I second that. I'm trying to sell it now on Amazon, along with my second stinker, Beauty and the Beast (the first version). Loved the imagery, but looking at it 30+ years after first seeing it, I realized I did not like the film. And when the beast turned into the "charming" prince I was apoplectic. She was better off with the beast!

Well I never really understood the whole Criterion craze. I've only seen a few of them, ones that piqued my interest to see whether they were on the criterion label or not. Anyways, Jubilee was one that looked interesting, so I rented it. It was horrible, I ended up turning it off before the end.

I also find these comments extremely depressing, coming from a dvd talk reviewer. (perhaps because I've applied before and was totally ignored). I completely disagree with the whole ' you either love or hate criterion' theory espoused above.

This person (and others) are pre-judging criterion films as if they all belong to one genre, or are produced by one director. This makes no sense to me. The Hitchcock comments are a good example. You say you don't like Notorious, which is fine. But you use this as an example of why Criterion sucks, because you like all Hitchcock movies but this one. Well, what about the other 4 Hitchcocks released by Criterion?? If you like 'almost all' of his films, surely one of the 5 films, which represents about 20% of his major film output (or 10% of all his films), would have 'clicked' with you?

About the only unifying theme of Criterion's dvd output to date is summed up in one word "VARIETY". Incredible, full-spectrum, wide-sweeping variety. IF you include their laserdisc output, it is even more varied. There is something for everyone to love and to hate in their collection.

I would ask, if you hate all of Criterion's film choices, why do you like movies?

I liked Armageddon

This might be a good example of why some people are turned off by Criterion's choices. Jubilee would not be my first choice for a neophyte's introduction to criterion, or independent film, or even british indie film, or punk film, or even Derek Jarman's output. It is rather inaccessible film which, even though I am a Jarman fan, I won't likely watch more than once.

I think it would be helpful for people to think of the word 'Criterion' less of a stamp of approval that you will like said movie, and more of an archiving and educational tool. Their films are 'important' for some reason or another, but that doesn't guarantee that you will like them. Jubilee is light years away from 'The Rock' or 'Andrei Rublev' that have nothing in common with each other other than the word 'criterion'.

That said, I think your process for choosing films to watch is exactly right -- choose the films you think are interesting, whether or not they say 'criterion' on the box. I own around 200 criterion dvds, not because I obsessively collect the numbered boxes in sequence, but because their catalogue contains films which I have prior interest in, or have directors (etc) who I enjoy.

Have you considered the possibility that you might just have bad taste?

Ooh, a personal attack! All from that great site, DVDFile.

It was a joke, not an attack. I'm sorry if the lack of a smiley prevents you from seeing the obvious.

"George Washington"
"The Royal Tennenbaums"

...the first ones that come to mind...

My comment was obviously an opinion, since, you know, I said it.

And for those, like me, who don't love it, it's hard to see a statement like yours.

Next time I'll make it obvious that it's MY opinion.

The Royal Tennenbaums for sure!

DVDTalk is better than DVDFile.

Pound for pound, I've been consistently more satisfied with Criterion discs than any other brand. It might have something to do with my laserdisc collecting days. I was much poorer back then (a struggling college student vs. single 30-something business-owner with disposable income), so every Criterion LD I bought was a rare and a special occasion.

Still, they pioneered the special edition. And they've released some true masterpieces of cinema. Witness their broad spectrum of great directors: Kurosawa, Ozu, Cocteau, Renoir, Dreyer, Hitchcock, Gilliam, Bergman, Bresson, Lean, Eisenstein, Carne, Tarkovsky... most of which loaded with real value-added content. For fans of world cinema and classic films, it's a real find.

Sure you pay more... and comparitive special editions from DEEP POCKET STUDIOS cost less. And blind-buy spine number collectors sometimes seem to trivialize what is an impressive and enjoyable collection of films. Are there some stinkers? Sure. That $40 non-anamorphic High and Low with no extras clenches my sphincter like a chicken- and- red-pepper sandwich on panini. Geeze, it's like eating an entire wicker basket. My advice: don't order food from "Joe Knows Lunch" in Fort Lauderdale. Ten hours later and I'm still hurting. IBS is one thing, but I need a new hammock. Where'd I put that pie?

Boy, just a few hundred yards from the station, and you had to go and derail the train.

I know. I'm worse at closing than Shelley Levene.

i would say my life as a dog..

You know, lately I don't entirely disagree with you.

What that has to do with anything in this thread, though, I have no idea.

I haven't been connecting with some certain acclaimed movies from the CC lately, notably Rules of the Game, Smiles of a Summer Night, and even Wild Strawberries. I enjoyed on some level, but I didn't connect with them the way I did with The Vanishing, or Il Posto. On the other hand, I have completely fallen for the the pair of Preston Sturges movies though: Sullivan's Travels and The Lady Eve.

Same here. Especially when I want to watch a pop-corn movie without using my brain

This is a bit off topic, but I've seen someone use a variation on this statement -- about wanting to watch a popcorn movie and not use his or her brain -- many times on this forum and it's always bothered me. Not to sound elitist, but how many movies are really that taxing on one's intellect? I mean, even when you're watching an "intellectually challenging" movie (what would qualify for that? "Citizen Kane?" "Throne of Blood?" "Memento?" something else?), it's still far less mentally taxing than reading a Dostoevsky novel or a philosophical text by Kierkegaard. It's still less challenging than playing chess against an expert at the game. It's still a movie -- still something you can plant yourself on your couch and watch fairly passively.

Personally, I find watching a well-crafted, well-thought-out film less intellectually challenging than watching some Jerry Bruckheimer piece of crap and trying to figure out what the hell the directors, screenwriters and actors were thinking when they made the movie.


Edited to remove an extraneous word.

You're right. I like what Criterion does and all, but shouldn't be restoring more films like silent films that could go the way of the Dodo.

I own Silence of the Lambs, Fiend without a Face, Last Temptation of Christ, and soon to be Videodrome. I fully regret selling Haxan though.

I have to agree to a certain point. When I was watching Garden State I was able to sit back and enjoy the film because it was so great. But when I was watching Day After Tomorrow my head was spinning with all the ridiculous scenarios, it pretty much gave me a headache.

Say what?

Someone explain what Haxan is all about. It appears to be the oldest dvd (filmed) in the collection.

From www.criterionco.com

---------------

Grave robbing, torture, possessed nuns, and a satanic Sabbath: Benjamin Christensen’s legendary film uses a series of dramatic vignettes to explore the scientific hypothesis that the witches of the middle ages suffered the same hysteria as turn-of-the-century psychiatric patients. But the film itself is far from serious—instead it’s a witches’ brew of the scary, gross, and darkly humorous. The Criterion Collection is proud to present two versions of this genre-defying “documentary,” for the first time ever on DVD.

---------------------

I thought it was interesting enough to rent but wouldn't personally buy it. I did enjoy the classical music score.