - it's more of a labor of love than a money making machine - check your facts! Just because some choose to be ignorant about film history, doesn't mean everyone wants to be. Some people ACTUALLY ENJOY technical and historical aspects of film. So what may be boring to you, is fascinating to others. In other words, again, there are more people in the world than you.
Last but not least, yes, some collectors want to own the entire collection. A small part of me loves collecting the entire collection (mmmm spine numbers are delicious to an ex-comic book collector) but on the other hand, I for one am glad that Criterion can 'pick' my movies as one person suggested. I'm delighted at what they presented to me and don't worry, my collection is about 4/5ths non criterion and 1/5 criterion, so I still have a very 'human' collection.
I would like to point out the following Criterion facts:
1.) Criterion shows films that are 'important' meaning that they may not be the best film ever, but they will show a film that was either artistically or techincally a breakthrough. Lots of film inventions and styles that go through writing to directing to filming.
2.) Just because one does not like 'Summer Blockbusters' (i.e. Armegeddon, The Rock, etc.) does not mean that they do not represent a genre or perhaps a type of movie that someone else may love. Some people want escapist tripe as a release instead of a thinking man's movie. In other words, not all films are directed at YOUR taste.
3.) Criterion can't put out any movie they want to, as they have to obtain the rights - most studios won't give away their rights to more popular current movies (see the Criterion laserdisc collection for a more accurate list of what they WOULD release on DVD if they COULD.) So the contention that they will release anything for money is silly. They release what they can.
4.) Criterions cost a little more money because in almost every instance they pay more for rights, spend a LOT of time restoring old films from the point of destruction to almost new and helping bring a cinematic history back to modern day without having to pay a college tuition. The extra money helps make this possible - it's more of a labor of love than a money making machine - check your facts! Just because some choose to be ignorant about film history, doesn't mean everyone wants to be. Some people ACTUALLY ENJOY technical and historical aspects of film. So what may be boring to you, is fascinating to others. In other words, again, there are more people in the world than you.
Last but not least, yes, some collectors want to own the entire collection. A small part of me loves collecting the entire collection (mmmm spine numbers are delicious to an ex-comic book collector) but on the other hand, I for one am glad that Criterion can 'pick' my movies as one person suggested. I'm delighted at what they presented to me and don't worry, my collection is about 4/5ths non criterion and 1/5 criterion, so I still have a very 'human' collection.
12-02-03, 03:15 PM
#67
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While I do like Criterion, your going to have a hard time convincing me that Armageddon or The Rock or Salo are justified as important films, in any genre. What Next CON AIR?
I will say That Armageddon and The Rock seem to be departures for Criterion, as though they were experimenting with some mainstream films perhaps to help boost their bottom line. They seem to have abandoned this idea though, maybe they realised they were hurting the integrity of their library.
I will say That Armageddon and The Rock seem to be departures for Criterion, as though they were experimenting with some mainstream films perhaps to help boost their bottom line. They seem to have abandoned this idea though, maybe they realised they were hurting the integrity of their library.
12-02-03, 03:29 PM
#68
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 2,597
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again, it is a genre - Action Blockbuster - do you deny they exist? Micheal Bay and Jerry Bruckheimer have made gazillions of dollars making these types of movies (i.e. you look at a car and it blows up good) so SOMEBODY LOVES THEM. Just because you do not, does not mean that they do not exist or that Criterion cannot display them next to 'Art Flick' or 'Horror Movie'.
Sounds like you can't be convinced.
Sounds like you can't be convinced.
12-02-03, 03:31 PM
#69
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 634
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by rushmore223
I will say That Armageddon and The Rock seem to be departures for Criterion, as though they were experimenting with some mainstream films perhaps to help boost their bottom line. They seem to have abandoned this idea though, maybe they realised they were hurting the integrity of their library.
I will say That Armageddon and The Rock seem to be departures for Criterion, as though they were experimenting with some mainstream films perhaps to help boost their bottom line. They seem to have abandoned this idea though, maybe they realised they were hurting the integrity of their library.
They made Armageddon spine number 40 and The Rock spine number 108. We're on 228 now people, they're not doing any more Shit blowing up movies, get over it.
12-02-03, 03:42 PM
#70
DVD Talk Limited Edition
It's easier to quote my old post than to re-enter it. The orginal comments were made in response to being called a "Criterion Fan" and supporting my assertions that Armageddon and The Rock were "landmark movies for their genre". Think it applies here too and I still stand by what I wrote . . .
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I think it's funny that people are automatically assuming that I am a "Criterion Fan". All you would have to do was click my collection links to see that I own exactly 8 Criterions: Armageddon, Brazil, Chasing Amy, Monty Python's Life of Brian, Robocop, The Rock, Time Bandits, and Traffic. I bought them because they were movies that I enjoy (on one level or another) and the Criterion versions offered something (whether it be special features, audio and/or video quality, etc.) that other versions did not. I would hardly consider myself to be a "Criterion Fan".
That being said, people are also mis-reading my comments. I did not say that they were "landmark movies" . . . I said that they were "landmark movies for their genre" and that is an important distinction. For example, the Star Wars Trilogy (Ep. 4-6) were not great movies over all (much of the acting was poor, a good chunk of the dialog is pretty cheesy, etc.), but it does not stop the movies from being landmark in both the areas of epic film and science fiction (now there is a thought - The Star Wars Original Trilogy- Criterion Collection . . . hmmmm).
As to the specifics of why Armageddon and The Rock warranted their Criterion releases, let me begin by quoting Criterions website the "Armageddon" and "The Rock" movies.
