Has Criterion ever released a bad movie?
 

I browse through the reviews on dvdtalk and as far as I can recall, every single Criterion has always been a dvdtalk collector series. I could be wrong, but I can't believe every movie this company releases is that good.

A lot of the movies that are in the Criterion collection I have never heard of, apart from the obvious titles like Robocop, The Rock, Silence of the Lambs and Armageddon. I must be too mainstream? or it could be that the majority of the movies in their collection are from a period when I wasn't even born. I'm not sure why this collection is so admired.

Criterion is just like any other label really...some releases appeal to one segment of viewers and some appeal to another...I've seen many releases that I like and many films that I didn't care for. I used to buy films just because they were Criterions but now I just rent most of them....I wouldn't mind viewing the whole collection but it's not a priority for me now;)

The appeal of Criterion is that they will release films that other studios probably wouldn't be interested in releasing at all but are still important films. There's nothing wrong if you don't 'get' Criterion, just watch films you DO have an interest in and all is good;) Personally Warner is my favorite studio these days; I haven't been interested in a Criterion in awhile (though the upcoming Browning Version will probably garner a purchase).

Michael

I think the other appeal is Criterion usually goes through the time/hassle of coming up w/ a decent release. Usually they'll try to find the best prints and/or run it through a restoration process and then gather a multitude of other special features to add to the DVD. So while you may not like every movie they release (I certainly don't ;)) if you do like the movie most of the time it's the best version to the be found.

Nope, age has little to do with it. I'm sure there are plenty of movies made before you were born that you enjoy.

Yep. Is this a bad thing? Not really. As you grow older and learn to appreciate movies more, you might want to give some classic/foreign movies a chance. It could open up a whole new world to you.

Not every one is universally considered to be "good* per se. I think it is safe to say that all of them, with a few exceptions, have at least some standing within their countries of origin, with critics either in their country or internationally or were produced by directors of some standing. There are bodies of films in the collection by Hitchcock, Kurosawa, Fellini and Bergman, four directors that if many critics were asked to make an international list of the greatest directors ever, there's a good chance they would all be on them. The main exceptions I mention are Michael Bay's films, which were done to put money into Criterion's cofers, as the great work they do in bringing sometimes neglected films to the masses isn't always profitable. I cringe that they're part of the collection, not out of any cinematic snobbery but because their such freaking shite, but if it helps keep Criterion afloat, go Criterion.

There are a few Criterions that I don't like. Couldn't stand "The Night Porter" for example, but they always put out interesting films. Films that other studios wouldn't put out, or if they did, it wouldn't be with high quality prints and copious extras.

Like Blue Underground and Milestone, Criterion has built their following by putting out high quality niche films. We DVD fanatics are willing to pay for quality, and they deliver.

I don't know if I agree with that. Things are different. Times are different. Those of us who grew up in the days before cable, VCRs, and DVDs didn't have control over what programming was available to us... it was only what was being broadcast, when it was broadcast. We often watched films and shows that we may not have necessarily wanted to watch, but because they were on, we watched. Color TVs were a rarity. If a household had more than one TV, most likely only one set was color.

Today, people have total control... of what they watch, and when. With onscreen TV guides, and less leisure time, people are less inclined to "accidentally" watch something they may not like... they'll go for the surest thing.

Considering that national rental chains like Blockbuster and Hollywood Video have homogenized title selections, it will be difficult for people who ARE inclined to experiment to find a title like, LADY IN A CAGE.

I think that for today's generation, it's more meaningful when someone DOES want to experiment and expand their horizons (given the current climate and technology available).

Yep, I'd venture to say that hit the nail on the head. Most of their releases I view as extremely niche films. Art house types to be exact, or at least foreign films that most people wouldn't have normally heard of. I know I haven't. Out of all the Criterion titles, I bet I've only heard of about a half dozen or so.

My longing Criterion question is why did they release a non-anamorphic version of Armageddon?

Has Criterion ever released a bad movie?
 

Good Burger

Wow, it doesn't take long for a Criterion thread to get winded.

The only Criterions I have seen that I would consider "bad movies" are Fiend Without a Face and Traffic.

There are others that I don't think are deserving of being Criterions really, by my opinion, like The Blob, And God Created Woman, Naked Lunch, and My Own Private Idaho - but I wouldn't necessarily consider them bad movies, just average at best.

There are several movies Criterion has released that I would consider "bad". That's fine with me; they can release what they want. ;) There are more films they've released that simply don't interest me much - for example, 'classic' British cinema doesn't interest me at all, but I'm glad Criterion is releasing those films so people who like them can enjoy them.

The take great care in their films, and their best releases have excellent supplements and commentaries that really help put the films in context and help one appreciate them. Playing the commentary tracks on both Straw Dogs and Seven Samurai, for me, was like having a knowledgeable and engaging film professor in my living room watching the movie with me.

If you're interested in the types of films Criterion puts out, but don't really get them, Criterion will help you get them.

Any time this question comes up, the usual answer is that they were only given a non-anamorphic transfer from Buena Vista (who also weren't releasing anything anamorphic at the time) so they had no control over that. However, Criterion weren't doing anamorphic transfers either at the time, so it could have still been non-anamorphic even if they had done the transfer instead of Buena Vista.

