davidh777

For this challenge, I watch pretty much all of it by myself.

Other challenges vary, but I don't really have any "movie buddies" other than my family (though I could, if I made the effort). One of my "challenges within a challenge" is to get the family to watch something that I can get "credit" for. The kids understand that these exist, and roll their eyes when they think I'm suggesting something just because it qualifies (it also has to be something I want to watch and think they would enjoy, of course). One recently asked me what I "get" for these challenges, and when I explained that I don't really get anything except maybe an occasional prize, I didn't raise my standing at all.

LJG765

I am going to try to watch this today. I will definitely have to keep an eye out for his thighs!

I like to rewatch films, but usually only after a break. As a kid, I could watch and watch and watch, right after each other, but now, I tend to wait at least a month or two between. Maybe next year I'll revisit and see if that helps. I do agree it's a good film, I just wonder if I'd think it was a great film if I could focus more on the picture. I did notice a lot of good staging and shadow usage-like when

tschneck

This documentary is actually on Netflix as well. Great doc but the dudes accent gets to me. Sounds like he saying every sentence as a question.

popcorn

Just my luck! In a good way! I go to film class tonight and what does the professor queue up? The Criterion Collection version of M! Glad I didn't watch it yet.

xizor42

I started off the challenge by completely ignoring my list. The wife was up and in the mood to watch something so I threw in For All Mankind. I dug it quite a bit. I thought it was intresting the way they used many astronauts stories to tell the narative of what one trip was like.

Travis McClain

I liked the idea of For All Mankind, and of course the footage from the moon was spectacular, but I found myself wishing for some on-screen text cues to let me know which segment was from which mission. After about 20 minutes, I found I sort of zoned out and just looked at the pictures without having any meaningful feel for the human element involved - which, I believe, was the editorial intent of the doc in the first place.

Travis McClain

In addition to Kent Jones's 2009 essay, I also read the excerpt from the original Rolling Stone piece, "The Last Celluloid Desperado". Higgins was discussed pretty well there, and did pique my interest. Still, my to-read list is already annoyingly long and I've been stuck on the same novel for nearly an entire calendar year now. It's unlikely I'll get to it any time soon.

tschneck

I knew there was a reason I've been collecting criterions for the last year (I luck out and get a bunch from local buy &.sells and flea markets) and this challenge is it.

I wanted to start out with some classics that I have read about on here so I started with Rashomon(I dug it) and Salo (now that's something I can't unwatch and this comes from a guy who's pretty much seen it all), got in Safety Last(I love the old silents and I'm a huge Buster Keaton fan but after this, Lloyd is right up there with him for me), and I just finished The Killer and absolutely loved it!

I have Hard Boiled so I think that will be next for me but what else can I watch that matches the emotion and excitement of The Killer?

Ash Ketchum

I don't think you'll be asking that after HARD-BOILED. You'll be so satisfied you won't be asking for anything else.

But to answer your question, you might want to check out Jean-Pierre Melville's LE SAMOURAI (1967), which is one of the inspirations for THE KILLER. It's not as violent or intense (what is?), but is more stylized. And it's a Criterion.

CardiffGiant

It's been some time since I watched it, but I remember feeling disconnected from the film, which is unfortunate considering that I have strong interest in the subject matter. I think the footage could have been used more effectively than it was.

I just took a peek at TCM and everyone with access to the channel should check it out. Tonight (Tuesday) Haxan and The Phantom Carriage are on. For all of you checklist purists, you can get the 1920s solidly out of the way. I'm going to record Haxan, which I've never seen, I already own the BD of The Phantom Carriage. Haxan airs at 2:00AM EST and The Phantom Carriage at 5:15AM EST.

