The Lady Vanishes, I found the old lady annoying and the two sports-fan guys – that apparently had a spin-off series of films – to have nothing to contribute to the plot outside of their presence, which seriously detracted from the film for me. I know it was supposed to be a spoof, but Hitchcock should’ve stuck to thrillers.
In the Mood for Love – Wong without the playfulness he had shown in the 90s results in a stale period piece.
Brazil, I still don’t see Gilliam as anything but someone with decent eye for visuals.
I still haven’t seen Border Radio, which is supposed to be the crown jewel of a terrible CC release, hopefully I won’t see it, but there’s always that chance…
JP…. I take issue with the Hitchcock complaint!… it’s a worthy companion to 39 Steps, witty, stylish and crisp. Of course you have to cut a little slack for the model photography and cricket references… but it’s still pretty sweet. The screenwriters (Gilliat and Launder) made some films as a directing team too… ‘I See A Dark Stranger’ and ‘Green For Danger’ being 2 I like. But you have to have a taste for quaint British films, and they’re not Powell and Pressberger.
As for Criterions I don’t like…. hmmm… by the time I launch into a CC purchase I at least know I like the film… so no complaints yet.
I love a lot of Derek Jarman’s work, but I hated Jubilee.
I wasn’t too fond of “The Night Porter.” Probably the least favorite of the almost 100 Criterion titles I own. “Salo” and “Sweet Movie” — not sure I’ll ever watch those again.
It’s funny, but most of the films I find questionable that CC has chosen to release are now out-of-print-like Silence of the Lambs, and Robocop. One CC release currently in-print that I just do not understand is Chasing Amy, it’s cute at best, mediocre is probably more accurate. If it’s on tv, I may watch it—but Criterion is WAY better than that.
haha.. my partner said EXACTLY that about Criterion releasing Armageddon… oddly, i always felt that Amy & Armagedon were titles Criterion released because it might have made them some ‘mainstream’ dvd buyer money. I have no basis for this opinion whatsoever, but it did cross my mind. Anyone else agree ? Disagree ? (New thread ? hahaha)
Les oeuvres de Michael Bay et de Kevin Smith (the despicable, homophobic Chasing Amy). Schlock horror (Fiend Without a Face and The Blob). Lean’s reprehensible Oliver Twist. Gilliam’s chaotic Time Bandits and 3, THREE versions of Brazil, all of them incoherent and endless, endless, endless.
Armageddon, The Rock, Chasing Amy and some others mentioned here were the result of Criterion’s early attempts at figuring out what their place was in the DVD market. Back in the Laserdisc days it was standard fare for them to release movies like these, mainly because they were the biggest LD distributor around and had the rights to tons of movies that would now be impossible for them (James Bond and so on).
Thankfully, due to their own internal decisions, and the major studios fully supporting the DVD format for their own big releases, they stuck with “gathering the greatest films from around the world and publishing them in editions of the highest quality”.
As for Robocop, I will always stand by Criterion’s decision to release it, and I want them to do it again on blu-ray.
Alot of the original Criterion releases are random, but I guess it is because of what Brandon Bedaw said.
Anyways, I hated Chasing Amy. Sucked.
Alot of the original Criterion releases are random, but I guess it is because of what Brandon Bedaw said.
Anyways, I hated Chasing Amy. Sucked.
Hated “Solaris” – BORING!!!
“Blood For Dracula” wasn’t terrible and I was entertained by it, but I would never view it again. there is nothing I have seen so far that I absolutely hated.
@ Waseem Mainuddin
I concur. Chasing Amy was a piece of crap. I wanted to punch that movie in the face. In my opinion, Kevin Smith has no business being issued by the same company that issues Kurosawa and Tarkovsky.
Surprised to see the hate for Brazil. I love that film. I don’t care for Chasing Amy, Armageddon, Fiend Without a Face, Alphaville. I love Truffaut but have never warmed to Jules and Jim. Also have never liked Jacque Tati.
I mentioned this in another thread, but I guess I’ll do so again –
Young Mr. Lincoln was god awful. The whole thing was amateurish at best, with high school drama club level performances and terrible cinematography. I wouldn’t have finished it, except that it was in class so I had to. I really don’t see why Criterion felt the need to burden store shelves with it.
Didn’t care much for Man Bites Dog either. Seemed a bit overly edgy, like the film makers were just showing off how controversial they could be.
I really don’t understand why everyone bashes on Brazil. It’s one of my all time favorites.
Armageddon was indeed a terrible movie. But, really, I doubt if more than one or two people on this site enjoyed it.
