Would I be wrong in saying that The Shining is among the most underappreciated? I just watched the abysmal House of 1,000 Corpses recently, and that along with pretty much every horror movie out there reminds me that The Shining really is one of the top horror movies of all time. Top Kubrick movie? No, not really. It’s one of his better, I’d say, but I think it’s outclassed by 2001, Barry Lyndon, and A Clockwork Orange. On the other hand, I really love The Shining. Everything about it is great. It’s one of the few movies I’ll pull out multiple times a year just to relive the experience of. I know most people like The Shining nowadays; I won’t dispute that. But I feel like it sometimes gets ignored, strangely, in favor of (deservedly) more popular Kubrick movies.
And, of course, Barry Lyndon. That movie is gorgeous from start to finish. I think most people are daunted by its pace and subject matter, but if you have the stomach for it, it’s a really amazing experience. I am in awe at every single candlelit scene.
Kurosawa is my area of expertise; I’ll admit to being rather underschooled in the other three.
Kurosawa: The Big Three are vital, of course: Seven Samurai, Ran, and Rashomon. All are great, all are his most famous for a reason. However, I would actually suggest Throne of Blood for an oddball pick. To me, this is a quintessential Kurosawa film. Many of his themes are present, his adoration of foreign literature is obvious (it’s an adaptation of MacBeth), and the cinematography is about as good as Kurosawa ever had. Toshiro Mifune, a Kurosawa regular, stars, and he gives quite the performance. The scenery is beautiful. The special effects are impressive. It may not technically be as good as his greatest works, but I love it nonetheless. Red Beard is also an underappreciated but magnificent movie. It moves a little slower and its plotline is a little more sprawling, but it’s an affecting movie that I would recommend to Kurosawa beginners.
Fellini: Don’t start with Satyricon. I did, and I nearly gave up right then and there. Satyricon is pure, undiluted Fellini madness. It’s rather good, but it’s not the right place to start. Try 8 1/2. It’s the Fellini movie everybody has seen, and it happens to be really good to boot.
Antonioni: I’m woefully underexposed to Antonioni, even though many people say he’s one of the top directors of all time. I won’t recommend anything or advise against anything. Let somebody else take care of that.
Truffaut: Shoot the Piano Player is an easy way to get into Truffaut. The 400 Blows is an excellent movie well worth your attention. But really, you can’t go too wrong with Truffaut. I guess don’t start with Soft Skin or something, but he’s a reasonably accessible director.
Syndromes and a Century is among my favorite movies of all time. Amazing.
I love Weerasethakul. I’ve seen all four of his feature films to date and enjoyed each of them greatly. My least favorite, actually, is Tropical Malady. It’s not terrible; far from it. But I think it doesn’t quite succeed as a movie on the whole. For proof, look at Syndromes and a Century. There, Weerasethakul melds two different stories into one as he did in Tropical Malady, but it’s so much more seamless and impressive. I don’t think he was trying to make the jump from romance to folklore in Tropical Malady seamless, but it seemed like two entirely different movies. I can’t fault him for his bravery, but sometimes experiments work, and sometimes they don’t. I’d say it worked with Tropical Malady, but it worked much better with Syndromes and a Century.
Also, yes, Blissfully Yours is great and absolutely worth watching. If there’s anybody who’s reading this Thread and hasn’t seen a Weerasethakul film, start with Blissfully Yours. It’s straightforward, there’s no sudden plot transitions, and it has all of Weerasethakul’s trademarks. It’s a great introduction to a great director (though it is the most sexually explicit, if that sort of thing actually bothers you.).
Nobody ever remembers The King of Comedy. It’s a little gem in Scorsese’s filmography that everybody loves once they finally get around to seeing it. Nice recommendation.
Hannah and Her Sisters: My first Woody Allen film and still my favorite. It has all of his strengths and few of his weaknesses.
Crimes and Misdemeanors: Excellent. To me, this has always represented the time Woody transcended his admiration of Bergman and made something uniquely him. Not that I couldn’t see Landau’s storyline being in a Bergman film, but I feel like a lot of Woody’s movie were held back by being in Bergman’s shadow (Interiors especially). Not Crimes and Misdemeanors, though.
I’m kind of soft on Manhattan too. It was the first of his films that made me understand why he loves New York so much.
Honorable mentions: Interiors, Sleeper, Bananas. I’ve never liked Annie Hall as much as I wish I could.
To be honest, I sometimes look at my list of favorite directors and wonder why there are so few worth paying attention to these days. The number of filmmakers I actually actively keep up with these days is tiny. However, I don’t think cinema will ever die. It’s true that commercialism is an impediment to art, and that there aren’t a ton of auteurs out there, but there will always be art. As long as cameras exist, so will cinema. It may dwindle and wane over the years, but there will always be at least one auteur keeping an eye on (hopefully).
Satyajit Ray Satyajit Ray Satyajit Ray. I cannot emphasize this enough. It’s terribly difficult to even find his films, and the ones you do find are generally poorly transferred. Satyajit Ray is a masterful filmmaker, and I think the Criterion treatment would be a worthy tribute to such a great director.
Wouldn’t mind seeing Apichatpong Weerasethakul given a spot or two in the Collection. Syndromes and a Century especially would be worthy.
Agreeing with the Guy Maddin recommendations too. Only about half of his movies are available to watch on Netflix right now. The rest are all “Release Time Unknown”, which means Netflix doesn’t have them and probably won’t anytime in the near future. I like Maddin, but I’d like to see more of him. Criterion has shown that they like Maddin too, so I would support adding one or two of his earlier works to the Collection.
