![]() |
Re: The 8th Annual Criterion Collection Challenge Discussion Thread
Originally Posted by LJG765
(Post 12895637)
I can get 8 of the 10 from my local library and thought I could find the other 2 online, but am having trouble with finding Sid & Nancy. Can anyone confirm if Hulu has this one?
|
Re: The 8th Annual Criterion Collection Challenge Discussion Thread
Originally Posted by TheBigDave
(Post 12895649)
It's not on Hulu. I looked around for it and couldn't find it either. It's not on any streaming services.
Ooh, I just found it. Changed my google search around. Never heard of the site before, but it seems to be the full movie... |
Re: The 8th Annual Criterion Collection Challenge Discussion Thread
Late last night, I finally knocked off another Criterion "biggie": Salesman. From my Letterboxd diary:
SPOILER ALERT FOR ANYONE READING EMAIL (AND WHO WORRIES ABOUT SPOILERS IN A DOCUMENTARY) Spoiler:
Salesman -X- Decades - 1960's (1968) -X- Spine range - 101-200 (#122) -X- Theme - Documentaries -X- Theme - Independent American Cinema -X- Language - English -X- Essay - Salesman, Toby Miller -X- Trailer - Salesman Theatrical Trailer Box Sets/Top 10 Lists Steve Buscemi's Top 10 James Franco's Top 10 Jean-Pierre Gorin's Top 10 Robert Greene's Top 10 Chris Hegedus's Top 10 Neil LaBute's Top 10 Oren Moverman's Top 10 |
Re: The 8th Annual Criterion Collection Challenge Discussion Thread
Incidentally, this month's entry in the year long TCM Big Screen Series is Dr. Strangelove, or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. It plays one week from today, 18 September, at 2:00 & 7:00, and again that Wednesday, 21 September, at the same times. Check the official Fathom Events webpage to see if a theater near you will be showing it.
|
Re: The 8th Annual Criterion Collection Challenge Discussion Thread
TCM reminded me that it's the 75th Anniversary of Citizen Kane this month.
|
Re: The 8th Annual Criterion Collection Challenge Discussion Thread
Originally Posted by ntnon
(Post 12896104)
TCM reminded me that it's the 75th Anniversary of Citizen Kane this month.
Just finished Sid and Nancy. I can't say that I liked it but I can't say I hated it either. It did grab my attention, kind of like a train wreck. I can see why it became a cult classic though. Don't know that I'd recommend it to most people, however. Glad I finally got it off my "to see" list. |
Re: The 8th Annual Criterion Collection Challenge Discussion Thread
Originally Posted by LJG765
(Post 12896384)
I watched this...last year maybe? and found it a bit overrated. I can kind of see why people feel it's a classic, but it really didn't float my boat.
It's really hard to distance yourself from NOW and imagine it then - 75 years ago, for goodness' sake! |
Re: The 8th Annual Criterion Collection Challenge Discussion Thread
Today, I watched films from two of my favorite directors: Robert Altman and Jacques Tati. Both were new to me, and both were great. First, I watched Altman's Secret Honor which is a monologue by a disgraced, fictional Nixon who rants and raves into a complex system of recording devices. It was a wonderfully executed film that had me on the edge of my seat.
