Yup. I'd like to hear some examples of these "better versions".

Here is a thread of "better versions" of criterion titles.

I have about 90 Criterions and only a couple are available in other editions.At least in Region 1.My biggest disappointment was Berlin Alexanderplatz.I've never been a big Fassbinder fan but this a big bore.And I know it's the best print that exists but it's still terrible.

I'm trying to keep out of this thread but the BA print looks spectacular for a 16mm TV print that was neglected for years. Why in the world would you spend copious amounts of bucks on BA if you didn't even like Fassbinder?

You don't even have to leave the country to find one -- Anchor Bay's The Long Good Friday.

The Criterion edition is non-anamorphic and bare-bones apart from a trailer. AB's is anamorphic, has a commentary, a substantial documentary, a Cockney-English dictionary, and the screenplay. It even comes with an essay.

DVD Beaver says that the Criterion is slightly sharper, but other reviewers (including DVD Savant and Preston Jones) give AB the clear edge.

I didn't buy it-I rented it.

Ah, my mistake.

I just saw Eyes Without A Face, a great film. Reminds me of "Zombie Holocaust" almost.

Days of Heaven

I read the reviews thought it would be an interesting film. Terrible is all I can say....

Andrei Rublev
 

ANDREI RUBLEV was ponderous, monotonous and ugly. Add to that some excruciating and always unnecessary animal cruelty and you have a very sad experience watching this DVD.

RUBLEV himself was a fascinating historical enigma and I normally enjoy exhaustive tales of Russian history that drag on as long as their winters, but this film was just too weary and bleak. I think the depiction of the period is quite vivid and realistic and I appreciate the efforts to make it so, but the expression of it lacked any soul, completely negating the purpose of RUBLEV's actual art.

The trouble with Criterion is that like most pretentious cinephiles they invest nothing but blind faith in the oft misinterpreted auteur theory that claims EVERY film by an auterist is worthwhile.

Extending that same sort of misguided trust in every single Crterion DVD is equal folly. Although they like to perpetuate the impression that they are not a business entity, they do have a bottom line and are not above releasing crap under the guise of something more significant. On the whole I think they do a fine job and adhere to a mission statement of quality, even if it's only one imposed by its most fervent fanyboy acolytes. But at the end of the day I wouldn't place them on the pedestal many do if only because no company deserves that kind of implicit devotion, especially one that too cleverly exploits the OCD of collectors with silly things like spine numbers. It's all part of the show, folks!

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.