Complacent Elitist Ennui.

LOL. ;)

Remember, not even Criterion has the Midas touch - not everything they release turns into gold. ;)

Your link requires registration apparently.

I've picked up at least a couple superior non-criterion editions - "In the Mood For Love" R2 UK comes to mind. Robocop as well (not going to get into the aspect ratio debate on that one right now - looking primarily at quality/extras). Hard Boiled has also been superseded.

"High and Low" is an incredible movie (one of my favorite Kurosawa flicks), but the criterion transfer (sadly like all other versions out there) is pretty pathetic. This one is way past overdue for an overhaul a la Seven Samurai. Some extras this time around sure wouldn't hurt either.

That is as pretentious of a statement as they come. Aside from his New Wave period Godard's films are hardly about characters. What thesps would you be talking about in Notre Musique?

Pro-B

Agree 100%.

In fact, I would go as far as to note that about 80% of all titles Criterion have released could be found on better versions overseas.

Pro-B

Did you simply pull this figure out of your ass? Roughly 320 out of 421 Criterions have superior versions available in other regions? That seems a ridiculous statement, especially if one factors in the entire package: transfer, extras, essays/books, etc.

I think you misinterpret Criterions goal. They release important films, that doesn't mean they are all good, and it certainly doesn't mean everyone will like them. But good is also highly subjective. Anyway, I've always felt, if a piece of art can inspire hate, then it's done something right. After all the point of all art is to arouse emotion. Ask any artist and they will be quite happy to know someone detests their work.

For better or worse every film criterion released, or will release, is important. They also back up all of these releases, usually with essays or interviews, showing the importance of the film. They can not be faulted for explaining their position, which most companies don't do.

Your fooling yourself if you don't believe every film will get a better release at some point, if just because technology improves. Every Criterion release has been very good to incredible for its time.

There wouldn't even be an argument if Criterion's disc were cheaper, but they aren't so there is no use complaining about that. If the discs sold better you bet they would be cheaper. Just look at their more mainstream films.

I will say this, the use of the word pretentious by anyone is never a good thing because you just fulfill the definition.

Well, I did, in fact, use the term "WORTHWHILE," not "GOOD," which could just be another way of saying "IMPORTANT" and not just a reflection on a title's quality. As such, I stand by my original statement that Criterion's misguided emphasis on a flawed interpretation of the auteur theory results in some lackluster releases under the superficial veneer of importance. I hardly think EVERY Criterion release is important, but I do believe their marketing works overtime to perpetuate that idea.

As with most things in life it's all subjective, but I can't imagine any serious student or fan of milestone films of any sort making the case that the Michael Bay releases are "important" in any way, shape or form. At the time Criterion tried very hard to justify their inclusion in the line, but they were so obviously done for purely commercial reasons that Criterion only embarrasses themselves in their attempt to elevate their stature. No matter how you may subjectively choose to interpret the word IMPORTANT, there can be no application of it toward ARMAGEDDON whatsoever other than the importance of making Criterion money. This goes back to my original statement that no matter how they try to promote themselves or how many blindly devoted fans choose to see them, they are still a business, not a museum.

However, having said all that, I hasten to add that the majority of the titles they have released do merit the considerable attention and affection they lavish upon them. My only quibble is with those who think they can do no wrong.

Happy New Year everyone!

Unless you're a serious student who's interested in the history of the Hollywood blockbuster, changes in cinematography and editing techniques in mainstream cinema, etc. You might not like them, but from that perspective Bay's films are pretty important.

I suppose if one tries hard enough a case could be made for almost any movie to be deemed "IMPORTANT." I still believe Criterion was being a bit disingenuous trying to fit Bay's films into their "Collection," so
we can agree to disagree on the value of his films and leave it at that. If you like them that's enough and in the end should be all that matters. :)

I suppose that should read "Unless you're a serious student that has never heard of Tony Scott..."

There is nothing impressive about Bay's filmmaking or films other than their Box Office gross. Now, although you did not say serious film student, so I suppose a serious marketing major may want to check out some of Bay's films and why they make money (answer: B/C they are dumbed down [loud and pointless] for the masses).