Barry Lyndon is really great, but in my opinion, it lacks a certain something to elevate it to the level of, say, 2001. I really like it and greatly enjoyed watching it, but it’s missing something that would make it a masterpiece. Still excellent, though, and I definitely agree that most people just kind of forget about it. Maybe because it wasn’t as outwardly impressive as Kubrick’s others: The Shining had its terrifying moments, 2001 had the minutes-long color sequence near the end, and A Clockwork Orange was bursting at the seams with interesting stylistic choices. What does Barry Lyndon have? On the surface, nothing, but if you stop looking for extremely impressive standout shots, you start to notice that nearly all of the shots are just amazing. The lighting is beautiful, the composition is great, and you can tell that Kubrick spent all the time in the world making it look as natural and beautiful as it does. It may not have a specific moment that you can point to as the pinnacle of the movie, but the point is that the whole movie is a high point. It’s like a three hour money shot, basically.
Also, The Killing is less appreciated than it ought to be. I know plenty of people like it (Tarantino pretty much built a career off of it), but it seems like it just gets lumped into the category of Early Kubrick. And it is, but it definitely has something to it that Killer’s Kiss, Fear and Desire, and all of Kubrick’s other fledgling works didn’t. It’s not his best movie by a long shot, but it’s a solid entry in a solid filmography. I think more people ought to watch it/rewatch it, because it really is awesome.
Fahrenheit 451 is a good recommendation for Truffaut. It shouldn’t be any trouble at all to understand at your age, especially if you’re aching for Antonioni.
Ozu is a great director, but he should probably come later than Kurosawa and Mizoguchi. I’m not saying a twelve-year-old couldn’t understand Ozu, but there’s no harm in holding off until you’re older. Kurosawa is much more accessible and just as good, so why not start with him?
Also, as long as we’re on the subject of Japanese directors, check out Kon Ichikawa. In my opinion, he’s the best of them all. Maybe not by a country mile, but that man made some incredible movies in his prime. He wasn’t as consistent as Ozu/Mizoguchi/Kurosawa, but I absolutely adore The Burmese Harp and Fires on the Plain. Ryan, watch The Burmese Harp. It’s a powerful and wonderfully shot anti-war movie. It is lighthearted most of the time with some horribly dark moments in between. It’s a tremendous experience, and I think, even at twelve, it might be right up your alley.
I can’t stay unhappy after watching Chungking Express. The second half especially just puts me in high spirits no matter what.
Also, gonna agree with Ratatouille. The flashback scene is masterful. Anybody who thinks animation is for kids (not that I expect there are many of those people here) really needs to watch Ratatouille. It’s not exactly a masterpiece, but it is a great movie for any age.
Yes and no. Yes in that a lot of people out there think he can do no wrong and will honestly say Wild at Heart and Dune are masterpieces. No in that a lot of people also don’t understand what he does and think he’s only being weird for the sake of being weird. I admire Lynch primarily for the amount of work he puts into making his films. Listen to him talk about the sound design of Mulholland Dr., and you’ll understand what a great director the guy is. He puts so much work into making his films great, and, whether or not they turn out great, I appreciate the fact that he tries. He’s had his misfires (though, to be fair, it wasn’t his fault Dune turned out lousy. I can’t really excuse Wild at Heart, unfortunately), but when he’s on, he’s really on. I think a lot of people get the wrong idea about him, for better or for worse. I guess there’s no objective way to ‘get’ David Lynch, but if there is, it’s somewhere between thinking he’s a god amongst men and thinking he’s a pretentious hack. I certainly sympathize with people who don’t get him, because he is in no way easy to get, but I don’t have a lot of sympathy for people who just lash out in frustration because he doesn’t always make sense.
Efe Çakarel: Y tu mamá también has already been released. Good choice, but a bit late.
Gonna throw in my support for Wong Kar Wai. I think Ashes of Time would make a great release in general. There’s a lot of history to that movie, not the least of which being the Redux edition released a few weeks ago, which I think would be a great thing for Criterion to cover. Aside from that, I could die happy if I saw a Criterion 2046 in HD.
And personally, I’ve always felt Happy Together was up there with Wong’s best (Chungking Express, In the Mood for Love). Maybe not quite at the top, but it’s absolutely one of his better works, in my opinion. Even ignoring the bold and impressive performances from the two stars, Wong made a lot of daring stylistic choices, and they worked a lot more often than they didn’t. I’ll be the first to admit that Wong is prone to missteps here and there (I just barely enjoyed My Blueberry Nights, and most of his other films flirt with being great while falling sadly short.), but Happy Together signifies another peak in a sporadically great filmography that would fit right at home in Criterion alongside his other two best works.
Check the wikipedia page. Yeah yeah, I know about wikipedia being unreliable and all, but it doesn’t seem like anything on the page is too far-fetched. Bill Murray and George Clooney together sounds like a recipe for gold to me. Also, it seems as though it’s done being filmed, so it shouldn’t be too long before we see the final product.
Personally, I’m just interested to see how Wes Anderson does making a story that isn’t a fractured character study. I actually really liked The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou and sort of enjoyed The Darjeeling Limited, but even I won’t deny it’s time Anderson pulled himself out of the hole he dug for himself. He’s a great director, but I don’t want to see him living in his own shadow for the rest of his life. The Fantastic Mr. Fox will be something very different than usual, which I’m quite excited about. His next project is rumored to be a remake of My Best Friend, which may or may not turn out well. I’ll reserve judgment on that until…well, until he actually confirms that it’s his next project.
Gus Van Sant’s a tough director to get. He isn’t exactly consistent as far as the quality of his films is concerned (I don’t think there’s a person alive who enjoyed Even Cowgirls Get the Blues), and his subject matter and shooting style are often strange and outlandish. There are directors that few people will dare to dispute the greatness of, and then there are directors like Gus Van Sant who are more on the fence and more difficult to judge objectively. I’d like to hear some opinions about his work, because I think a good discussion could occur between the people who dislike him and the people who like him.
