I'd wait on M because it is one of the ones that will most likely be getting rereleased in the near future.

Keep in mind that the Hitchcock Criterions that people are recommending are also OOP as of the end of 2003. If you can still pick up:

Notorious
Rebecca
Spellbound

I would highly recommend all three.

Charade - The new release in April
39 Steps and The Lady Vanishes 2 great early Hitchcocks

buying a Michael Bay film just because its a Criterion release, is like going to a 4 star restaurant and ordering a hamburger and fries.

among the most insultingly bad movies i have ever watched (and notice i said movies, not films).
the reason Criterion relases these is
1) they are popular and their sales will subsidize the less popular but vastly more important fare they want to put out
2) they are among the only 'blockbusters' that Criterion has access to in regard to licenses.

some people seem to have a synaptic disconnect and don't get the 'so bad' part and go straight to "they're good".
Criterion has also put out Andy Warhols Dracula and Frankenstein so they have a prior history of contextualizing trash.

its just a shame that the same people who love the Rock and Armegedon because they are so slickly produced can't understand why they suck so much because their scope of reference for action/adventure movies doesn't go back any farther than bad Indiana Jones sequels.
and whats the fascination with "High Octane" if the characters motivations are phony and the bombastic set pieces are completely contrived?
once you get some better written, better directed adtion films under your belt, you'll be able to understand why some people hold these films in such contempt.
they aren't being snobs, just discriminating viewers.
it'll be quite a revelation when you find out not all action films have to be stupid.

First off, buying any movie "because it is a Criterion" is really pretty silly unless your goal is completing the collection. You should only buy movies that you like, regardless of whether they were put out by Criterion or Eddie's DVD-Haus.

Secondly, my original point was that it is just as silly to say "don't buy these Criterions because they shouldn't be Criterions" as it is to say "buy these Criterions because they are Criterions". If you like the movies buy them . . . if you like them enough to want an excellent presentation, by the Criterion releases.No, I'm sorry, but they are being snobs. Just because one group of people appreciate, what is commonly called "eye candy", while others prefer more subtle cinema, doesn't invalidate either. The "high-octane" effect that The Rock and Armageddon achieve requires just as much artistry, skill, and hard work from the effects people, as a well written, artistic drama does from the writers. And, in the end, it takes skill from the director to manage each of them. One however, focuses on the more intellectual and subtle, while the other focuses on the more visceral and overt.

It is simply a different style and some appreciate it more than others. Regardless, both Armageddon and The Rock were key efforts in the growth of that style. As such, they were "important . . . contemporary films", specific to the action/adventure genre.



As for the movies themselves, I won't get into Armagedon with you, because there are a number of problems that I have with the movie, but I would be happy to have a discussion about The Rock, which I think is an excellent film in the area of comedic action. I think the dialog is wity . . . I think the cinematography is superb . . . I think the characters are well-developed . . . I think that the special effects (and the impact that they have on the audience) are landmark.



Finally, I am also very curious to know three things:

1) What you find so objectionable about The Rock (you have not been very specific about this),

2) What movies you consider to be "better written, better directed action films" so that I know to what you are comparing these movies, and

3) What makes you think that I (I assume you are refering to me given the wording of the post and the quote from my previous post) don't have such films "under my belt"? Could it possibly be that I just enjoy both kinds of movies and can appreciate what they each bring to the artform?



MovieFan999 . . . sorry for the hijack of your thread . . . I still think that Traffic is a good introduction for to the Criterion Collection . . . glad it's a movie that you already like. Another thing that might help people make recommendations for you is knowing if there is a particular part of cinema that you enjoy. For example, if you enjoy artistic visuals and cinematography, I might recommend George Washington to you because it has some stunningly beautiful (if raw) scenes in it. On of the beauties of the Criterion Collection is that in addition to focusing on important films, it really does encompass a wide range of styles and genres.

These are good points. I always hear people trashing these two movies equally, yet, IMHO, they are very different in terms of quality. One is a good action movie with some great action scenes and a good premise, and the other is a flaming pile of shit that insults the intelligence of the viewer.

In case you didn't know, The Rock is the former and Armageddon is the latter.

And yes, if you venture into the depths of my signature, you will find that I own both of them. I own The Rock because, like I said, it's a good action flick. Buying Armageddon was, looking back on it, probably a mistake, if for no other reason than because it makes me seem like a huge hypocrite after hearing my opinion of it. But in my own defense, I really didn't start to form my opinion until after I bought it. And maybe it's the fact that the DVD is a Criterion, but I just can't make myself get rid of it.

I'm tellin' ya, there's just something about those damn spine numbers.

