|
|
Post by vegalyra on Nov 7, 2017 19:06:37 GMT
I realize that opinions about films are subjective, but has Criterion ever released a film that was just plain bad? I am just curious because it always seems like most (all?) reviewers of blurays/dvds gush over the essential qualities of every film Criterion releases. The technical merits may vary (usually they are extremely good), but I just wonder if there is an almost universally crummy film that still gets high regards just because it is a Criterion release.
Just for disclosure's sake, I have quite a few Criterion releases and have enjoyed them all, but I can't stand Wes Anderson films and have noticed that practically his entire library is handled by Criterion. All of his films can't be worthy of their high quality treatment (and higher pricing), can they?
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Nov 7, 2017 19:52:56 GMT
I remember reading something about Armageddon (1998) being added to the Criterion Collection.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dramatic Look Gopher on Nov 7, 2017 19:54:43 GMT
Has Criterion ever released a film that was just plain bad you ask? Armageddon certainly comes to mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by NewtJorden on Nov 7, 2017 21:17:14 GMT
I'm really not sure why Armageddon is part of the Criterion Collection.
|
|
|
|
Post by vegalyra on Nov 7, 2017 21:25:40 GMT
Yes, I recall Armageddon being a Criterion release. I don't remember if that was on DVD or laserdisc format though. Been awhile. Thanks for reminding me. That would be a good choice.
|
|
|
|
Post by Popeye Doyle on Nov 7, 2017 22:01:16 GMT
I remember reading something about Armageddon (1998) being added to the Criterion Collection.
It's worth it for the commentary track. Affleck just goofs off most of the time, doing his Sling Blade impersonation when Billy Bob Thornton is onscreen. He also tells this gem - When asking Michael Bay if it would make more sense to train astronauts to be oil drillers instead of training oil drillers to be astronauts, Bay just tells him to "shut the fuck up".
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Nov 7, 2017 22:03:54 GMT
I remember reading something about Armageddon (1998) being added to the Criterion Collection.
It's worth it for the commentary track. Affleck just goofs off most of the time, doing his Sling Blade impersonation when Billy Bob Thornton is onscreen. He also tells this gem - When asking Michael Bay if it would make more sense to train astronauts to be oil drillers instead of training oil drillers to be astronauts, Bay just tells him to "shut the fuck up".
Eye opening insight into the mind of Michael Bay. |
|
|
|
Post by vegalyra on Nov 7, 2017 22:37:41 GMT
I remember reading something about Armageddon (1998) being added to the Criterion Collection.
It's worth it for the commentary track. Affleck just goofs off most of the time, doing his Sling Blade impersonation when Billy Bob Thornton is onscreen. He also tells this gem - When asking Michael Bay if it would make more sense to train astronauts to be oil drillers instead of training oil drillers to be astronauts, Bay just tells him to "shut the fuck up".
That's one of the most awesome stories I've heard in awhile. I think you are right that the commentary sounds golden. |
|
|
|
Post by Popeye Doyle on Nov 7, 2017 22:44:07 GMT
It's worth it for the commentary track. Affleck just goofs off most of the time, doing his Sling Blade impersonation when Billy Bob Thornton is onscreen. He also tells this gem - When asking Michael Bay if it would make more sense to train astronauts to be oil drillers instead of training oil drillers to be astronauts, Bay just tells him to "shut the fuck up".
That's one of the most awesome stories I've heard in awhile. I think you are right that the commentary sounds golden. Too bad it wasn't carried over to the Blu-ray release. Oddly enough, the bonus features on the Criterion Collection release of The Rock still made their way to the Disney Blu-ray. |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 7, 2017 22:44:53 GMT
I'm really not sure why Armageddon is part of the Criterion Collection.
Despite what you may have heard, Armageddon is a work of art by a cutting-edge artist who is a master of movement, light, color, and shape—and also of chaos, razzle-dazzle, and explosion. (It was no surprise to me to learn that as a thirteen-year-old, director Michael Bay blew up his toy train set with firecrackers so he could photograph the result with his mom’s 8mm camera.) If he weren’t working in Hollywood, Bay would be the darling bad boy of the intelligentsia. As it is, he sometimes falls under suspicion for having been nominated for multiple MTV Awards, and for having won every accolade available to directors of commercials, including the Clio and the prestigious Director’s Guild of America “Commercial Director of the Year” title. Armageddon is only his third movie, but it came under fire from some critics who had praised his second, The Rock, and for its same characteristics: fast cutting, impressive special effects, and a minimum of exposition.
