Re: Disappointing Criterions
 

Unlike chris_sc77, I did like this movie, so maybe I'll do this tonight.

I posted long ago in this thread, but I saw a couple more that I disliked, so I'll post again:

Sadly, I did not like 8½. I really liked (even loved) the first 25 minutes or so, but after that it started to drift and I became less and less interested in what was happening.

I couldn't for the life of me tell what was really meant to be going on in Playtime. I thought the Greek pillar pedal trash-can gag was really funny, but my friend and I were just baffled by it until we finally gave up about an hour or so in.

Criterions I have and love include Brazil, Stranger Than Paradise, The Ice Storm, Charade, Dazed and Confused, How to Get Ahead in Advertising, The Silence of the Lambs and the Wes Anderson discs. Most recently, I watched Quai Des Orfevres and thought it was very good. On the other hand, the amount of Criterions I have that I haven't watched is kind of embarrassing, so there's another thing I should do tonight.

Re: Disappointing Criterions
 

This line of thought is typical of those who don't "get" just about any kind of movie, or are bound and determined (or doomed?) to pursue a literal, definitive, explainable meaning to nearly every film they watch. Personal interpretation? Screw that! "There must be a conspiracy of snobs pretending to get it just to make me feel stupid." You'd get a lot further with these films if you didn't adopt such a defensive attitude to your own inability to understand them (that's something that may change with age, you can't possibly know for sure). I didn't really "get" the first two Bunuel pictures I ever saw, which left me disappointed more in myself than the films, especially since I was hoping to review one for the daily I wrote for at the time and had to skip the effort altogether. A few years later I saw his EXTERMINATING ANGEL (via a crummy print a friend taped off a late-night New York cable TV show called Beatnik Theatre no less), and I guess at that point in my life, that picture made sense to me, and encouraged me to learn more about Bunuel, his methods and his ideologies (and by that I mean read, something some people seem to think should automatically be unnecessary if you just buy a bunch of Criterion DVDs).

I will agree to a small extent about would-be film aesthetes writing as though they "get" a particular film when you know full well they really don't. Their writing usually employs all manner of florid misdirection to disguise the simple truth, even while the writers make other, very legitimate criticisms of the film at hand. Of course, truly knowing that someone is doing this means you actually DO get the film and they don't. Just assuming they don't get it only reveals that you don't get it either. ;)

Who ever said everything is? :confused:

Re: Disappointing Criterions
 

I didn't really care much for 8 1/2 either. I need to see it again but I'm pretty sure I'll feel the same about it.

Same. Except I only have Rushmore right now. I have owned all the Anderson CC discs at one point though.

Me too. I did make headway earlier tonight with Blast of Silence.

I wish I had this one. :(

Re: Disappointing Criterions
 

^ get the mgm release of how to get ahead in advertising. both the mgm and cc are oop, but the mgm is cheap :D

Re: Disappointing Criterions
 

Yeah, I don't know why. I believe the discs are basically identical, with the exception of the packaging and menus -- both are anamorphic, both just have the trailer. I found my Criterion copy of How to Get Ahead in Advertising at a pawnshop for $3. It was awesome.

Re: Disappointing Criterions
 

If you've only seen his later work, you should definitely check out his early, Neo-Realist films like La Strada, Nights of Cabiria, Variety Lights, Il Bidone and I Vitelloni. They're much more accessible and straightforward than 8 1/2, Satyricon and the like. Stylistically, it's really like night and day.

Re: Disappointing Criterions
 

it's not so much being straightforward...i don't need a linear plot to enjoy a film...it's the surrealism that I get lost in and just can't deal with I guess. There's nothing defensive about it, I just think a lot of the so-called masterpieces are pretentious for pretentiousness' sake, deliberately obtuse to confuse the viewer...and i find that annoying. It's in that "well i don't understand any of this so it MUST be brilliant!!" category.

One example of a film i did enjoy immensely in that vein was That Obscure Object of Desire, so i'm not totally averse to Bunuel as i do think that he, unlike Godard, is actually doing and saying something meaningful most of the time, even if it gets a bit difficult to figure out what it is. Godard is just a hot mess imo...as is much of the French New Wave. it was all quite experimental...which is fine...but that doesn't make it good.

I do love the Italian neo-realism, so I intend to see some earlier fellini...i was so turned off by what I did see that i just never bothered. Believe me when I say i'm not averse to thinking during a movie, and in fact prefer it....but I also don't need to suffer through impenetrable gobbledygook about nothing for the sake of being about nothing as a statement on the vacuousness of humanity. It's quite possible to make statements, make us think, etc, AND be coherent, ya know?