CardiffGiant

So, I just watched Kind Hearts and Coronets and you can see my full review in my list (see signature), but I just did not connect with the film. Anyone else watch it and have this experience? I have seen it listed consistently in the Top Ten British Films of all time, often ahead of Lawrence of Arabia and The Red Shoes. I'm not in love with black comedies, but I don't hate them either. I get the premise of the film, I just felt unmoved by most of the characters. I just tended to not care what happened to the characters and I only laughed one time and it was in a moment of physical humor.

So, please, convince me that I'm wrong and the long line of critics are correct.

ororama

I think that I have all the TV episodes that were released in the US, but apparently that was just the first season, and there were three or four more seasons (reportedly there were 100 episodes). My son and I have only watched the first six movies in the series, but at the end of last month he asked to watch more, so we'll get to at least a few.

mrcellophane

Monday afternoon, I had quite an experience watching Summer Hours (2008), a French film about a wealthy family dealing with their deceased mother’s art collection and house. I got the BD quite some time ago during an Amazon sale but never watched it. So I’m watching the film with my brother-in-law, and it suddenly sputters to a stop exactly halfway through. We try gently cleaning it and using it in another player, but always with the same result. Thankfully, it is streaming on Amazon Prime so we were able to finish up. The experience was frustrating, but it also cemented in my mind the need for physical media. The BD’s detail and clarity were leaps and bounds above the streaming version.

The film links family dynamics with both “The Arts” and national identity. The main conflict is heightened by the fact that two of the three children and their families no longer identify themselves as French. They are not nostalgic (though they will ransack Mom’s house for “worthless” objects before selling it) and think pragmatically. The art is caught up in the family drama, with two seeing the family inheritance in terms of monetary value and one seeing it as intrinsically part of the family.

Ultimately, the film does not offer any easy answers to its questions, and really catalogues the way families often operate as a business in which the members hold an varying degrees of interest. It also looks at how art is mercurial, part of private collections, museums, the economy, and national identity. One of my favorite little scenes has the museum’s board going over the donation. One of the committee members looks disapprovingly at the objects and tersely states that he dislikes Art Nouveau furniture because pieces are often too costly to display and simply sit in a vault somewhere. Scenes like this made me think of Sarah Thornton’s book Seven Days in the Art World which looks at the odd way art is handled in the modern world. (Fascinating read, by the way.)

I had to chuckle at the scene where Hélène gives Frédéric the list of important pieces and their values. I drew up a similar list for my family earlier this year (just in case I get hit by a bus or something), but instead of grand pieces of art, mine included OOP Criterions, anime sets, and books.

ororama

The Andy Warhol's part of the title of both these movies was for commercial purposes only, as he had nothing to do with their production. Paul Morrissey asserts that he, not Warhol, was the creative force behind the movies that he directed that were sold using Warhol's name, and I imagine that might be debatable as to the movies that were shot in New York. These two horror movies were shot in Europe and it is my understanding that after they were finished it was agreed that adding Warhol's name would help in selling the movies, and they were major hits. It appears that Morrissey is entitled to all of the credit (or blame) for Frankenstein and Dracula.

Sondheim

Well, there is no "right" or "wrong" when it comes to personal responses to a work of art (but I'm sure you already knew that.)

With that said, I really love Kind Heart and Coronets.

I'm not sure I can put up a great defense for it though - it's just one of the first British comedies that really connected with me. I love its pitch-black sense of humor ("I shot an arrow into the air - she fell to Earth in Berkeley square.") I also Alec Guinness' multiple roles - of course, I love Alec Guinness in practically everything, but I think he's at his absolute best here.

I also think it's a pretty brilliant and savage (if not particularly subtle) satire of British aristocracy. As for sympathizing with any of the characters - I don't think you're supposed to connect much with the people he kills, since they're mostly made out to be pretty decadent and degenerate - completely undeserving of their place in society. On the other hand, I do kind of sympathize with Dennis Price's "protagonist" - he is the victim of injustice after all. Of course, he also turns out to be completely evil - and he also becomes a target of the film's satire and ridicule - but you can understand why he would be angry.