The first time I saw Michael Bay, he was a polite eighteen-year-old who stopped by my office at Wesleyan University to tell me he wanted to major in Film Studies. He also asked me if I would like to see his still photographs. As a teacher, I believe there is only one answer to that question: “Of course.” (It’s my job.) Over the years, I’ve seen a great deal of material from freshmen—short stories, novels, plays, ceramics, paintings, sculptures, prints, fashion designs, videos, computer art, movies in 8mm and 16mm, even recipe collections—but I have yet to see anything like Bay’s high school photos. They were astonishing—revealing an amazing eye for composition, an instinct for capturing movement, and an inherent understanding of implied narrative. Later, I saw this same ability in film classes. In history/theory, he listened intently, but said little, speaking mostly to ask keen questions or to deal with what he felt was nonsense from his peers. But in film production classes, he was the Road Runner, taking off on his own, needing little guidance. His senior film, Benjamin’s Birthday, won Wesleyan’s Frank Capra Prize for Best Film, and it was definitely what we now know as a “Michael Bay Film.” It was funny. It was fast. And it featured a very ritzy yellow Porsche. It told its story clearly, but in a highly nonverbal manner. Bay was ahead of his age group, but he was also ahead of his time. He still is.
It is true that Armageddon, a perfect example of Bay’s work, illustrates his “take-no-prisoners” form of storytelling, in which he trusts an audience to figure things out. (One of its strengths is its minimum of dreadful exposition that over-explains the inevitable pseudoscience.) Yes, it gives audiences a lot to absorb. Yes, it cuts quickly from place to place, person to person, event to event. But it is never confusing, never boring, and never less than a brilliant mixture of what movies are supposed to do: tell a good story, depict characters through active events, invoke an emotional response, and entertain simply and directly, without pretense.
Armageddon is not for the faint-hearted, the slow-witted, or the dim-eyed. (Those who claim that it was hard to tell where characters were in relation to each other in the space should take another look.) Consider how the film explains what Harry Stamper’s (Bruce Willis) vacationing crew is doing when he sends out the word he needs them. In little more than one minute of screen time, five key characters are identified, established in a specific environment, shown relating to others, given distinct personalities, and defined in ways that indicate how they will behave on the later mission. (If that’s not screenwriting, what is?)
At its core, Armageddon is a genre picture, and like all genre pictures that arrive late in the cycle, it has been subjected to misinterpretation. Although it qualifies as a science fiction/disaster movie, I see it as an epic form of the old Warner Brothers movies about working-class men who have to step up and rescue a situation through their courage, true grit, and knowledge of machines—productions such as Raoul Walsh’s Manpower (1941) and Alfred E. Green’s Flowing Gold (1940). The “science fiction” or “disaster movie” elements of Armageddon fit into the epic form—a form that exists to make movie stories we already know grander, larger, and more “real” in historic setting. (A failed epic settles for the definition put forth in Nicholas Ray’s 1950 film In a Lonely Place: “. . . a picture that’s real long and has lots and lots going on.”) Armageddon is grand, large, and set at NASA, but, the story of Stamper, his daughter, and his hard-living, oil-drilling buddies is the kind of movie that has previously been smaller and tighter. This film makes these ordinary men noble, lifting their efforts up into an epic event. Here, working men are not only saving the overeducated scientists and politicians who can’t do anything (and who probably went to Yale and Harvard), but, incidentally, the entire population of the planet.
 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2017 1:36:28 GMT
Equinox (1970)
A case might be made for House (1977)
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Nov 8, 2017 1:43:41 GMT
<abbr class="o-timestamp time" title="Nov 7, 2017 14:44:53 GMT -8" data-timestamp="1510094693000">Nov 7, 2017 14:44:53 GMT -8</abbr>From the Criterion website.