Re: Disappointing Criterions
 

as has been noted in this very thread numerous times, Criterion is particularly good at writing their little synopses for covers that make nearly everything sound like a masterpiece of epic importance to cinema - and they do it particularly well with the Japanese fare they are very much in love with.

and again, not that I don't like any of it...I do...I just think the output is a little to skewed towards Japanese film - though that probably has as much to do with what they can get the rights to in the U.S. as much as anything. I would prefer they stop hyping everything they can get the rights to as so dang important though.....sometimes a movie is just something that deserves to be in print and fans of the director/actor/genre etc will appreciate it. I do tire of their habit of trying to make every release so MONUMENTAL.

Re: Disappointing Criterions
 

Well, I for one am eternally grateful to Criterion for introducing me to Yasujiro Ozu who has since become one of my favorite directors of all time. I doubt I ever would have discovered him (or Teshigahara or Mizoguchi) without Criterion's support. I never knew I loved Japanese cinema so much....

Re: Disappointing Criterions
 

I don't like Godard either. I remember watching La Chinoise and thinking how incredibly stupid and arrogant the students were in their ideas and what they had to say about Maoism. Later in the movie they actually contrast this stupidity which made me think that maybe the beginning wasn't 100% serious and the poor opinion of the students was actually the point. After seeing Breathless, The Little Soldier and his History of Cinema I'm leaning towards the opinion that his movies include a lot of glaring pseudo intellectual, poorly thought out and UNEDUCATED views on politics and society. While the characters in his movies can be charming, the movies are well designed and have a lot of energy I find the narrative infuriatingly grating.

Re: Disappointing Criterions
 

I've just started getting into Godard. So far, I've watched Breathless, Pierrot le Fou, Contempt, A Woman is a Woman and Band of Outsiders. Of those, I really enjoyed Pierrot le Fou, Contempt and A Woman is a Woman. I thought Breathless and Band of Outsiders were just okay, even though those might be his most influential. Contempt had B.B, a good score and a real sense of melancholy, while Pierrot le Fou and A Woman is a Woman had eye-popping color and Anna Karina. I enjoyed the unpredictable genre-hopping of Pierrot and the whimsy of A Woman is a Woman. Next on my list are My Life to Live, Alphaville and Made in U.S.A. After reading some comments, I'm not expecting much from Made in U.S.A., but it does feature Karina and the plot seems to be influenced by The Big Sleep, one of my favorite noirs. I figure it's at least worth a watch.

I wonder if Criterion will ever put out Week End? Apparently, there was a poor quality DVD released that shortly went out of print.

Re: Disappointing Criterions
 

this has me thinking, we should have a 'Criterion' challenge ;)

Re: Disappointing Criterions
 

WOW.....thats an awesome movie. I guess each person has different tastes.

Re: Disappointing Criterions
 

Interesting...

Re: Disappointing Criterions
 

The Hidden Fortress. One of the Kurosawa films that needs a re-issue. Only extra is the featurette with modern day directors about it's influence. Maybe a trailer. We need an "It is Wonderful to Create" alongside it, in addition to whatever else they can get.

Re: Disappointing Criterions
 

Well that is their job, isn't it? And frankly, a great deal of the films in their collection have withstood the tests of time and are masterpieces of one genre or another. I suspect you just can't handle the

Show me one non-Criterion company that doesn't gush in some way on the sleeves of their DVDs, for movies ranging from masterpieces to mediocre. At least Criterion assumes it's viewers have intellect, possible educations and even a willingness to learn, unlike most mainstream studios that plaster the most derivative, cringe-inducing hyperbole ("This hot action comedy is guaranteed to keep you on the edge of your seat!"**) and critic quotes ("Will keep you on the edge of your seat with its adrenaline-pumped action!"**) all over the packaging. Yeah, that's a LOT better than what Criterion does, especially since they all do it. Criterion copywriters could only sound high-minded to those who don't understand what all the fuss is about over the titles in the collection, in other words, those who don't "get" half the stuff they see and therefore assume there's nothing to be "got" in the first place. :D

No, they don't. Read enough Criterion sleeves, and you should know better than that.

There's one aspect of this Japanese hangup of Brizz's, however, that I think merits attention, though it's clearly not his/her point whatsoever. I do think Criterion has too many Japanese films IN RELATION TO OTHER ASIAN CINEMAS. Period. I have no problem whatsoever with their Japanese segment, and I've done enough reading to know that all of it is worthy of the praise and consideration they give it, but I do wish there were more films represented from Korea, Hong Kong and Mainland China, and, to a lesser extent, Vietnam. At the same time, though, the scholarship of those industries has always lagged behind that of Japanese cinema, often logically so, whether we like it or not.