Numero Uno problem for me is Sean Connerys character







as enjoyable as Connery is to watch performing, i'm never 'in' the film since i never once believe the character.
and if you can't muster up any empathy for the characters or situations, its all just empty show and sensation.
i'm not a 3 yr old getting my picture taken at Sears- i need a little bit more than someone waving shiny things in my face every few minutes to maintain my attention.


off the top of my head;
Bridge On The River Kwai
The Professionals(1966)
Bite The Bullet
The Bourne Identity
The Train
The Great Escape
Bend Of The River
Sahara(the Bogart one)
are all films use the action to punctuate a narrative that is more weighted to character & plot.
A MICHAEL BAY FILM IS THE CINEMATIC EQUIVILENT OF SOMEONE POSTING ON A MESSAGEBOARD AND ALWAYS USING CAPS AND !!!!!!!
SO BEYOND THE FACT THAT HE ONLY HAS THE MOST BANAL IDEAS TO CONVEY, HIS STYLE IS ALSO IRRITATING AS HELL!!!!!!

i'm sure you've seen most of these, but i have no answer for you.
its the same reason i can't comprehend the satisfaction some guys feel bringing home a chick to bang at closing time, simply because shes a warm available hole, who isn't too unattractive with beer goggles on.
i've done it before myself, but once i came to realize it was never going to be satisfying i haven't felt any reason to continue the practice.

I can see that that could be viewed as a weak point in the character development. Personally, however, . . .

Maybe those aren't rock hard points, but I thought they sufficed enough to carry on with the story.While I haven't seen all of these, I now have a better idea of what you are comparing. First off, I fully agree that they are excellent movies, but, at the same time, I think that they are completely different beasts. While the above movies are more substantial and more intellectually based, I don't think that they match visually with the The Rock. Again, not a bad thing, just a different thing.I agree with you on the above point aswell, but perhaps it would make more sense if we used food as a comparison. I've been raised on gourmet quality food pretty much my whole life (my mom is an excellent cook) and have had many a business dinner in some of the top restaurants in the country. That being said, from time-to-time, there's nothing like a Big Mac to mix things up a little.

Just rent the ones that look interesting TO YOU (netflix is good for this). Then buy the ones you really like (dvdplanet has the best prices on Criterions).

For those criticizing The Rock and Armageddon, at least try and do so without making it sound like anyone who does enjoy these movies are brain dead sloths who wouldn't know cinema if it was tattooed on their foreheads. Because that's the vibe i'm getting.

Anyway, i just bought the Beastie Boys Anthology for 15 bucks at Fry's... great set if you enjoy their music.

talemyn,
i understand your food analogy so i'll just say "fair, 'nuff" and we can move on.

to tell you the truth, i bought the Criterion version of this movie the day it streeted after having seen it once and only really remembering the 'money shots'.
i was looking forward to seeing it again, but upon a second viewing some of the points like the one i elaborated on in the other post, really started to rankle me.

that said, the Criterion disc offers reference quality picture and sound.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by fumanstan
[B]For those criticizing The Rock and Armageddon, at least try and do so without making it sound like anyone who does enjoy these movies are not brain dead sloths who wouldn't know cinema if it was tattooed on their foreheads. Because that's the vibe i'm getting.

Amen to that!

For the posts up above that lambasts such movies like "The Rock" and "Armaggedon" don't be so damn fickle and wee minded as to not take these "type" of movies for what they truly are and if you think they need to have plot and deep characterizations in order to make it a credible movie, than I am sorry my friend, but I don't think you understand the movie world on the whole. And some of the comments are just so darn narrow.

These movies were never intended to be movies "for your consideration" as the saying goes. These were popcorn flicks for the enthrall and majesty that is over-the-top, mindless action and for that they are spectacular. I am not saying they are the best of its kind, but that really isn't the point. Bruce and Nic knew exactly what they were making when they signed the big fat contracts and that was a big fat movie that would make big fat money if for no other reason than because it would be shown in every theater in the world. And they succeeded.

They made loads of cash and the movies weren't half bad. You didn't leave the theater contemplating life, you simply left with a little less breath and perhaps contemplating what would be in the sequel..and that is all it was meant for.

As the 2nd generation of action flix got under way with the grandfather of them all in "Die Hard I" they were meant to stun and glorify the unbelievable and for that they all succeeded and succeeded in grand fashion. While IMHO nothing will ever top the feeling I came away with after seeing "Die Hard I" in 1988, I do go into the next action flick hoping to at least come a little closer while leaving my brain at the door and enjoy the simplistic pleasure that is the action/adventure genre.

that's good..take it out of context and not put the action/adventure genre in it as you knew I meant..makes my post all the more credible...good job, lil bukaroo!

Getting back on topic...