Armageddon
"Despite what you may have heard, Armageddon is a work of art by a cutting-edge artist who is a master of movement, light, color, and shape—and also of chaos, razzle-dazzle, and explosion."
The Rock
"The movie is a triumph of style, tone, and energy—an action picture that rises to the top of the genre because of a literate, witty screenplay and skilled craftsmanship in the direction and special effects."
I think that those descriptions are dead-on for both movies. Are they "merely" summer, action, blockbusters? Well, I don't agree with the merely, but, absolutely . . . they are . . . I would consider "action blockbuster" to be their genre, in fact. And, within that genre, they are both very important for the kind of action that they brought with them. Both movies are spectacular examples of action cinematography. The camera angles, use of lighting, framing, scene composition, etc. are al exceptional, and, quite frankly, "landmark". Additionally, for The Rock, the dialog is crafted at a level of intelligence never seen in a prior, blockbuster-style action movie. It brought the movie to a level higher than any of it's peers at the time (and probably higher than most since).
Criterion describes its collection as "a continuing series of important classic and contemporary films". I'm not going to claim that every Criterion movie is a "great" amongst the world of all movies . . . I can't even say that I like them all, but I do respect the extraordinary achievments that each movie (or the ones that I know, at least) has made in some area of cinema.
As such, I think the both Armageddon and The Rock are both worthy of Criterion releases based on being "exceptional or landmark movies for their genre" of action blockbusters.
Side Note: There are actually a number of points of contention that I have with Armageddon, as an overall movie, that I would be happy to discuss in a more appropriate thread.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I think it's funny that people are automatically assuming that I am a "Criterion Fan". All you would have to do was click my collection links to see that I own exactly 8 Criterions: Armageddon, Brazil, Chasing Amy, Monty Python's Life of Brian, Robocop, The Rock, Time Bandits, and Traffic. I bought them because they were movies that I enjoy (on one level or another) and the Criterion versions offered something (whether it be special features, audio and/or video quality, etc.) that other versions did not. I would hardly consider myself to be a "Criterion Fan".
That being said, people are also mis-reading my comments. I did not say that they were "landmark movies" . . . I said that they were "landmark movies for their genre" and that is an important distinction. For example, the Star Wars Trilogy (Ep. 4-6) were not great movies over all (much of the acting was poor, a good chunk of the dialog is pretty cheesy, etc.), but it does not stop the movies from being landmark in both the areas of epic film and science fiction (now there is a thought - The Star Wars Original Trilogy- Criterion Collection . . . hmmmm).
As to the specifics of why Armageddon and The Rock warranted their Criterion releases, let me begin by quoting Criterions website the "Armageddon" and "The Rock" movies.
Armageddon
"Despite what you may have heard, Armageddon is a work of art by a cutting-edge artist who is a master of movement, light, color, and shape—and also of chaos, razzle-dazzle, and explosion."
The Rock
"The movie is a triumph of style, tone, and energy—an action picture that rises to the top of the genre because of a literate, witty screenplay and skilled craftsmanship in the direction and special effects."
I think that those descriptions are dead-on for both movies. Are they "merely" summer, action, blockbusters? Well, I don't agree with the merely, but, absolutely . . . they are . . . I would consider "action blockbuster" to be their genre, in fact. And, within that genre, they are both very important for the kind of action that they brought with them. Both movies are spectacular examples of action cinematography. The camera angles, use of lighting, framing, scene composition, etc. are al exceptional, and, quite frankly, "landmark". Additionally, for The Rock, the dialog is crafted at a level of intelligence never seen in a prior, blockbuster-style action movie. It brought the movie to a level higher than any of it's peers at the time (and probably higher than most since).
Criterion describes its collection as "a continuing series of important classic and contemporary films". I'm not going to claim that every Criterion movie is a "great" amongst the world of all movies . . . I can't even say that I like them all, but I do respect the extraordinary achievments that each movie (or the ones that I know, at least) has made in some area of cinema.
As such, I think the both Armageddon and The Rock are both worthy of Criterion releases based on being "exceptional or landmark movies for their genre" of action blockbusters.
Side Note: There are actually a number of points of contention that I have with Armageddon, as an overall movie, that I would be happy to discuss in a more appropriate thread.
12-02-03, 03:55 PM
#71
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Seattle
Posts: 788
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by rushmore223
While I do like Criterion, your going to have a hard time convincing me that Armageddon or The Rock or Salo are justified as important films, in any genre.
While I do like Criterion, your going to have a hard time convincing me that Armageddon or The Rock or Salo are justified as important films, in any genre.
Personally, I find Michael Bay's films much more dificult to sit through than Salò ...
12-02-03, 04:17 PM
#72
Senior Member
Originally posted by TopHatCat64
I would have to agree here. People here get hung up on The Rock and Armageddon whenever Criterions come up, whether to defend them or denounce them.
They made Armageddon spine number 40 and The Rock spine number 108. We're on 228 now people, they're not doing any more Shit blowing up movies, get over it.
I would have to agree here. People here get hung up on The Rock and Armageddon whenever Criterions come up, whether to defend them or denounce them.
They made Armageddon spine number 40 and The Rock spine number 108. We're on 228 now people, they're not doing any more Shit blowing up movies, get over it.
12-03-03, 12:58 AM
#75
Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Kitchener, Ontario
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey, I hear they have these things called sports cards. All they have is a picture and some stats, and in some cases people pay WAY too much for them when they can get these pictures and stats anywhere else... sometimes even for free!