Willing to admit I’m missing something and maybe don’t “get it,” but the inclusion of “Blood for Dracula” mystifies me. There are so many other great exploitation flicks, camp films, or even some giallos worth including. Someone care to enlighten me on the film’s inclusion and on “Flesh for Frankenstein”, as well, which I have not seen yet.
Re: “Blood” and “Flesh” = I believe Crit. pays attention to elements of iconic cultural significance, in this case, WARHOL and Paul Morrissey. Also, Crit. seems to include those films which made the Arthouse Repertory circuit throughout the 70s and 80s, these certainly did.
All the movies mentioned so far in this thread aren’t surprising nominees for “Worst” – I don’t have a problem with any of them though, even though I agree with some of the criticisms to some extent.
Chasing Amy tops the list. I’ll easily take Armageddon over it – at least Armageddon is trash and knows it .
I wouldn’t say that I hate his work, but apart from Rushmore (a great film), and Bill Murray, who can be great even in mediocre settings, I’ve tended to be very underwhelmed by Wes Anderson. His other work usually strikes me as really insular, slight and neurotic in it’s affectations of hipness, and not nearly as witty or interesting as it’s supposed to be. I think Anderson is definitely very talented, and it’s still early in his career, and great filmmakers tend to get greater when they get a little age (and perspective) on them, so I’m not a non-fan. But I don’t get the starry-eyed reverence thing either – I just don’t think he’s that special. Yet.
M. Hulot’s Holiday – I’ve tried to watch it 2 or 3 times now and I never find it as amusing as I’m told I should. In fact, the last time I tried watching it, I fell asleep 1/2 way through it!
Is “Chasing Amy” so near-universally reviled? Or is it just its inclusion in The Criterion Collection that prompts such a reaction? I realize Kevin Smith’s position as one of this site’s leading lightning rods, but my dissonant voice in the wilderness rises to his film’s defense. It’s not an artful piece of work; it’s wholly unpretty, if not downright messy. I wish I’d written some of its dialogue; still other lines land with a foul-mouthed thud of self-importance. But it speaks to something in me, that nagging sense that movies seldom get to the guts of true romance. No, “Chasing Amy” is not a rose-colored date movie – certainly not if you want a second one. But I can’t think of too many other films that stay true to the anarchic and unpredictable reality of why we love the people we do.
Re: “Blood” and “Flesh” = I believe Crit. pays attention to elements of iconic cultural significance, in this case, WARHOL and Paul Morrissey. Also, Crit. seems to include those films which made the Arthouse Repertory circuit throughout the 70s and 80s, these certainly did.
I never said they didn’t belong Ronald. I said that “Blood For Dracula” wasn’t terrible and I was entertained by it, but I would never view it again” We already know why Criterion released them. Your response has nothing to do with what I said or this thread.
CAMPBEL – if you will look at the person before me (RJ Yelverton) you will perhaps see some relevance to my existence here – not that I care. Your remarks are very unpleasant. Something of an “Armageddon” of your own perhaps raging in your skull.
Craig: I understand completely the compulsion to get Salo just to have it. But don’t bother. You’ve seen it once and that’s enough. Again, not a “re-watchable” film, IMO.
And yeah, Chasing Amy and Armageddon — unworthy Criterion titles. But Silence of the Lambs belongs there, in fact I wish it was back in print.
Solaris boring? Tarkovsky was never about action-packed entertainment. Going into any of his films with that preconception is bound to disappoint you. Tarkovsky always considered film as “Art” with a capital “A” and a means to express both his personal morality and the universal obstacles to that morality. Plus, all his films are gorgeous to look at and to hear — story/plot aside.
In case anyone cares, Campbel and me totally made up backstage and all is well.
glad to hear it..one of u was going to end up crying
Shall we order the wedding cake yet, or is it too early for that?
I have no qualms with most of the films Criterion releases, esp. with the great job of restorations, etc……My gripe is with the films they choose at times; I mean, come ’on: Magnificent Obsession?!! The Man who fell to Earth?!!! and Crusoe on Mars???!?!!? So hate me if you want, but these & a few other titles do not deserve the “Criterion” treatment!!
I;m wondering why a film such as “Bitter Rice” one of the first and most important neorealist Italian films, gets no restoration or acknowledgement!!! I know we all have our favorites, and that no one would be satisfied with every choice Criterion makes, but some due should be given to this era of film making!!!
Wasn’t crazy about The Browning Version, but that might be more due to taste than the film itself
craig Boone
i posted on this earlier today… anyone else, or am i commiting sacrilege ?