So, basically, I love it for its audacity, for its humor, and for Alec Guinness. That probably doesn't help you, though, since those are all pretty subjective impressions (I've never been very good at defending films that I love.)

Out of curiosity, have you seen any of the other Ealing comedies? Even if you didn't like this one, I'd recommend giving The Lavender Hill Mob and The Ladykillers (neither is in the collection, unfortunately) a try at some point in the future. They've all got a similarly dark sense of humor, but they're different enough that you still might enjoy them even if you disliked Kind Hearts.

ororama

It's been a few years since I watched these two movies (probably a past Horror Challenge). I watched Frankenstein first, but I liked Dracula much better. I think the main reason was Udo Kier's performance. He was funny in Frankenstein, but was funny and moving in Dracula. Paul Morrissey obviously loved to shock, but in these films the established plots gave the movies a much stronger structure than improvisational movies like Bad, Trash and Heat, and he took these plots to their extremes, creating a more maniacal Frankenstein and a more tragic Dracula than you see in most versions of these stories.

Travis McClain

I had a very intimate and visceral reaction to that film when I watched it in 2011. That was during my Year of Hell, less than three weeks before I was forced to check into a mental health facility over my suicidal depression. I had spent an entire year by that point inventorying what my "legacy" would be, and anticipating how each person would react, etc. I really connected with the idea that ultimately, things are only things and their value is entirely arbitrary. This desk is valuable because it belonged to someone in the family; that painting, because a museum is willing to buy it.

I was particularly struck by how focused the film was from start to finish on processing grief strictly in materialistic terms. Only once do we see Frédéric weep, and never his siblings. Yet, because of what we see of the family, this doesn't appear to be dysfunction. It's simply that they're a pragmatic lot, connected to one another as suits them and their relationships, rather than following the paradigm of previous generations who lived within a stone's throw of one another. That, too, resonated with me as I thought of my relationship with my brother. We might go a month or so without any contact at all, but we've never once had a falling out or anything. It's just the nature of our relationship. He does his thing, I do mine.

Right after I saw it in 2011, I wrote a piece about the film for Flickchart, which you can read here if you're interested to see what my perspective was at the time. (Full disclosure: At present, I receive no payment from any page views, shares or anything else. I share this purely for the sake of the content.)

Through supplemental materials, I really connected with 8 1/2 during that year's challenge, but truthfully L'heure d'été was the top standout for me in 2011.

ororama

I wouldn't have to think twice-Maggie Cheung. She has long been one of my favorite actresses, although I recently realized that I've seen a lot more of her early roles in comedies than the serious roles that made her reputation.

She was runner up to Miss Hong Kong in 1983, and I wondered who the winner could have been, but subsequently read that she had very bad teeth, and that Jackie Chan had them fixed when he cast her in Police Story.

Travis McClain

Well, firstly, anyone who places it ahead of Lawrence of Arabia lacks credibility so ignore those people.



Agreed. It's very much a populist film, but it's also very much a specifically British populist film. I think it requires more than a passing familiarity with that embittered perspective to truly appreciate. The family comes off as self-indulgent twits, which of course they are, but they're the truest definition of the "e" word that has become the most scathing epithet in society ("entitled").

Another vote for Blood for Dracula > Flesh for Frankenstein from someone who saw Frankenstein first!

Agreed. Plus, as I think I mentioned earlier, there's something about the Dracula mythos that I think lend themselves more readily to Morrisey's interpretation.

mrcellophane

I'm a big fan of the film, but can see why it wouldn't be universally liked. It is a comical indictment of British aristocracy as well as the conniving upwardly-mobiles. It's also so incredibly British that I could not resist it. (I'm something of an Anglo-phile.) I will confess that it has been a number of years since I last watched the film so I cannot really get into the particulars of why I liked it. I do remember liking that the film never pulls its punches and also provides some fun commentary on the hobbies and foibles of the upper class.