Your post makes it sound like Bay ushered in some sort of new era of editing/cinematography. In fact, all he does is crib Tony Scott to ill-effect, which is equivalent to an "author" plagarizing a 1st grader's english paper and mispelling 'cat.'

But, I do not think whether or not a "serious student" would ever study a director is a good gauge. I mean hell, Tim Burton made an entire film about Ed Wood because of how bad of a director was. So, I would never put it past a budding cinephile to try to pull the "look at me prove how this horrible director is great b/c my perception of film is so advanced only I see it" card with Bay.

Bay's films are the least thought-provoking images ever burnt on a disc by Criterion including their color bars.

That borders on sig-worthy.

If only it were as simple as that. There are plenty of "loud and pointless" movies that don't make money.

Who said Criterion movies had to be thought-provoking? Bay is an easy target because his movies are so unapologetically lowbrow, but he has a terrific eye and whether one likes them or not, his films ARE influential and successful, thus arguably "important." I like that Criterion introduces a wide variety of films into their lineup. The release of ARMAGEDDON, CHASING ARMY, and other mainstream titles allows more obscure, truly great films like GEORGE WASHINGTON or TASTE OF CHERRY to receive attention they would have otherwise lacked. Plus, having THE BLOB sit alongside WILD STRAWBERRIES might challenge some people's rigid evaluative criteria.

"Horrible" according to whom? This entire thread clearly demonstrates that everyone has an opinion and everyone has a different idea of what makes a great film or filmmaker. If someone wants to make a case for Bay as a great director, let him or her try to make it. Although they'd probably have an easier time with Tony Scott, who has been releasing some of the most interesting (if uneven) films in recent Hollywood history. But that's another story.

^ 1st point: Well I guess Bay's are just the loudest and most pointless.

2nd point: Please validate your assessment of Bay's movies as "influential". Who exactly is he influencing with his loud, explosion laden films? Again, if you are going to use the way he cuts, see Scott. Also, feel free to give examples of Bay's "terrific eye," do you mean he has a great eye for what to blow-up? He does nothing original or different other than make films without plots. Sorry, but successful does not even remotely equate to "arguably 'important'" Box office numbers do not make a film good. Just because a lot of people like something does not make it "important" or even worthwhile, at best it makes the movie accessible to the masses and nothing more.
For the record, I think the variety Criterion offers is great, excepting the Bay movies, I have found all of their entries in their collection worthwhile for one reason or another. I just find Bay's films so much worse than any other film in the Criterion Collection.

3rd point: Horrible as in there is a general consensus as taken in the context of my Ed Wood comment.

While not every Criterion title is to my tastes, and some 'extras' are better than others, the one thing I wish they would stop doing is 'window-boxing' 1:33 films - supremely annooying...

I just saw your rather derogatory comment and would like to reply to it. No, I did not fabricate anything. Below I am going to respond to another post with some specific examples (in fact almost a year ago I started compiling a thorough list with superior editions of Criterion discs, including the UPC codes for each release, but DVDProfiler updated with a newer version and I abandoned the project. In any event, I stand behind my post above, I did not supply a random number.

Pro-B

1. Godard, Le Mepris. Better Momentum UK disc, even better newer French disc.

2. Bergman, The Seventh Seal. Better Tartan restored disc.

3. Godrard, Alphaville, better French disc.

4. Michael Powell & Emeric Pressburger - all releases by WB-France are better than the Criterion discs.

5. Cavani. Better anamorphic Night Porter in the UK (regardless of what other sites claim).

6. Varda. Cleo...and Vagabond, better discs in France.

7. Bay's duffs are also better, just about in any other region.

8. Bunuel. Dairy of a chambermaid. Better Studio Canal.WB.

.....let's look at some of the newer titles....

9. Melville. With the exception of Army of Shadows all other Criterion discs are off.

10. Kurosawa. Ran. Studio Canal has a better print.

11. Renoir. La Bete Humaine. French disc isn't pictureboxed.

12. Germi. Seduced and Abandoned. Better Cristaldi-Italia disc.

13. Powell, The 49 Parallel. WB-France.

etc.