Also, is anybody else excited for Milk? As soon as it’s out and available nearby, I’ll be seeing it.
How do you feel Soderbergh’s treatment compares to Tarkovsky’s?
I myself think they’re both great in their own ways, but there are a ton of people who would disagree. Many say Tarkovsky’s is too slow, too unengaging, too unfocused, and too empty. Many others say Soderbergh’s is too maudlin, too emptyheaded, too short, and too different. What do you all think? Do you have a preference? Do you hate one or the other? How do you think they measure up to the book (if you’ve read it)?
Ingmar Bergman is my favorite director. It’s a very uninspired choice, and one pretty much any self-proclaimed cinephile would choose, but there really is just no one better. The man’s made more masterpieces than handfuls of directors combined. His subject matter is always interesting, his skill with actors is incredible, his cinematography is nigh unparalleled, and in general, he’s just an amazing director. I know not everybody likes slow, quiet, existential dramas, but if you can tolerate them, there’s nobody better than Bergman. He’s not head and shoulders above every director in the world, but he’s definitely one of the only directors who ever lived who could marry quality and quantity. Most directors make a few good films or a lot of bad ones, but Bergman just churned out masterpiece after masterpiece. Even his early work gets at least a 3/5 from me. The only Bergman film I ever outright disliked was The Serpent’s Egg, and even that was hardly his fault. Everything else has been anywhere from ‘good’ to ‘awe-inspiring’.
So, in conclusion, I think he’s a genius. And, to be honest, I don’t think that’s really arguable. I hate to sound elitist and attempt to be objective about a subjective art form, but I don’t think I’ll ever see a convincing argument that Bergman is a hack. Overrated? I guess you could argue that. Boring? Well, he’s not the most accessible director ever, and his symbolism can be a bit daunting from time to time. I understand Bergman not being to a person’s individual tastes and I respect that; personally, I have a hard time honestly enjoying most of Altman’s films, but I know a fair amount people will say he’s one of the world’s top directors. But I’d say Bergman’s one director you just can’t dispute the greatness of. Maybe the caliber of greatness, but the greatness in general? Nah. Bergman’s just too good for that.
Also, don’t be afraid to revisit films you saw at a young age. I know that sounds pretty obvious, but you grow wiser with each year you live, and you see more and more films with each passing year as well. The more you see, the more references you catch. For example, there’s a joke in The 400 Blows that is a sly reference to another film. The name of it escapes me, but I sure didn’t notice it the first time I watched The 400 Blows. If I were to watch the film it’s referencing and then rewatch The 400 Blows, it would make the joke all that much better and would boost my opinion of it ever so slightly. That’s perhaps not the best example, especially since I’m being so vague about it, but that’s the sort of thing I generally mean. The more you know, the better you understand things.
To provide a better example, Wes Anderson can be appreciated without a deep knowledge of the French New Wave. I, for example, am not too informed about the French New Wave, but I’ve seen every Anderson film and liked them all. Rushmore is one of my all-time favorite films even, and this is without even understanding all the references and shooting styles that Wes Anderson incorporates into his films. Once I’ve seen more of the famous French directors, I’ll probably enjoy Rushmore even more.
Sorry for the slight ramble. The summary of what I just said there is that films tend to get better with age (your aging, that is), so don’t be afraid to rewatch, even if you think/know you had a pretty good grasp of them the first time around. There are all sorts of little winks and nudges hidden in films that you have to be really sharp to notice.
Bergman is accessible as far as getting into him goes. You have his early films which all are reasonably good and show a lot of his trademarks without being too taxing (I’m a pretty big fan of Crisis and Sawdust and Tinsel myself, even having seen his later works), and from there on out, you can pretty much go in chronological order. The Seventh Seal and Wild Strawberries first, then the God Trilogy, then Scenes from a Marriage and Cries and Whispers (and The Magic Flute if you want an offbeat but still cool Bergman film), and then sum it all up with Fanny and Alexander. Add Saraband as an epilogue of sorts, and you’re golden. Appreciating him is much harder, but I think everybody should at least try. Apart from the fact that you’ll probably love Bergman once you understand him, he’s a director that everybody worth talking to about films would know of. He’s one of those directors you just need to know if you want to get into films, and it usually helps to have a favorable opinion of him and his body of work.
I’m Michael and I have faint aspirations of being a director, or at the very least a screenwriter. I don’t know if I’ll ever achieve that, but I’ll be working very hard at doing so. I would find a life without films a very boring one, and I feel like making them would be one of the few things I could do in this world that could potentially make a difference. I guess we’ll see what happens in a few years.
I’m a Junior in High School, and I live in Pennsylvania. Needless to say, this is hardly a place where I get to discuss films frequently. The best I can hope for is somebody here having heard of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind or something. It never gets much more esoteric than that. And foreign films? Haha. Not in this state. Luckily, I have Netflix, Criterion, and now The Auteurs to keep me from losing my mind and keeping me exposed to all the world’s best films. There’s nothing I love more than watching a good film. They can and often do affect me emotionally, spiritually, or intellectually, sometimes all at once. Nothing else in the world does that for me. I love reading and I like music, but neither of them are as overall impressive and affecting as films are. So thank you, makers of this site. I already had Criterion to find the films, but now I have The Auteurs to discuss what I’ve found (as well as watch a few that I’ve missed out on).