If you can find it (it's rumored that it is OOP) pick up Soderbergh's "Traffic". Nice 2-disc set with great deleted scenes and some nice featurettes on the actual HOW of making movies, not just "These special effects are awesome, here's kinda how we did them." (This isn't meant to be a crack on the Bay movies mentioned in this thread - the Criterion discs for those films are more informative than comparable releases for that genre of film).

http://www.criterionco.com/asp/browse.asp

Here's the list of all of the current Criterion releases.

Scott,
you seem to be arguing that there is no reason to criticize an action movie that demands you "shut off your brain" to enjoy it
-am i right so far?
and that these should be held to a different standard than 'serious' movies?

the problem i have is the equation that says
the amount of well photographed mayhem is directly proportional to how 'exciting' a movie is.
its true that the movies that i referenced above do not have either the scale or quantity of pyrotechnics of the average MB movie- but i fail to see how that aspect makes a movie more exciting on its own.
when i am invested in the characters emotionally, when i believe in their motivation and the actions they take based on those, and i am invested in the plot and wondering how it will turn out,
to me that elevates, what for MB would be just an appetizer action scene, to something that has enormous weight, consequence and impact.
these things don't have to be mutually exclusive, and i don't feel like i'm being a snob for discriminating against a film (or filmmaker) who lacks the skill to run, jump and punch while chewing gum at the same time.

Nope . . . DVDPlanet has it for $25.99 (free shipping, too, since it's over $25 ).

I gotta say this is an entertaining read!
I enjoyed the Rock and couldn't stand Armageddon.
I don't have any problem shutting down and enjoying a movie as is, but watching Armageddon, I felt my IQ drop while watching it, on the other hand I know some big film fans who did enjoy it, to each their own....

As far as Criterions, I only have a few but I love the quality they put into their work. My pride Criterion right now is Naked Lunch, I love that movie, Fear and Loathing is excellent as well.
Some I plan on picking up are; Le Corbeau, Onibaba, Richard III, Red Beard, Throne of Blood, Ikiru, Insomnia, Solaris, maybe The Killers. I'm not a completist but I will check out a movie from this company just based on their track record.

If you like Technicolor classics from the 1940s, drop everything and rush out to pick up The Red Shoes, a beautifully shot and wonderfully realized fable. Plus it has some wonderful extras, including a commentary track featuring Martin Scorsese and director Michael Powell.

A fantastic film and a great Criterion DVD too.

I like Criterion, but people seem to think the company puts out only the greatest masterpieces, and some how The Rock and Armageddon just slipped in by accident. Fact is Criterion will put out anything that will make them money, provided they can secure the rights:

some Criterion LDs

Blade Runner
The Blob
Boogie Nights
Boyz N the Hood
Chasing Amy
Bram Stoker's Dracula
Evita
The Game
Halloween
Hard Boiled
Man Bites Dog
Salo
Seven
Super Cop

and lots of others, some of which are also on DVD.


...And many of these "eyesores" help fund the releases that you DO hold in such high regard. Criterion isn't staying afloat because of 8 1/2, Floating Weeds, or Andrei Rublev. Armageddon is probably THE top-selling Criterion, I bet.

Criterion isn't just for elitists, it's for all movie fans. From film students to more casual fans. Yeah, Criterion would put out Citizen Kane or The Godfather on DVD if given the chance, but they would probably be between the CC's editions of Spider-Man and Shrek...

Um...what? I get what you're trying to say, but I don't think you chose very good examples. Most of the movies in that list are very good to great. I haven't seen a few of them (Evita, Salo, Super Cop), but I don't think anyone would consider them eyesores. Seven, Man Bites Dog, Blade Runner, and Boogie Nights are movies I consider excellent.

sorry if I wasn't clear. I too enjoy several of the movies I listed, but I do not think that most people would consider them masterpieces in the same vein as some of the other Criterions.

if you put "The Rock" or "Armageddon" up against the list I provided, instead of "Seven Samurai", or "Grand Illusion", they don't seem out of place, to me at least.

Well I only own one Criterion, and that is Man Bites Dog, and to me it is a masterpiece, everything else Criterion puts out is shit IMO

I own Chasing Amy, The Rock, Seven Samurai, Rashomon, The Hidden Fortress, Throne of Blood, RoboCop (My brother-in-law got it for me.), Brazil, Silence of the Lambs (current MGM Special Edition has extras criterion doesn't have and vice-verse), Red Beard, Yojimbo, Sanjuro, Hard Boiled (kick-ass John Woo flick with a 30 minute non-stop balls-to-the-wall-action ending), The Killer, The Seventh Seal and Do The Right Thing. Boo-yah! I love having a very wide taste in movies, soooo, it's all good with this selection for me at least.

That's obviosly not true, RaynMan2019, since you own The Hidden Fortress, Throne of Blood, Yojimbo, Sanjuro, and Hard Boiled.

Or do you consider a trailer "TONS" of extras?