Again, this is a silly (and entirely subjective) argument, clearly rooted in a sense of not belonging to "the club" (which doesn't really exist), and one that holds no water as soon as you read the sleeve copy dreamed up by every other studio and distributor on the marketplace.

In the end, it's about marketing and branding. And Criterion does it with more dignity and respect than almost anyone else, and largely because they're right. It's far more offensive to see Warners or Anchor Bay or Fox or you-name-it rehashing the same breathless praise and pull-quotes from critics of dubious provenance on some of the most god-awful direct-to-video slop. To think that anyone could be so put off by Criterion after seeing all the pap copy lining the shelves of a local blockbuster just makes me sad.


** These quotes were pulled from an actual DVD I just grabbed from the shelf. It's not one of mine, but it's hardly the masterpiece of action and suspense that Columbia Tri-Star would have me believe it is. Funny that . . .

Re: Disappointing Criterions
 

They also have yet to release a single animated film, and have only a couple of silent and Western titles in the collection.

Re: Disappointing Criterions
 

Pierrot le Fou is the one Godard I think I might like that I intend on seeing at some point...i've seen most of his criterion pictures, but if there's anything I will enjoy Pierrot le Fou seems to be it from what I've read about it...we'll see.

And BrianT - i don't give a shit about being in whatever club you think i'm jealous of...i'm 39, have a Ph.D., and thus have endured far more than many peoples' share of pretentiousness, having an academic career and all - i'm surrounded by it!! ;) My comments are just that...personal opinion on a message board, and i'm clearly not alone in thinking that they tend to go overboard in their hyping of some of their more mediocre releases. But again, those that fall into this category are in the minority, and as I said originally i've been able to at the very least appreciate most everything I've seen...and indeed own 50+ CC discs with at least that many others on my wishlist. they have introduced me to plenty i would have otherwise never seen, and I'm as big a fan as the company as anyone. I fully understand that what's mediocre to me may be awesome to someone else...and vice versa. Equinox is a great example - many purists feel it is a pox on the holy spine numbers...I think it is a great little landmark piece of cinema and it's high on my wishlist to own (i've seen it, but haven't bought it yet)....yet i've read plenty of disparaging comments about how 'unworthy' it is to be in the collection. Frankly, I have very little tolerance for that kind of righteousness.

BUT, this thread was about what we didn't like...and what i've been disappointed with are Godard/French New Wave and their over-reliance/hyping of Japanese cinema, despite having enjoyed many in the latter category. I wish it were a bit more balanced (and agree there should be more from Korea, etc) That's not exactly a unique opinion....westerns, for instance, are pathetically absent, despite their being a number of important films remaining unreleased in that category.

Re: Disappointing Criterions
 

It isn't as if Criterion is consciously choosing to exclude films of Africa or the Middle East, or silent films, or Westerns. The under-representation of certain regions or genres has much more to do with rights and availability issues than anything else (something you mentioned in an earlier post). Not that it's a bad thing, but Criterion's close relationship with Janus Films is a significant limiting factor on the films they do ultimately release.

Also, I don't understand why you think there's an "over-reliance/hyping of Japanese cinema" at Criterion. A significant percentage of the Criterion Collection may be Japanese films, but I don't see that as "over-relying" on it, especially when considering that Japanese cinema is one of the three pillars of film alongside French and American.

In fact, Criterion has released far more French films than Japanese, so why aren't they "over-relying" on French films instead?

Re: Disappointing Criterions
 

I think it may just seem like that cuz of Kurosawa films. He has probably the most prominent name in their collection.

Re: Disappointing Criterions
 

You sure gave enough of a shit to write an unprovoked post slagging them in a thread that really has nothing to do with them. Like here:

It just seemed out of place to me. And grossly presumptuous for someone of what I now know (or assume) to be your academic standing. :(

That makes two of us. Same age, even. And all.



Personal opinion on the one hand. Broad generalization on the other (see above). The implication I get from this is that I, or people like me, might somehow believe that majorities are automatically correct, which I don't. I simply don't believe that anyone can hold up Criterion as worse than any other studio when it comes to promoting the value of their products, especially when their products are fine examples of world cinema (regardless of various sub-categories in which they are known to come up wanting for releases). And Criterion has fewer (well, none in my eyes, but you knew that) mediocre films in their collection than any other label. Just because a film is obtuse and alienates certain viewers, or isn't of a high technical standard, that doesn't mean it has no place in the collection. Sometimes, the value goes beyond what the filmmakers give us into the realm of what we take away from it, or how, or why. I think Criterion does a good job of sourcing pictures that work on those levels.