Excellent remarks! I need to revisit the film. If you like Alec Guinness, you should watch Last Holiday (1950) if you haven't already. It was part of one of those Essential Art House sets. Definitely worth checking out. Guinness gives a wonderful performance.

ororama

I'm a missionary. I don't permit too much talking or fooling around, but I want to share the movies. It's hit and miss whether my wife will watch, but my older son almost always wants to watch. My daughter can be picky, and will often skip movies that she would enjoy because she wants to do something else at the moment. My younger son tends to follow her lead.

mrcellophane

Brilliant comments, as always. (Not sure a believe your disclosure. You're definitely hiding something! ) It was refreshing to see a film about grief and personal tragedy not delve into melodramatics. Earlier in this thread [citation needed -- writer too lazy to verify] or another thread I've been followed, there was a brief discussion about how we react to films... no, wait - it was the Animation challenge thread... Anyway, there was a discuss about how our life situations cause us to react differently to films. The different ways people can approach the same film always fascinates me.

I was so caught up in the art aspect of the film, and much of my emotional reaction had to do with how the mother's collection was being manipulated and manhandled, coveted and discarded. Of course, I also reacted to the family's grief as well as the other themes the film offers, but my head was buzzing with other implications.

Side Note #1: The film reminded me of The Art of the Steal, a documentary that looks at who art belongs to and how it is used by following a personal collection of Impressionism artworks. Great documentary.

Side Note #2: 8 1/2 is one of my all-time favorite films and one of the first Criterion DVDs I owned.

ororama

I agree. I read it as a teenager and loved it, and picked up a copy last summer while on vacation, started it, but misplaced it before finishing. I'll have to find it.

When the DVD came out, Criterion linked to a Boston Globe story about the DVD and the movie's use of specific locations that were not the tourist attractions that one would readily identify with the city. I was thrilled that one was Boston Bowl in Dorchester, because we had stayed in one of the motels on that property. We had dinner one night at Boston Bowl (someone at the motel recommended it, and it was late). The fish and chips were very good, a lot better than I was expecting at a bowling alley. I didn't recall that it was used in the movie, but I'll be pointing it out the next time that we watch it.

LJG765

Welcome to the challenge! While I watched a couple last year, this year I plan on really participating through the month, so it's pretty much the first time I'm participating in it as well.

I kind of feel that way about Salo as well. I'm a bit morbidly interested in it. I know it's not going to be pretty but I'm drawn to watching it anyway...maybe one day, probably not this year's challenge though!

Funny you say that-I have this and have had it for a long time. I liked the remake and thought that if that was good, the original should be better, but I just haven't broken into it yet. I do plan to for this challenge, though.

I did watch The Hidden Fortress tonight. While not a favorite, I'm glad I watched just to get it off the list of shame. I can see some of the Star Wars parallels, but have to say I enjoyed the robots a whole lot better than the idiot peasants! I was a bit disappointed that I received the Essential Art House version rather than Criterion as it had no extras and I was hoping to see the Lucas interview. I'll have to go looking online and see if I can find it.

LJG765

After watching The Hidden Fortress I decided I wanted to watch another one before bed tonight. I did want to watch something a little easier on the brain, so after going through what I had that qualified, I ended up with The Rock. I know I'm not supposed to like it-Michael Bay, Nicholas Cage...but it's impossible not to.

I love Sean Connery, he's perfect in this. There's Michael Biehn as well as Ed Harris. How can you not like this movie? It's fast paced, lots of explosions, shooting, explosions, life or death situations, and hey, did I mention explosions? It's funny and witty-to paraphrase Roger Ebert who wrote the essay on the movie.

I also haven't watched it in awhile, and was pleasantly surprised that it still holds up well. So, if you're looking for a break in the more serious films, tired of reading subtitles--watch this one. It's a great popcorn, edge of your seat movie.