E: I got into cinema, weirdly enough, through King Kong 2005. I was a bigger nerd than I am now when I was younger. I used to be much more into Sci-Fi and video games; I watched the Sci-Fi Channel constantly throughout 2005 (laugh all you want; I do too.). Then I saw King Kong at the end of the year, and, at the time, it was the perfect movie. It had everything I, at fourteen years of age, was looking for in a movie, including a healthy dose of fantasy/Sci-Fi. From there on out, it was an upward spiral. I got more and more into films, and I started to like better and better ones. I still have a soft spot for King Kong, but my tastes are a bit better nowadays. I still appreciate Sci-Fi to a degree (2001 is one of my favorite films), but ever since I saw Woody Allen’s Hannah and Her Sisters, I’ve been a huge fan of well-done dramas. I like pretty much anything and everything now, though, and am willing to give anything a go. I watch at least one film a day, usually one I haven’t seen before, and sometimes a lot more if I have the time. It’s a hobby, but it’s also more than that. I want to say way of life, but that sounds a little melodramatic. A passion, maybe? Yeah, that sounds appropriate.
Hey, it’s okay to have a dissenting opinion. You’re just not going to find a lot of sympathy if you disagree about Bergman is all. Here’s a suggestion I hope you’ll find helpful: The Virgin Spring. A lot more happens in it than most of Bergman’s other films. The symbolism is pretty obvious. All the usual themes are still there, but they are hidden underneath of the few narratives Bergman ever put in his films. It has a clear start, middle, and end. It’s not his best work, but calling one Bergman film worse than another is like calling one bar of gold ugly in comparison to the next. The Virgin Spring is quite great. It’s not Bergman’s crowning achievement, but it’s noteworthy all on its own. It’s also one of the few Bergman movies where I felt he handled sexuality well. I thought he sort of stumbled with it in Through a Glass Darkly and a bit in The Silence as well, but here he does a pretty good job of handling the brutality of sexual abuse. It’s a rather horrifying movie, not in the strict sense of horror, but just what you feel for the characters. Which is another reason I’m recommending it to you. Although Bergman always makes great characters, not all of them are as clearly defined and sharply drawn as they are here. Which isn’t a bad thing, but I’m guessing that might be what put you off of Bergman’s other films.
Also, try Hour of the Wolf. It’s a little more surreal and a little less easy to understand, but it’s Bergman’s finest voyage into outright horror, in my opinion. There are several scenes in there that will stick with you more than any Saw film ever could. The fishing scene and the scene where Max von Sydow counts down a minute are just heart-stoppingly tense, and the journey into the castle is like walking into a nightmare. Great movie, and also a little more event-oriented than Bergman’s other films. Bergman always has great imagery in his films, but Hour of the Wolf will probably make you appreciate it more because it’s aggressively trying to affect you rather than flowing along and allowing you to admire its beauty.
You may also enjoy Winter Light. It’s pretty easy to understand, and it’s slow without being glacial. It’s a superb character study, with great performances from everyone involved. It puts its themes – love, apathy, spiritual crisis – right in front of you, as opposed to hinting at them. It was Winter Light that made me stop ‘appreciating’ Bergman films and start genuinely enjoying them.
Good luck with Bergman. If you give up, there’s no shame in that. Not all directors are for everybody. I just think you ought to give a fair chance to the man who many call the greatest director who ever lived before you call it a day. If he’s not for you, then at least you tried, which is always a commendable act. If you do end up liking him, then that’s even better. But don’t worry if you don’t like him even after seeing more of him. You can always reattempt to understand and enjoy his films later on in life. Maybe they’ll have a bigger effect on you once you’ve come face to face with some of the themes Bergman is preoccupied with. I don’t think it’s too big a coincidence that I started to understand Bergman a fair bit more after my aunt died of cancer. Once you stare death in the face, whether it’s your own or someone else’s, it colors your outlook on life. Bergman speaks to that part of you that doesn’t exist otherwise, which is something I really love about him. He knows about the big questions, and he’s one of the few directors who’s always asking them.
On that note, try Woody Allen if you don’t like Bergman after all. He’s the more lighthearted, more American, and more modern Bergman. He incorporates a lot of the same themes and, indeed, some of the same styles Bergman was famous for, but he laughs at them while secretly being bothered by them. Love and Death is a parody of Bergman and the Russian writers who were also deeply disturbed by death. You’ll already recognize the robed white figure as being a wink to Death in The Seventh Seal, but the whole thing is just a joke about how existential they all are, which I think you might appreciate. Also, Woody Allen’s Interiors is like Bergman-lite. Very very similar to Bergman’s films, but much less taxing on the intellect. Which isn’t to say it’s a dumb, easy film, but it doesn’t hide its questions/answers as thoroughly as Bergman sometimes does.
Don’t worry, they’ll update soon enough, probably. They seem to be pretty good about stocking Criterions once it becomes an option.
I do find myself a little annoyed with it every now and then, though. Blood Simple is my favorite example. I realize it’s difficult to find, but come on, Netflix is one of the biggest rental companies operating. Surely they found at least one copy of Blood Simple they can share with the rest of the world? Oh well.
Also, the shipping thing. I have the three at a time plan, and I only get six a week maximum. Sometimes less if I don’t have time to watch them all immediately after getting them. If they shipped on Saturdays, it would be helpful, because if it’s after Wednesday and you haven’t watched a film yet, you’re not going to be able to send it back and get the next one. Wednesday is the cut off date for watching and exchanging, which I find rather restrictive, especially since my Queue is packed all the way up to 500 with paper lists nearby listing all the film I want to see but don’t have room for on my Queue yet.
But it’s a great website. Complaining about Netflix is like complaining about your spouse. Sure they have some minor flaws, some more irksome than others, but you’re still perpetually grateful that they exist and would be lost without them. I would know absolutely nothing about films if Netflix wasn’t exposing me to them, and for that I’m forever in their debt.