I could keep going on and on. It comes down to how much you know the foreign market(s) when it comes to the catalog Criterion boasts.

Ciao,
Pro-B

Wow someone with an anti-Criterion agenda, there's a novel concept on this forum. Half of your examples are highly arguable/downright ridiculous. By the way, you know your username is like right there beside your post rite?

Indeed. I had nothing else to do so I initiated an anti-Criterion campaign. So, please disregard what I wrote since I also do not own the discs I addressed and more than likely have no idea what I am talking about. It is nonsense.

Ciao,
Pro-B

Defensive much?
Let's look at some of these:

1. Godard, Le Mepris. Better Momentum UK disc, even better newer French disc.
Maybe, but does it have the Crit commentary, plus the second disc of archival interviews?

2. Bergman, The Seventh Seal. Better Tartan restored disc.
True. But does it have the Crowie commentary?

6. Varda. Cleo...and Vagabond, better discs in France.
You know perfectly well these are being reissued this month, this is just misleading and trying to stack the deck.

9. Melville. With the exception of Army of Shadows all other Criterion discs are off.
All are off? Crit's Les Enfants Terrible is far superior to the BFI and even ports the commentary over.

11. Renoir. La Bete Humaine. French disc isn't pictureboxed.
Why not list every Criterion from the last year if this is going to be your criterion (pun intended) for what makes a bad release.

13. Powell, The 49 Parallel. WB-France.
Again, can't compete with Criterion's extras.

See, I know perfectly well about foreign markets and I don't particularly like being talked down to with the pompous "If you knew anything" attitude. There are definitely several titles in far superior editions overseas-- Le Cerce Rouge and Kwaidan for instance, and I'm not arguing that Criterion is always right. But compared to any other R1 arthouse releaser, there is no contest, repeat, no contest, no competition for the supplements they produce and taken on average as a whole, their transfers

Ciao,
Dom-H

No need to be defensive, as I don't consider what I have written to be a fabrication as you implied.


Shall we?

No, it does not. But I could hardly justify owning a superior Criterion disc where the picture quality is so off any extras would be a moot point to argue about.

You are going to have to come up with a different refutation to convince me that all it takes to negate an inferior transfer is a single commentary. News-flash: the Tartan disc has more valuable extras than the Criterion.

Have you seen the new transfers or did you just assume that because it is Criterion that releases them they automatically are better? It seem so.

By a lot!

It isn't superior to the French disc. Unless you read DVDBeaver.

And pun considered. I have gone out of my way to buy the discs I wanted from Criterion's catalog in other regions. Picture-boxing is an issue for me and no matter how much you downgrade its presence it is a major gaffe with Criterion's recent output I am unwilling to tolerate. Extras hardly matter when it comes to superior picture quality. First and foremost I am interested in the best possible quality a film is offered with and yes picture-boxing is a good enough, credible reason, to dismiss the majority of their recent products.


The rest of your points are just as easy to rebut. Regardless of how desperately you try to state that Criterion's superiority is justifiable with the inclusion of notable extras.

Pro-B

Pretentious? I wasn't even posting anything negative about his films. I think you have to realize that everything everyone writes on these forums is an opinion. You seem to have a problem with that.

I thought I'd bump this thread and give my opinion on a few Criterions I've seen. Please note that I haven't seen the actual Criterion DVDs of the following films (With the exception of The Night Porter), I've only seen the films on television stations like TCM, IFC, and Ovation.

