I agree with you to a certain extent, but I also believe that interest can come from exposure. Because of the cultural/language difference and because (I'd have to double check but I'm quite sure of this) North American rights to foreign films do not include the province of Quebec, we have more foreign films playing here (and I mean at the cineplex, not at some obscure arthouse theater) than anywhere else in North America. And people go see them because they have always been part of the cultural landscape. So in essence, people can't get a taste for something different if they are never exposed to it. Are these films as popular as the latest blockbuster? No they are not, but the audience for these films is larger than you might think, otherwise there would be no profit in showing them. One could however argue that this cultural/language difference does make us more open to new kinds of cinematic experiences to begin with.

Also, I think there is hope because with the advent of digital media the 35mm reel, which is the main tool with which the studios control production/distribution, will hopefully go the way of the dodo.

It was.

I've been a Hulk fan for years though...

Yes. I wasn't disparaging the film, only giving the impression these people had little experience with foreign film. Perhaps it was a poor choice on my part...

It's a pity every company doesnt put as much effort into every single dvd release like criterion does. I wouldnt mind paying extra dollars for a movie thats got as much as they can put on it and restored to its fullest

Me either. Sure they have a collection full of some of the greatest foreign films ever made, but so what. Those films are from other countries where many times they don't even speak English or worship Jesus Christ as their lord and savior. Give me a quality DVD producer like Mandacy any day.

Still that is right around the time Criterion switched to anamorphic transfers. Armageddon was what spine #40, 41 and Insomnia was the first 16x9 Criterion and that was spine number 46 or 47? Most of the stuff released between was standard aspect ratio movies as I recall. I suppose a case could be made that if Buena Vista had offered one up, Criterion would have used it. But the point is moot.
As for bad Criterions, everything being subjective, I don't think much of either Salo or The Night Porter.

i really liked videodrome so i decided to pick up naked lunch, croenberg's other work, and other criterion at that, it was strange and just plain awful in my opinion, i heard you have to read the book and know about that guy. burroughs life to understand, but still it just was awful.

I think the main thing with Criterion is that they focus on films that have excelled in some way, particularly within their genres. Now that doesn't mean that those films will always be stellar films overall (although some are), but that they are exceptional in some way.

The two Criterion releases that people like to dump on the most . . . The Rock and Armageddon . . . do not have the dramatic emotional impact of, say, Kurosawa's Ikiru, or the visual beauty of George Washington, or the subtly, but very effectively, acheived disturbing suspense of Picnic At Hanging Rock, but both have stunning cinematography and special effects. At the time of their release, they were, arguably the best in those areas within the action genre. So are you going to like them all? Probably not (I, for example, have no interest in watching Salo), but you can be assured that there is something about the film that is extremely well.

One other thing to note is that there are a lot of films that Criterion would probably like to have in there collection that they will never be able to get the rights to release (e.g., Citizen Kane, Metropolis, etc.), so they will never be the company who releases "the best" films. They will, however, always be films of note/worth and Criterion will never have to deal with having overtly bad movies in their repetoir (e.g., Crossroads, Dr. Suess, etc.), as other studios do.

I'll give you that Naked Lunch isn't a movie for everyone, or most people for that matter but it is a movie I love. It is just so Croenberg while also being very Burroughs. As fine a cinematic marriage as I've ever seen.
Much better than Fear and Loathing In Las Vegas. Let me also note that I think Gilliam's version is as good a screen adaptation of HST's novel as we will ever see. It's just that I think the book is unfilmable. The difference between Naked Lunch & Fear & Loathing is Croenberg didn't adapt just the novel, instead using the book as a starting point. I'm sure people will argue this but I think Gilliam tried being too faithful to the novel.

You'ld think someone who was a "Hall of Fame" member would have learned by now remarks like this are uncalled for/over the top

groucho, leave darkside's body immediately.

That's pretty funny........I mean that was sarcasm......right???

I agree 100%. FaLiLV may be Criterion's #1 bestseller, but I think it's total crap (and I love most of the other Gilliam I've seen). Naked Lunch is brilliant---maybe my fave Cronenberg.

Cronenberg's making a film with Joel and Ethan? Now that's a collaboration I'd like to see!

Heh. What I get for looking to the quote I was using for the spelling. Isn't Cronenberg's new film, A History of Violence, set to open soon?

End of September 2005, from what I understand.

And I should've quoted the original poster, Chris777, on the spelling. But your syntax was so much more clever!

I thought it was pretty obvious with the Mandacy line.

Next time, look at your user name first. If it says Groucho, continue on . . . otherwise, use a smiley.

yes... Chasing Amy ...

Pro-B:

Comparing Blockbuster to Soviet censorship would be funny if it weren't such a common fallacy. Most people want easy-to-understand movies, so that's what the large companies supply them. A small number of people want weird movies, so they subscribe to Netflix and buy Criterions. We're living in a movie renaissance where there are several internet forums dedicated to watching movies at home, and you can buy home versions of movies that have been out of print for decades. That's very different from risking 15 years hard labor for posessing a samizdat manuscript of an unpublishable book.

You remind me a couple of the radio programs I listen to: "Democracy Now" and "Alternative Radio". They keep complaining about corporate censorship and the impossibility of hearing other points of view. Hey guys! You're on a syndicated, broadcast, radio show! It's not censored!

I haven't seen them, but I am Curious Blue and I am Curious Yellow are supposed to be pretty bad.

OTOH, I was happy when Criterion released Naked Lunch, and bought it as soon as it came out.

They have their fans, and the films are important as historical artifacts, even if they aren't great films. I haven't seen either so I can't really say.

I haven't seen "Curious Blue" but I did happen to enjoy "Curious Yellow", so.. it's all relative.

Blood For Dracula. And they released two Michael Bay films (The Rock & Armageddon)....so that should answer that question.