You answered your own question.

Criterion has a large selection of different types of movies. Why don't you just try checking out a couple that look interesting to you and see for yourself? It's good to take into consideration the views of those you might trust, but ultimately it is better to see and judge yourself.

Hey, I grew up in those days. :) Also we tended to watch what our parents watched. My dad used to watch monster and sci/fi movies and this is where I probably grew to love those genres. But he also liked westerns and I never really got into those. I guess not all influences stick.

Ain't that the truth!

SAY! Me say Salo!

Criterion is a respected name because they were the first people to take movie releases seriously. Back in the laserdisc days, studios often released discs that were little different than the VHS releases, many not even in widescreen. Criterion pioneered the commentary track, and put evey effort into making a quality package for the film fan.

While they are known for "serious" movies, Criterion released a wide range of feature packed movies in every genre, including sci-fi and anime. Akira was available on LD from Criterion long before it became well known in America.

They continued this tradition on DVD by releasing a wide range of discs, from the Seven Samuri to Armageddon. Once the major studios started releasing feature packed special editions of their own, Criterion started concentrating more on more esoteric movies that the majors won't touch.

As for any of these movies being "bad", that's a matter of personal opinion.

I have to harshly disagree with you. For the last 15 years the average American consumer has had anything but TOTAL CONTROL of what and when to watch film products. Unless you a fairly sophisticated and well-educated you are exposed to a cultural censorship that I could only compare to what the Russian Bolsheviks imposed on their society. Examples:

Major chains such as Blockbuster, Wal-Mart, etc, are imposing their corporate standards and the average consumer has no idea what has been shoved down his/her throat.

Major studios such as Miramax, Universal, Columbia, are WILLNGLY buying foreign products and either offering poor, hashed-for-the American consumer "non-foreign" versions OR...WILLINGLY keeping world cinema films in their vaults...for known reasons.

Hardly any contemporary foreign films are released in the US unless they are somewhat related to a well known film festival.

Hardly any foreign films ARE SHOWN on major networks (god forbid we mention prime time).

Hardly any foreign TV programming is offered unless it is English-friendly (British?) or Spanish-friendly.

Hardly any live coverage is provided for American film lovers to such important film festivals as Cannes, Berlin, Hong Kong, Moscow, Venice, etc. Something that happens to be a well-established practice in many European (Norway, France, etc) and Asian countries.


So, I can keep going on and on with the intellectual and cultural genocide that is imposed over the American viewer-I am sure however you understand in what direction our society is headed.

Regards,
Pro-B

While that all may be true, Pro-B, I'd argue that the average American really doesn't care...about things like the Cannes Film Festival and the like. Oh, I'm sure some do, like the cineophiles, but for the average movie goer, they're only worried about the next Lindsey Loehan (sp?) movie is going to be about.

I make a distinction between ignorance and apathy. I've shown my "Hulk was awesome!" friends films like Le Cercle Rouge, Week End, and Oldboy. I have to pick jaws up off the floor afterwards. Do they get every nuance? No. Does reading subtitles take away from their comprehension? Maybe. Were they interested? Hell yes! That's not to say some might not be, but I would rather have that choice than not.

Yes. Criterion has released its fair share of bad movies, but in lieu of bashing every Michael Bay film, I must say The Rock was great mindless entertainment and Armageddon had Steve Buscemi. I refuse to hate on any movie in which Mr. Buscemi appears, no matter how asinine.

Pretty much agree with your post. The only real bright spot is that for those of interested in more than what main-stream Hollywood puts out there are more opportunities than ever to find and view it. Seems like almost everyday I lean about some new (or not so new) foreign film just browsing around on the web.

I was with you completely up to this point. I don't see what is so great about Steve B. And Armageddon was an asinine movie regardless of who starred in it.
But hey, even the greatest of minds will find room for disagreements. -smile-

Been reading some Jonathan Rosenbaum, have we? :)

In essence I agree with you, but I don't think things are quite as dire as you make them out to be. People have access to a much larger number of films, and, mainly due to the internet, the ability to become aware of and learn about nearly every film shown theatrically somewhere in the world. Being multi-lingual probably helps with that, I would imagine. Now, the major studios and TV networks aren't doing much if anything to facilitate this, I agree, and in some cases *cough* <b>Miramax</b> *cough* studios have actively and effectively prevented people in the US from seeing great films from other countries.

The major question, and where I break ranks with Mr. Rosenbaum (and possibly with you), is whether a greater supply would create a commensurate increase in demand. I don't think so. I'm sure that, if every film ever made instantly became available on DVD, some people would buy the really obscure ones, but most people are just really not that interested in exploring new cinemas or challenging themselves with types of narrative structures or devices that are unfamiliar to them. It may be sad, but I believe it to be true.

You obviously missed the point I was trying to make, or simply used this opportunity to get some things off your chest. "Back in the day" broadcast TV and movie theatres were the only avenue available for most people.

If you believe that we have LESS choice and LESS control now (with the advent of VCRs, DVDs, Cable, Satellite, DVRs, Pay-per-view, etc) than we did back then, well... there's no sense in attempting a serious discussion on this issue.