The Honeymoon Killers – I thought the story was kind of lame (I know it was based on true events) and the editing seemed real jumpy. I also thought it had a very poor soundtrack.
Traffic – I wasn’t very impressed with this. I didn’t like any of the characters and there wasn’t anything in the movie that I hadn’t seen before in other drug movies.
Solaris – I thought it was just boring.
Samurai Rebellion – I thought it was pretty boring. I made it up to the 40-minuet mark, then fast-forwarded to the end.
Alexander Nevsky – I don’t think it was a bad movie, but I couldn’t get into it. Maybe someday I’ll give it a rewatch.
Pandora’s Box – I didn’t think it was very interesting and at times the soundtrack didn’t really seem to go along with what was happening on screen.
The Rules of the Game – It was all right, but I didn’t find the story very interesting.
Man Bites Dog – I wasn’t really impressed with it. I don’t have anything against black and white film, but the use of it here just looked real odd.
Throne of Blood – I just couldn’t get into it. I even rewatched it thinking my opinion might change, but I still didn’t like it.
Knife in the Water – Again, another movie I didn’t find the plot (as well as the characters) to be interesting and kind of boring. I didn’t like the hitchhiker character and thought he was a prick. Throughout the movie, I kept scratching my head as to why Andrzej brought him along. Although on the plus side, Andrzej’s wife was pretty cute.
Umberto D. – It was good, but my god was it depressing. I don’t think I would watch it again if I bought it.
Mafioso – It wasn’t bad, but I don’t think I would ever watch it again.
The Night Porter - I wasn’t disappointed with the movie itself (although it was kind of odd) but I was disappointed by the lack of extras and the poor quality of the print.

Man that's a lot of disliked Criterions. Can I have the ones you guys don't like? I only own about 10 and love all of them.

The only Criterion films I've been dissapointed with were the two Jane Campion films. And I have no idea why I am so put off by these two movies.

Everything else I've purchased from them has been a blast, film wise, though there were a few were I wish I had rented, due to high price and lack of extras, and a few which required more than one viewing to understand or like.

Of all of these I have not seen Mafioso, Pandora’s Box & Samurai Rebellion.
I own all the rest and I have to disagree with you on all counts.
The only thing I agree with is that the sound on The Honeymoon Killers is poor. This is due to the fact that it was a low budget film & the audio elements were in very bad shape.

Big E said he never saw the criterion DVDs. He saw the movies on TV, so it's impossible to judge the sound then or the Criterion release at all. All he can judge if he likes the movie but that has nothing to do with the quality of the criterion DVDs.

Dirk

Fishing With John

Not even sure why this is a Criterion DVD. It's basically a cult TV series starring John Lurie and his hipster friends like Tom Waits and Willem Dafoe sitting around fishing and trying to come up with cool things to say.

I like everyone in it but they come across as smug and self important.

I will say it is the weirdest DVD I own.

'Samurai Rebellion' is fantastic...

'Solaris' was boring?...

rotfl
:up:

You should probably stop watching films. Or perhaps just stick to shit by Michael Bay and Roland Emmerich.

It took you 6 months to come up with that post?

Yes. Since he didn't like five particular films, he should definitely stop watching movies altogether.

:rolleyes:

= J

Samurai Rebellion is brilliant. A great movie all around.

Actually, to be honest, I don't like a number of Louis Malle films. His American and Indian documentaries were fascinating, and Elevator to the Gallows a classic, but his French documentaries, and the contents of the boxed set, did nothing for me. I'm still eagerly awaiting my order of Lovers, and watching The Fire Within this morning. I also wasn't too keen on the Stage and Spectacle box, and Overlord, and lately, I find my opinion of Rashomon dropping and dropping and dropping.

Unless you know the movie, rent before you buy. They are too expensive to buy blind. (the original bigE)!

I wish Criterion would have put more work into their W.C. Fields 6 Short films DVD.

- All 6 films are interlaced instead of progressive
- No digital dirt/scratch removal (kind of a shame since the photographic quality is excellent)
- The Dentist has the TV re-issue soundtrack with dubbed-in music
- The Fatal Glass of Beer, The Pharmacist, and The Barber Shop have the TV re-issue opening/closing titles (which were fixed on The Dentist)
- Totally bare-bones except for an essay.

It would be neat to have a special edition with the films encoded progressive, with digital cleanup, original sound on The Dentist, original titles on the other shorts, and commentaries.

Even better, check them out from your local city or county library! The Phoenix Public Library has an amazing selection of Criterion films. The libraries of Portland, OR had lots of Criterions too. If you search your library's online catalogue you might be surprised.

It's more planned out and less spontaneous than most people realize. Though Tom Waits really did get pissed off at John Lurie, that's genuine.