Next, I watched Trafic in which M. Hulot is the designer of a "camping car" that needs to get to an important automobile expo. Tati's brilliant gags are so delightfully funny. There's a wonderful running gag involving free plaster busts of historical figures that are being handed out at a border crossing. |
Re: The 8th Annual Criterion Collection Challenge Discussion Thread
Brief thoughts:
Tie Me Up! Tie Me Down! is really weird. Oddly realistic in a disturbing, odd manner. Stockholm Syndrome as a vaguelly positive thing... The Spirit of the Beehive - not entirely sure I 'got' it. Intriguing Frankenstein elements, and the interviews were enlightening. The Honeymoon Killers , based on real events, made a sort of mundane sadness ou of a Bonnie & Clyde-esque story. The ending is bleak, desperately sad, but mildly uplifting: the lov and forgiveness in the face of adversirt, perversity and psychopathic something is... complex. The Flowers of St. Francis shows brief - often amusing, certainly moral - vignettes in the life of St. Francis. Light, but interesting. The Silence of the Lambs is excellent. The Exterminating Angel... I do not get the title. I don't quite get the analogy. I don't fully understand the plot. This film is fantastic. So is Simon of the Desert. Mad. Entertaining. Well done. Sullivan's Travels does an excellent job comparing and contrasting reality with fiction; humour with pathos. Very well cast. Gods of the Plague. I didn't quite follow everything, and didn"t enjoy it much. Seemed bleak and fatalistic. The Lady Eve is utterly fantastic. Fonda is baffled and bemused; Stanwyck is masterful, and everyone else is excellent. The frustrated, hungry father. The cardgames. The batty plot. The bodyguard. The script. The ending. In the Realm of the Senses.... errr... wasn't expecting this at all. 90odd minutes of wall-to-wall sex. Surprisingly well crafted for what it seems to be. Stagecoach is excellent. Particularly John Wayne's character's attitude. Very commendable. Return of the Prodigal Son... I already don't remember any of it. Sorry.. Grey Gardens: I find it comforting and commendable that the Beales seem to know their flaws and failings, try to change, try to apologise, but ultimately are happy with their life. Albeit while complaing... Conquest of the Air - very interesting documentary, with one of my favourite lines. (That I wrote down and lost.) Something about magic and wings not being enough to fly.. Il Sorpasso - excellent, madcap fun.: ! Pearls of the Crown - Excellent. Citizen Kane - Mixed feelings. [B[]Oearls of the Deep[9 Odd. |
Re: The 8th Annual Criterion Collection Challenge Discussion Thread
Originally Posted by ntnon
(Post 12896104)
TCM reminded me that it's the 75th Anniversary of Citizen Kane this month.
Originally Posted by LJG765
(Post 12896384)
I watched this...last year maybe? and found it a bit overrated. I can kind of see why people feel it's a classic, but it really didn't float my boat.
Originally Posted by ntnon
(Post 12896489)
I tend to agree - it falls into that unfortunate gulf caused by time: imitations and things inpired by it are so prevalent (and in parts, arguably, better) that it necessarily suffers in comparison.
It's really hard to distance yourself from NOW and imagine it then - 75 years ago, for goodness' sake! I found Welles charismatic and entertaining simply to watch. His performance there reminded me at times of some of the work James Gandolfini did as Tony Soprano, imbuing what in some respects is a larger than life caricature with surprising nuance and sophistication. There were moments when Welles would shift his posture that elicited strong reactions from the audience; often laughter, but I distinctly recall one moment where there was an audible expression of suspense and tension. I can't now recall what was happening in the film to provoke it, but it was palpable. I think that's one of the most important things to consider about films of its vintage: They were crafted only with being exhibited before a theater audience in mind. The acting style was even then distinguishable from stage theater acting, but there was still concern that people in the balcony be able to follow along on a screen considerably smaller than the large format screens of today. Normally, whenever people talk about those acting conventions, they're making apologies for exaggerations that may seem primitive today, but my point is that they were effective and can still be effective in the appropriate setting. There's just no way to approximate that audience reation factor in an at-home viewing.
Originally Posted by mrcellophane
(Post 12896494)
Today, I watched films from two of my favorite directors: Robert Altman and Jacques Tati. Both were new to me, and both were great. First, I watched Altman's Secret Honor which is a monologue by a disgraced, fictional Nixon who rants and raves into a complex system of recording devices. It was a wonderfully executed film that had me on the edge of my seat.
|
Re: The 8th Annual Criterion Collection Challenge Discussion Thread
Originally Posted by rbrown498
(Post 12889168)
I just watched my first Ozu film ever, Tokyo Chorus from the Eclipse Series 10 set. I really liked it. I think that I'm going to dig Ozu.