I think EQUINOX was a near-perfect selection for the Criterion Collection. Same goes for CARNIVAL OF SOULS, THE BLOB, the Richard and Alex Gordon films in the MONSTERS AND MADMEN box and all the other "B-movies" they've included. I'm sure everyone could bandy about the names of similar such movies that might be equally worthy of inclusion, or arguably more worthy, but these particular films and their CC kin, for whatever flaws people have found in them over the years prior to their inclusion in the collection, still stand as textbook examples of their genres. It's not all about being "masterpieces" in the Criterion Collection, nor does the sleeve copy on every single release come off like that. It's often just as much about being an ideal representative of a greater genre, time period, ideology, whatever.

I bought a Criterion last year called SWEET MOVIE. Watched it cold, mostly understood it, but still wasn't fond of it, but thanks to the thought provoking extras on the disc and in the booklet, I nonetheless came away thoroughly convinced of it's importance to its director, its time period, its country of origin, and cinema in general. I still traded it off, but like all the Criterions I've kept or traded or sold, I'd highly recommend it. Not because I'm some high-minded snob who "got it"--that took work, actually--but because it IS an important film on so many levels, just not one that I'd personally revisit. There are many in the collection like that.



I guess we just see a similar "problem" (in quotes because I don't believe it is one) from different perspectives. I don't see it as overhyping at all when a company's "Asian quotient" is largely represented by films from Japan only--if that's all they have at the moment, that's what they're going to be known for. Big deal. Instead, I see it as an imbalance, and that's something I have bitched about both in a couple of forums including this one (can't remember the thread) and in print in a daily newspaper column. I think, no, I know, that Hong Kong cinema gets the shaft when it comes to its international reputation and it's "importance" to international film language, so naturally I feel Criterion would be an ideal label to rectify that, beyond the occasional Wong Kar-wai movie. Korean cinema has generally been better represented and studied internationally, though certainly not by Criterion. :(


Can't disagree there. ;)

Re: Disappointing Criterions
 

Bingo!

We can moan about what's not in the collection until the 12th of never, but what's there is there for a definite reason.


They must be, by Brizz's standards. :confused:

Re: Disappointing Criterions
 

if we are able to get criterion to sponsor it on this site. that would rule :D

Re: Disappointing Criterions
 

I haven't been able to finish both 'Jubilee' and 'The Tin Drum'. I've attempted 'The Tin Drum' on three separate occasions just KNOWING I'll love the hell out of it, but I fall asleep every time. At least I can say it's a hypnotic film - maybe I'll take another stab at it soon.

As far as Criterions I was flat-out disappointed with and/or were of large mediocrity:

Man Bites Dog - I almost want to say its sole intent was to achieve cult-classicism

The Ice Storm - I saw very little importance with this one.

Cries and Whispers - striking visuals and color symbolism, compelling story, but excruciating pacing and gut-wrenching sound focus with a poor support cast I thought. My least favorite Bergman experience.

If... - one dull moment after another, with an ending that should've been 10 times more powerful.

Ivan's Childhood - never have I seen a film with such brilliant cinematography have such little impact with tedious visual story-telling.

Equinox - I guess it takes a certain horror/fantasy film fan to truly appreciate this one.

The Life Aquatic - fun and adventurous; but really, I do wonder sometimes how many dicks Wes Anderson has sucked to get his entire catalogue on the Criterion front.

Walker - even though I'm fully aware of Alex Cox's almost slap-sticky play on politics and society, I just couldn't absorb this one with satisfaction.

The Man Who Fell To Earth - I really hope I'm not the only one who didn't understand this feature, nor do I really want to attempt to comprehend any of it. Sad, because Roeg is one of my favorite directors.

La Commare Secca - acceptable as student film status maybe, but this monotonous story-telling feature came off as super pretentious to me.

Salo - more significant as a piece of cinematic history, but I don't feel this had to abherrently stretch 3+ hours.

Armageddon - wtf

The Rock - wtf x2

Re: Disappointing Criterions
 

This thread makes me laugh.

By the title, I assumed it was about Criterion discs that weren't up to snuff, with either poor transfers or extras.

But instead, people seem to be discussing the movies, as if Criterion made them. Which makes no sense to me.

It would make more sense to have a thread called "Disappointing Warner Bros." since WB actually makes the movies they put out.