Day 1: Send it
Day 2: Wait
Day 3: Receive new movie
I guess not everybody has that, but that’s how it is for me. Theoretically, if I watch one really early in the morning and put it out before the mail comes, I could do it on a Thursday, but that never happens. So I have to watch them Wednesday night or else I don’t get the chance to exchange for the rest of the week. I did manage to watch a film this morning (Saturday) and beat the mail, though, which is always kind of satisfying.
Also, the Availability Unknown is kind of dumb. I know they don’t have it, they know they don’t have it, so I don’t see what the pretense is for.
But, again, I would be nowhere without Netflix. They can screw up all they want as long as I keep getting six or so new films a week.
I’m kind of counting on this website being full of Criterion fanatics. Boards like IMDB and RottenTomatoes are just for your average joe who thinks Fight Club and Boondock Saints are the best movies ever made. Most (hopefully) people who actually hang around Criterion on a regular basis are above that. If I want to talk about The Dark Knight or whatever, I’ll go somewhere else. This is one of the few places where I can talk Weerasethakul and actually get a discussion going. I’m immensely thankful for that.
Personally, I’ve always respected directors who can bounce between commercial and personal and not bring a sweat: Soderbergh, Gordon Greene, Van Sant, etc. It’s getting harder and harder to keep yourself alive by making independent movies in America. As much as we’d all like a world where we could live off of making art, we don’t live in a world like that. Artists have to compromise. I have nothing but respect for Lynch for not giving in, but there’s no denying his filmography is smaller than it could have been if he had gone mainstream for a film or two. Soderbergh’s churning out films at least once every two years, sometimes more frequently than that, even, and you can definitely attribute that to him making stuff like Ocean’s and Erin Brockovich. Because of those mainstream efforts, he has so much more freedom and funding to make his own project. Ideally, Soderbergh and other independent filmmakers would get funding simply because they’re good directors and because they deserve it, but, again, that’s not how it works. I’m tremendously satisfied with Lynch and his work, and if he never makes another film again, he has left us an excellent filmography anyhow. I won’t deny that I’d love to see at least one more pure Lynch film before he goes, but INLAND EMPIRE does sort of seem like his swan song. It’s a great end to a great career, and it would remain so even if he died before making another film. He seems to be doing stuff other than film currently, and I respect that. I’ll support whatever kind of art he wants to give us.
Their selection is pretty great, actually. They have near every Criterion film (High and Low is curiously unavailable, and I’m not sure why.), and apart from that, they are pretty quick with their deliveries (I’m saying this as a person with one of the longer shipping plans). Their DVDs are usually in usable condition, and the Recommendation system is helpful to me and probably a lot of other folks as well. I personally love Documentaries, but I wouldn’t have a clue where to start looking. Netflix recommends me Documentaries based on the ones I’ve already seen, and I use the Star Rating to gauge how good the Documentary in question is. It’s very helpful. Criterion will always be my go-to site for important, classic, and/or foreign films, but Netflix does a nice job of taking care of everything else.
Park’s okay. He has his ups and downs, but overall he rounds out to being somewhere above average. I keep an eye on him nonetheless, because Lady Vengeance was really good.
Well, I’ll be watching Berlin Alexanderplatz this Christmas break since I’ll finally have the time to watch not only it, but the Bonus material as well. If memory serves, that’s nineteen hours. Should be an unforgettable experience in one way or another.
Park is pretty much the springboard for finding better Korean directors. You watch Oldboy or Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance and then you start looking for better Korean movies. That’s my opinion, at least.
What is Kubrick's Most Under-Appreciated Film? over 3 years ago
Would I be wrong in saying that The Shining is among the most underappreciated? I just watched the abysmal House of 1,000 Corpses recently, and that along with pretty much every horror movie out there reminds me that The Shining really is one of the top horror movies of all time. Top Kubrick movie? No, not really. It’s one of his better, I’d say, but I think it’s outclassed by 2001, Barry Lyndon, and A Clockwork Orange. On the other hand, I really love The Shining. Everything about it is great. It’s one of the few movies I’ll pull out multiple times a year just to relive the experience of. I know most people like The Shining nowadays; I won’t dispute that. But I feel like it sometimes gets ignored, strangely, in favor of (deservedly) more popular Kubrick movies.
And, of course, Barry Lyndon. That movie is gorgeous from start to finish. I think most people are daunted by its pace and subject matter, but if you have the stomach for it, it’s a really amazing experience. I am in awe at every single candlelit scene.
Go to Comment
12-year old asking... over 3 years ago
Kurosawa is my area of expertise; I’ll admit to being rather underschooled in the other three.
Kurosawa: The Big Three are vital, of course: Seven Samurai, Ran, and Rashomon. All are great, all are his most famous for a reason. However, I would actually suggest Throne of Blood for an oddball pick. To me, this is a quintessential Kurosawa film. Many of his themes are present, his adoration of foreign literature is obvious (it’s an adaptation of MacBeth), and the cinematography is about as good as Kurosawa ever had. Toshiro Mifune, a Kurosawa regular, stars, and he gives quite the performance. The scenery is beautiful. The special effects are impressive. It may not technically be as good as his greatest works, but I love it nonetheless. Red Beard is also an underappreciated but magnificent movie. It moves a little slower and its plotline is a little more sprawling, but it’s an affecting movie that I would recommend to Kurosawa beginners.
Fellini: Don’t start with Satyricon. I did, and I nearly gave up right then and there. Satyricon is pure, undiluted Fellini madness. It’s rather good, but it’s not the right place to start. Try 8 1/2. It’s the Fellini movie everybody has seen, and it happens to be really good to boot.