I enjoyed it quite a bit, but regardless of its importance in his oeuvre, I still prefer his earlier Tokyo Chorus by a small margin. That's not to say that there weren't some great things in I Was Born, But... -- I thought at times that it almost resembled a Japanese take on the Our Gang series, and the plot device of home movies in 1932 (!) was very, very cool. It was enjoyable, and I'm ready for more Ozu. |
Re: The 8th Annual Criterion Collection Challenge Discussion Thread
Two interesting films I checked out this weekend were Phoenix and Secret Sunshine. The German film, Phoenix, played like a slow burn with a great ending. The Korean pic, Secret Sunshine, was hard to watch and a bit depressing. What I liked about it is it defied the traditional ways and cliches that typical screenwriting takes. Plus, it has solidified my love for Song Kang-ho, mostly notedly known for Snowpiercer in the States. Check that out if you haven't seen it already. I want to see all his movies now.
|
Re: The 8th Annual Criterion Collection Challenge Discussion Thread
Originally Posted by Travis McClain
(Post 12896522)
I first saw Citizen Kane four years ago in a screening at a preserved theater where it very likely may have played when it was originally released. I knew well beforehand what the "Rosebud" in question really was, so that part of the narrative was never a mystery for me. I'm still not entirely sure I understand why it being a mystery for the characters in the story became conflated as some kind of mystery for us the viewers.
Originally Posted by Travis McClain
(Post 12896522)
I found Welles charismatic and entertaining simply to watch. His performance there reminded me at times of some of the work James Gandolfini did as Tony Soprano, imbuing what in some respects is a larger than life caricature with surprising nuance and sophistication. There were moments when Welles would shift his posture that elicited strong reactions from the audience; often laughter, but I distinctly recall one moment where there was an audible expression of suspense and tension. I can't now recall what was happening in the film to provoke it, but it was palpable.
I think that's one of the most important things to consider about films of its vintage: They were crafted only with being exhibited before a theater audience in mind. The acting style was even then distinguishable from stage theater acting, but there was still concern that people in the balcony be able to follow along on a screen considerably smaller than the large format screens of today. Normally, whenever people talk about those acting conventions, they're making apologies for exaggerations that may seem primitive today, but my point is that they were effective and can still be effective in the appropriate setting. There's just no way to approximate that audience reation factor in an at-home viewing. |
Re: The 8th Annual Criterion Collection Challenge Discussion Thread
Originally Posted by Travis McClain
(Post 12896522)
Man, Philip Baker Hall mesmerized me as Nixon! I was conscious while watching it of several historical inaccuracies to dispute; some of which I suppose may not have been clearly understood then to have been inaccurate. It didn't matter. There's such verisimilitude to Hall's performance that the film feels accurate, if only to itself. I think an important reason it works so well is that Hall doesn't necessarily "play Nixon". He's recognizable as the former President, but he doesn't make a conspicuous show of recreating Nixon's speech pattern or affecting his physical quirks. Instead, he relies more on conveying Nixon's intensity and inner volatility, and he nailed that.
|
Re: The 8th Annual Criterion Collection Challenge Discussion Thread
Originally Posted by ntnon
(Post 12896740)
That's a really good point. I guess it's an easy narrative hook, and making it out to be a mystery-of-sorts (that never gets solved) is easier to talk about than making it out to be a broad biography. Possibly?
Quite. And, for me, if you vet into the mindset it doesn't matter or stand out. The 'over-dramatic'-type of criticism doesn't usually strike me as fair or reasonable because it seems no more of a contrivance than anything else used in a medium whose purpose is entertainment, usually through fiction. So exaggeration or grandiosity seems completely normal - within that context.
Originally Posted by mrcellophane
(Post 12896786)
I agree. I thought it was shrewd that Altman included closeups of actual pictures of Nixon on the walls of the study. The film is about the aura and legacy of Nixon, a composite of all we know and surmise, treating both with the same reverence. I'll admit that I'm not overly familiar with Nixon; most of my understanding comes from pop culture (including the Oliver Stone film and caricatures on Futurama) and my grandpa's dislike of him. Like you, this portrayal feels "right". My favorite moments were when thinks better of his rhetoric and calmly tells Roberto to erase everything after certain points. It's this roller coaster of bombast and self-censorship that most of us keep sequestered to our inner monologue.