Despite what you may have heard, Armageddon is a work of art by a cutting-edge artist who is a master of movement, light, color, and shape—and also of chaos, razzle-dazzle, and explosion. (It was no surprise to me to learn that as a thirteen-year-old, director Michael Bay blew up his toy train set with firecrackers so he could photograph the result with his mom’s 8mm camera.) If he weren’t working in Hollywood, Bay would be the darling bad boy of the intelligentsia. As it is, he sometimes falls under suspicion for having been nominated for multiple MTV Awards, and for having won every accolade available to directors of commercials, including the Clio and the prestigious Director’s Guild of America “Commercial Director of the Year” title. Armageddon is only his third movie, but it came under fire from some critics who had praised his second, The Rock, and for its same characteristics: fast cutting, impressive special effects, and a minimum of exposition.
The first time I saw Michael Bay, he was a polite eighteen-year-old who stopped by my office at Wesleyan University to tell me he wanted to major in Film Studies. He also asked me if I would like to see his still photographs. As a teacher, I believe there is only one answer to that question: “Of course.” (It’s my job.) Over the years, I’ve seen a great deal of material from freshmen—short stories, novels, plays, ceramics, paintings, sculptures, prints, fashion designs, videos, computer art, movies in 8mm and 16mm, even recipe collections—but I have yet to see anything like Bay’s high school photos. They were astonishing—revealing an amazing eye for composition, an instinct for capturing movement, and an inherent understanding of implied narrative. Later, I saw this same ability in film classes. In history/theory, he listened intently, but said little, speaking mostly to ask keen questions or to deal with what he felt was nonsense from his peers. But in film production classes, he was the Road Runner, taking off on his own, needing little guidance. His senior film, Benjamin’s Birthday, won Wesleyan’s Frank Capra Prize for Best Film, and it was definitely what we now know as a “Michael Bay Film.” It was funny. It was fast. And it featured a very ritzy yellow Porsche. It told its story clearly, but in a highly nonverbal manner. Bay was ahead of his age group, but he was also ahead of his time. He still is.
It is true that Armageddon, a perfect example of Bay’s work, illustrates his “take-no-prisoners” form of storytelling, in which he trusts an audience to figure things out. (One of its strengths is its minimum of dreadful exposition that over-explains the inevitable pseudoscience.) Yes, it gives audiences a lot to absorb. Yes, it cuts quickly from place to place, person to person, event to event. But it is never confusing, never boring, and never less than a brilliant mixture of what movies are supposed to do: tell a good story, depict characters through active events, invoke an emotional response, and entertain simply and directly, without pretense.
Armageddon is not for the faint-hearted, the slow-witted, or the dim-eyed. (Those who claim that it was hard to tell where characters were in relation to each other in the space should take another look.) Consider how the film explains what Harry Stamper’s (Bruce Willis) vacationing crew is doing when he sends out the word he needs them. In little more than one minute of screen time, five key characters are identified, established in a specific environment, shown relating to others, given distinct personalities, and defined in ways that indicate how they will behave on the later mission. (If that’s not screenwriting, what is?)
At its core, Armageddon is a genre picture, and like all genre pictures that arrive late in the cycle, it has been subjected to misinterpretation. Although it qualifies as a science fiction/disaster movie, I see it as an epic form of the old Warner Brothers movies about working-class men who have to step up and rescue a situation through their courage, true grit, and knowledge of machines—productions such as Raoul Walsh’s Manpower (1941) and Alfred E. Green’s Flowing Gold (1940). The “science fiction” or “disaster movie” elements of Armageddon fit into the epic form—a form that exists to make movie stories we already know grander, larger, and more “real” in historic setting. (A failed epic settles for the definition put forth in Nicholas Ray’s 1950 film In a Lonely Place: “. . . a picture that’s real long and has lots and lots going on.”) Armageddon is grand, large, and set at NASA, but, the story of Stamper, his daughter, and his hard-living, oil-drilling buddies is the kind of movie that has previously been smaller and tighter. This film makes these ordinary men noble, lifting their efforts up into an epic event. Here, working men are not only saving the overeducated scientists and politicians who can’t do anything (and who probably went to Yale and Harvard), but, incidentally, the entire population of the planet.