Antonioni: I’m woefully underexposed to Antonioni, even though many people say he’s one of the top directors of all time. I won’t recommend anything or advise against anything. Let somebody else take care of that.
Truffaut: Shoot the Piano Player is an easy way to get into Truffaut. The 400 Blows is an excellent movie well worth your attention. But really, you can’t go too wrong with Truffaut. I guess don’t start with Soft Skin or something, but he’s a reasonably accessible director.
Go to Comment
12-year old asking... over 3 years ago
Sorry, double post.
Go to Comment
Tropical Malady over 3 years ago
Syndromes and a Century is among my favorite movies of all time. Amazing.
I love Weerasethakul. I’ve seen all four of his feature films to date and enjoyed each of them greatly. My least favorite, actually, is Tropical Malady. It’s not terrible; far from it. But I think it doesn’t quite succeed as a movie on the whole. For proof, look at Syndromes and a Century. There, Weerasethakul melds two different stories into one as he did in Tropical Malady, but it’s so much more seamless and impressive. I don’t think he was trying to make the jump from romance to folklore in Tropical Malady seamless, but it seemed like two entirely different movies. I can’t fault him for his bravery, but sometimes experiments work, and sometimes they don’t. I’d say it worked with Tropical Malady, but it worked much better with Syndromes and a Century.
Also, yes, Blissfully Yours is great and absolutely worth watching. If there’s anybody who’s reading this Thread and hasn’t seen a Weerasethakul film, start with Blissfully Yours. It’s straightforward, there’s no sudden plot transitions, and it has all of Weerasethakul’s trademarks. It’s a great introduction to a great director (though it is the most sexually explicit, if that sort of thing actually bothers you.).
Go to Comment
12-year old asking... over 3 years ago
Nobody ever remembers The King of Comedy. It’s a little gem in Scorsese’s filmography that everybody loves once they finally get around to seeing it. Nice recommendation.
Go to Comment
Your favorite Woody Allen's film? over 3 years ago
Hannah and Her Sisters: My first Woody Allen film and still my favorite. It has all of his strengths and few of his weaknesses.
Crimes and Misdemeanors: Excellent. To me, this has always represented the time Woody transcended his admiration of Bergman and made something uniquely him. Not that I couldn’t see Landau’s storyline being in a Bergman film, but I feel like a lot of Woody’s movie were held back by being in Bergman’s shadow (Interiors especially). Not Crimes and Misdemeanors, though.
I’m kind of soft on Manhattan too. It was the first of his films that made me understand why he loves New York so much.
Honorable mentions: Interiors, Sleeper, Bananas. I’ve never liked Annie Hall as much as I wish I could.
Go to Comment
Is Cinema dying? over 3 years ago
To be honest, I sometimes look at my list of favorite directors and wonder why there are so few worth paying attention to these days. The number of filmmakers I actually actively keep up with these days is tiny. However, I don’t think cinema will ever die. It’s true that commercialism is an impediment to art, and that there aren’t a ton of auteurs out there, but there will always be art. As long as cameras exist, so will cinema. It may dwindle and wane over the years, but there will always be at least one auteur keeping an eye on (hopefully).
Go to Comment
Movies That Should Be In the Criterion Collection over 3 years ago
Satyajit Ray Satyajit Ray Satyajit Ray. I cannot emphasize this enough. It’s terribly difficult to even find his films, and the ones you do find are generally poorly transferred. Satyajit Ray is a masterful filmmaker, and I think the Criterion treatment would be a worthy tribute to such a great director.
Wouldn’t mind seeing Apichatpong Weerasethakul given a spot or two in the Collection. Syndromes and a Century especially would be worthy.
Agreeing with the Guy Maddin recommendations too. Only about half of his movies are available to watch on Netflix right now. The rest are all “Release Time Unknown”, which means Netflix doesn’t have them and probably won’t anytime in the near future. I like Maddin, but I’d like to see more of him. Criterion has shown that they like Maddin too, so I would support adding one or two of his earlier works to the Collection.
Go to Comment
What is Kubrick's Most Under-Appreciated Film? over 3 years ago
Barry Lyndon is really great, but in my opinion, it lacks a certain something to elevate it to the level of, say, 2001. I really like it and greatly enjoyed watching it, but it’s missing something that would make it a masterpiece. Still excellent, though, and I definitely agree that most people just kind of forget about it. Maybe because it wasn’t as outwardly impressive as Kubrick’s others: The Shining had its terrifying moments, 2001 had the minutes-long color sequence near the end, and A Clockwork Orange was bursting at the seams with interesting stylistic choices. What does Barry Lyndon have? On the surface, nothing, but if you stop looking for extremely impressive standout shots, you start to notice that nearly all of the shots are just amazing. The lighting is beautiful, the composition is great, and you can tell that Kubrick spent all the time in the world making it look as natural and beautiful as it does. It may not have a specific moment that you can point to as the pinnacle of the movie, but the point is that the whole movie is a high point. It’s like a three hour money shot, basically.
Also, The Killing is less appreciated than it ought to be. I know plenty of people like it (Tarantino pretty much built a career off of it), but it seems like it just gets lumped into the category of Early Kubrick. And it is, but it definitely has something to it that Killer’s Kiss, Fear and Desire, and all of Kubrick’s other fledgling works didn’t. It’s not his best movie by a long shot, but it’s a solid entry in a solid filmography. I think more people ought to watch it/rewatch it, because it really is awesome.
Go to Comment
12-year old asking... over 3 years ago
Fahrenheit 451 is a good recommendation for Truffaut. It shouldn’t be any trouble at all to understand at your age, especially if you’re aching for Antonioni.