Sure, we're going to compare notes about any interpretation of people or events, but it's less common for us to be so explicitly prompted to do that throughout the film at hand. Normally, there's more of a sort of "Wait till we're finished!" attitude, asking us to hold off on thinking about what we know or believe until the movie is over. Altman instead seemed to interrupt the film with the pictures as a way of taking our temperature. "Does this surprise you? Does this seem right to you? Is that how you remember it?" Incidentally, for further reading, I would recommend David Gergen's memoir, Eyewitness to Power: The Essence of Leadership from Nixon to Clinton. He was a speechwriter for Nixon, and had some insights that I found a helpful lens for reading or hearing other takes on him. Gergen also worked in the Ford, Reagan, and Clinton administrations. These days, he's a political analyst for CNN. I'd also recommend reading his account of working for President Reagan, if only because there are some magnificent anecdotes throughout that section! |
Re: The 8th Annual Criterion Collection Challenge Discussion Thread
With hesitation, deviation and repetition*, I've been lossely watching CC films that have the phrase "of the" in the title. It's quite fun!
Juliet of the Spirits is the latest "weird, but enjoyable" foreign offering this vague plan has led me to. I may seek it out in November. *Anyone? |
Re: The 8th Annual Criterion Collection Challenge Discussion Thread
Originally Posted by Travis McClain
(Post 12897079)
Incidentally, for further reading, I would recommend David Gergen's memoir, Eyewitness to Power: The Essence of Leadership from Nixon to Clinton. He was a speechwriter for Nixon, and had some insights that I found a helpful lens for reading or hearing other takes on him. Gergen also worked in the Ford, Reagan, and Clinton administrations. These days, he's a political analyst for CNN. I'd also recommend reading his account of working for President Reagan, if only because there are some magnificent anecdotes throughout that section!
|
Re: The 8th Annual Criterion Collection Challenge Discussion Thread
Yesterday, I watched ... And the Pursuit of Happiness, a Louis Malle documentary about immigrants in the United States. He travels the country and interviews people from all walks of life, statuses, and situations. Malle weaves a tapestry that is beautiful and complicated. It feels like a documentary that needs to find a modern audience, especially due to much of the reactionary rhetoric dominating the conversation around immigration.
|
Re: The 8th Annual Criterion Collection Challenge Discussion Thread
I just finished up watching the third film in the Silent Ozu: Three Family Comedies Eclipse set, Passing Fancy. I loved it--easily my favorite of the three films in the set, which by default makes it my favorite Ozu film (so far). I've enjoyed them all, so now I'll be on a quest to watch his other films. I won't get around to them this month, though--too many other films I've set aside to watch.
|
Re: The 8th Annual Criterion Collection Challenge Discussion Thread
Okay, folks... What should I watch?
Le Corbeau, The 400 Blows, or The Hidden Fortress ????????????????????????????????????????? |
Re: The 8th Annual Criterion Collection Challenge Discussion Thread
Originally Posted by pacaway
(Post 12899208)
Okay, folks... What should I watch?
Le Corbeau, The 400 Blows, or The Hidden Fortress ????????????????????????????????????????? |
Re: The 8th Annual Criterion Collection Challenge Discussion Thread
Originally Posted by Trevor
(Post 12889988)
I think I'm going to have at least one missed item on my personal checklist this month. With a bit of thinking, I have HBO, Disney, and 3D covered; but I can't think of a way to cover Star Trek this month.
Originally Posted by mrcellophane
(Post 12899218)
Definitely The 400 Blows
Thanks! |
Re: The 8th Annual Criterion Collection Challenge Discussion Thread
Originally Posted by pacaway
(Post 12899221)
Alright... I'm breaking the seal right now!
Thanks! |
Re: The 8th Annual Criterion Collection Challenge Discussion Thread
Originally Posted by mrcellophane
(Post 12899224)
Huzzah! You're welcome! I'll be interested to hear your thoughts on it. It was one of the first Criterion movies I bought.
|
Re: The 8th Annual Criterion Collection Challenge Discussion Thread
Okay, now that I've watched it, I STILL don't know what it's about! LOL
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:37 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.