Clearly earned their master's in ass-kissing. |
|
|
|
Post by Sulla on Nov 8, 2017 2:22:06 GMT
I can't say I understand why Dazed and Confused is in their collection. It's not a bad movie, but I was expecting it to be better. The website blurb says "Among the best teen films ever made." Really? When it's up against Fast Times at Ridgemont High, American Graffiti, The Breakfast Club, etc.? I just don't see it as equal to those films.
They must really like Richard Linklater because they also have Slacker (which I can understand), Boyhood (not seen yet) and The Before Trilogy (not seen yet) on their list. Maybe I just need to watch Dazed and Confused more. I'd welcome someone explaining what I'm not seeing about it. |
|
|
|
Post by Popeye Doyle on Nov 8, 2017 2:27:33 GMT
I can't say I understand why Dazed and Confused is in their collection. It's not a bad movie, but I was expecting it to be better. The website blurb says "Among the best teen films ever made." Really? When it's up against Fast Times at Ridgemont High, American Graffiti, The Breakfast Club, etc.? I just don't see it as equal to those films.
They must really like Richard Linklater because they also have Slacker (which I can understand), Boyhood (not seen yet) and The Before Trilogy (not seen yet) on their list. Maybe I just need to watch Dazed and Confused more. I'd welcome someone explaining what I'm not seeing about it. The Breakfast Club is getting the Criterion treatment next year. |
|
|
|
Post by Sulla on Nov 8, 2017 3:02:32 GMT
I can't say I understand why Dazed and Confused is in their collection. It's not a bad movie, but I was expecting it to be better. The website blurb says "Among the best teen films ever made." Really? When it's up against Fast Times at Ridgemont High, American Graffiti, The Breakfast Club, etc.? I just don't see it as equal to those films.
They must really like Richard Linklater because they also have Slacker (which I can understand), Boyhood (not seen yet) and The Before Trilogy (not seen yet) on their list. Maybe I just need to watch Dazed and Confused more. I'd welcome someone explaining what I'm not seeing about it. The Breakfast Club is getting the Criterion treatment next year. Yeah, I noticed that when I was checking out other teen movies there. I'm not a huge fan of TBC, but I know it's very popular with others. And despite my opinion, I still think it's a much better movie than DaC.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 8, 2017 3:14:57 GMT
The Breakfast Club is getting the Criterion treatment next year. Yeah, I noticed that when I was checking out other teen movies there. I'm not a huge fan of TBC, but I know it's very popular with others. And despite my opinion, I still think it's a much better movie than DaC.
Dazed and Confused is VERY popular too though. |
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Nov 8, 2017 3:25:20 GMT
Other than The Grand Budapest Hotel, I've all Wes' blus on Criterion.
The Thin Red Line... probably the finest transfer I own of any film.
The Ice Storm dvd
The Breakfast Club I think is releasing in Janurary. I think I want it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sulla on Nov 8, 2017 3:27:18 GMT
Yeah, I noticed that when I was checking out other teen movies there. I'm not a huge fan of TBC, but I know it's very popular with others. And despite my opinion, I still think it's a much better movie than DaC.
Dazed and Confused is VERY popular too though. Maybe it's more popular than I thought. I might have liked it better if Milla Jovovich got more screen time. |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 8, 2017 3:31:18 GMT
Dazed and Confused is VERY popular too though. I might have liked it better if Milla Jovovich got more screen time. Yeah, it's a lot more popular than you are aware of I think. I like the movie but I don't get the big fuss over it. As you said, American Graffiti is a much better movie. A movie studio has to to sell the rights to Criterion in order for a movie to be in the Criterion Collection, which is why many movies that seem like more appropriate choices aren't part of the collection. |
|
|
|
Post by rudeboy on Nov 8, 2017 3:36:25 GMT
Setting Armageddon aside...
A quick glance through their lists shows quite a few films that I personally found underwhelming or mediocre - including The Great Dictator, Killer’s Kiss, Lola Montes... but I only spotted three that I outright hated: Satyricon, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, Touki Bouki
.
|
|