Ozu is a great director, but he should probably come later than Kurosawa and Mizoguchi. I’m not saying a twelve-year-old couldn’t understand Ozu, but there’s no harm in holding off until you’re older. Kurosawa is much more accessible and just as good, so why not start with him?
Also, as long as we’re on the subject of Japanese directors, check out Kon Ichikawa. In my opinion, he’s the best of them all. Maybe not by a country mile, but that man made some incredible movies in his prime. He wasn’t as consistent as Ozu/Mizoguchi/Kurosawa, but I absolutely adore The Burmese Harp and Fires on the Plain. Ryan, watch The Burmese Harp. It’s a powerful and wonderfully shot anti-war movie. It is lighthearted most of the time with some horribly dark moments in between. It’s a tremendous experience, and I think, even at twelve, it might be right up your alley.
Go to Comment
Some Movies that always lifts You up are... over 3 years ago
I can’t stay unhappy after watching Chungking Express. The second half especially just puts me in high spirits no matter what.
Also, gonna agree with Ratatouille. The flashback scene is masterful. Anybody who thinks animation is for kids (not that I expect there are many of those people here) really needs to watch Ratatouille. It’s not exactly a masterpiece, but it is a great movie for any age.
Go to Comment
David Lynch Overrated? over 3 years ago
Yes and no. Yes in that a lot of people out there think he can do no wrong and will honestly say Wild at Heart and Dune are masterpieces. No in that a lot of people also don’t understand what he does and think he’s only being weird for the sake of being weird. I admire Lynch primarily for the amount of work he puts into making his films. Listen to him talk about the sound design of Mulholland Dr., and you’ll understand what a great director the guy is. He puts so much work into making his films great, and, whether or not they turn out great, I appreciate the fact that he tries. He’s had his misfires (though, to be fair, it wasn’t his fault Dune turned out lousy. I can’t really excuse Wild at Heart, unfortunately), but when he’s on, he’s really on. I think a lot of people get the wrong idea about him, for better or for worse. I guess there’s no objective way to ‘get’ David Lynch, but if there is, it’s somewhere between thinking he’s a god amongst men and thinking he’s a pretentious hack. I certainly sympathize with people who don’t get him, because he is in no way easy to get, but I don’t have a lot of sympathy for people who just lash out in frustration because he doesn’t always make sense.
Go to Comment
Movies That Should Be In the Criterion Collection over 3 years ago
Efe Çakarel: Y tu mamá también has already been released. Good choice, but a bit late.
Gonna throw in my support for Wong Kar Wai. I think Ashes of Time would make a great release in general. There’s a lot of history to that movie, not the least of which being the Redux edition released a few weeks ago, which I think would be a great thing for Criterion to cover. Aside from that, I could die happy if I saw a Criterion 2046 in HD.
And personally, I’ve always felt Happy Together was up there with Wong’s best (Chungking Express, In the Mood for Love). Maybe not quite at the top, but it’s absolutely one of his better works, in my opinion. Even ignoring the bold and impressive performances from the two stars, Wong made a lot of daring stylistic choices, and they worked a lot more often than they didn’t. I’ll be the first to admit that Wong is prone to missteps here and there (I just barely enjoyed My Blueberry Nights, and most of his other films flirt with being great while falling sadly short.), but Happy Together signifies another peak in a sporadically great filmography that would fit right at home in Criterion alongside his other two best works.
Go to Comment
Fantastic Mr. Fox over 3 years ago
Check the wikipedia page. Yeah yeah, I know about wikipedia being unreliable and all, but it doesn’t seem like anything on the page is too far-fetched. Bill Murray and George Clooney together sounds like a recipe for gold to me. Also, it seems as though it’s done being filmed, so it shouldn’t be too long before we see the final product.
Personally, I’m just interested to see how Wes Anderson does making a story that isn’t a fractured character study. I actually really liked The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou and sort of enjoyed The Darjeeling Limited, but even I won’t deny it’s time Anderson pulled himself out of the hole he dug for himself. He’s a great director, but I don’t want to see him living in his own shadow for the rest of his life. The Fantastic Mr. Fox will be something very different than usual, which I’m quite excited about. His next project is rumored to be a remake of My Best Friend, which may or may not turn out well. I’ll reserve judgment on that until…well, until he actually confirms that it’s his next project.
Go to Comment
Opinions of Van Sant? over 3 years ago
Gus Van Sant’s a tough director to get. He isn’t exactly consistent as far as the quality of his films is concerned (I don’t think there’s a person alive who enjoyed Even Cowgirls Get the Blues), and his subject matter and shooting style are often strange and outlandish. There are directors that few people will dare to dispute the greatness of, and then there are directors like Gus Van Sant who are more on the fence and more difficult to judge objectively. I’d like to hear some opinions about his work, because I think a good discussion could occur between the people who dislike him and the people who like him.
Also, is anybody else excited for Milk? As soon as it’s out and available nearby, I’ll be seeing it.
Go to Comment
Solaris over 3 years ago
How do you feel Soderbergh’s treatment compares to Tarkovsky’s?
I myself think they’re both great in their own ways, but there are a ton of people who would disagree. Many say Tarkovsky’s is too slow, too unengaging, too unfocused, and too empty. Many others say Soderbergh’s is too maudlin, too emptyheaded, too short, and too different. What do you all think? Do you have a preference? Do you hate one or the other? How do you think they measure up to the book (if you’ve read it)?
Go to Comment
INGMAR BERGMAN: GENIUS...OR...OVERRATED BORE? over 3 years ago
Ingmar Bergman is my favorite director. It’s a very uninspired choice, and one pretty much any self-proclaimed cinephile would choose, but there really is just no one better. The man’s made more masterpieces than handfuls of directors combined. His subject matter is always interesting, his skill with actors is incredible, his cinematography is nigh unparalleled, and in general, he’s just an amazing director. I know not everybody likes slow, quiet, existential dramas, but if you can tolerate them, there’s nobody better than Bergman. He’s not head and shoulders above every director in the world, but he’s definitely one of the only directors who ever lived who could marry quality and quantity. Most directors make a few good films or a lot of bad ones, but Bergman just churned out masterpiece after masterpiece. Even his early work gets at least a 3/5 from me. The only Bergman film I ever outright disliked was The Serpent’s Egg, and even that was hardly his fault. Everything else has been anywhere from ‘good’ to ‘awe-inspiring’.
So, in conclusion, I think he’s a genius. And, to be honest, I don’t think that’s really arguable. I hate to sound elitist and attempt to be objective about a subjective art form, but I don’t think I’ll ever see a convincing argument that Bergman is a hack. Overrated? I guess you could argue that. Boring? Well, he’s not the most accessible director ever, and his symbolism can be a bit daunting from time to time. I understand Bergman not being to a person’s individual tastes and I respect that; personally, I have a hard time honestly enjoying most of Altman’s films, but I know a fair amount people will say he’s one of the world’s top directors. But I’d say Bergman’s one director you just can’t dispute the greatness of. Maybe the caliber of greatness, but the greatness in general? Nah. Bergman’s just too good for that.
Go to Comment
12-year old asking... over 3 years ago
Also, don’t be afraid to revisit films you saw at a young age. I know that sounds pretty obvious, but you grow wiser with each year you live, and you see more and more films with each passing year as well. The more you see, the more references you catch. For example, there’s a joke in The 400 Blows that is a sly reference to another film. The name of it escapes me, but I sure didn’t notice it the first time I watched The 400 Blows. If I were to watch the film it’s referencing and then rewatch The 400 Blows, it would make the joke all that much better and would boost my opinion of it ever so slightly. That’s perhaps not the best example, especially since I’m being so vague about it, but that’s the sort of thing I generally mean. The more you know, the better you understand things.
To provide a better example, Wes Anderson can be appreciated without a deep knowledge of the French New Wave. I, for example, am not too informed about the French New Wave, but I’ve seen every Anderson film and liked them all. Rushmore is one of my all-time favorite films even, and this is without even understanding all the references and shooting styles that Wes Anderson incorporates into his films. Once I’ve seen more of the famous French directors, I’ll probably enjoy Rushmore even more.
Sorry for the slight ramble. The summary of what I just said there is that films tend to get better with age (your aging, that is), so don’t be afraid to rewatch, even if you think/know you had a pretty good grasp of them the first time around. There are all sorts of little winks and nudges hidden in films that you have to be really sharp to notice.
Go to Comment
INGMAR BERGMAN: GENIUS...OR...OVERRATED BORE? over 3 years ago
Bergman is accessible as far as getting into him goes. You have his early films which all are reasonably good and show a lot of his trademarks without being too taxing (I’m a pretty big fan of Crisis and Sawdust and Tinsel myself, even having seen his later works), and from there on out, you can pretty much go in chronological order. The Seventh Seal and Wild Strawberries first, then the God Trilogy, then Scenes from a Marriage and Cries and Whispers (and The Magic Flute if you want an offbeat but still cool Bergman film), and then sum it all up with Fanny and Alexander. Add Saraband as an epilogue of sorts, and you’re golden. Appreciating him is much harder, but I think everybody should at least try. Apart from the fact that you’ll probably love Bergman once you understand him, he’s a director that everybody worth talking to about films would know of. He’s one of those directors you just need to know if you want to get into films, and it usually helps to have a favorable opinion of him and his body of work.
Go to Comment
New to The Auteurs? You Belong Here over 3 years ago
I’m Michael and I have faint aspirations of being a director, or at the very least a screenwriter. I don’t know if I’ll ever achieve that, but I’ll be working very hard at doing so. I would find a life without films a very boring one, and I feel like making them would be one of the few things I could do in this world that could potentially make a difference. I guess we’ll see what happens in a few years.
I’m a Junior in High School, and I live in Pennsylvania. Needless to say, this is hardly a place where I get to discuss films frequently. The best I can hope for is somebody here having heard of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind or something. It never gets much more esoteric than that. And foreign films? Haha. Not in this state. Luckily, I have Netflix, Criterion, and now The Auteurs to keep me from losing my mind and keeping me exposed to all the world’s best films. There’s nothing I love more than watching a good film. They can and often do affect me emotionally, spiritually, or intellectually, sometimes all at once. Nothing else in the world does that for me. I love reading and I like music, but neither of them are as overall impressive and affecting as films are. So thank you, makers of this site. I already had Criterion to find the films, but now I have The Auteurs to discuss what I’ve found (as well as watch a few that I’ve missed out on).
E: I got into cinema, weirdly enough, through King Kong 2005. I was a bigger nerd than I am now when I was younger. I used to be much more into Sci-Fi and video games; I watched the Sci-Fi Channel constantly throughout 2005 (laugh all you want; I do too.). Then I saw King Kong at the end of the year, and, at the time, it was the perfect movie. It had everything I, at fourteen years of age, was looking for in a movie, including a healthy dose of fantasy/Sci-Fi. From there on out, it was an upward spiral. I got more and more into films, and I started to like better and better ones. I still have a soft spot for King Kong, but my tastes are a bit better nowadays. I still appreciate Sci-Fi to a degree (2001 is one of my favorite films), but ever since I saw Woody Allen’s Hannah and Her Sisters, I’ve been a huge fan of well-done dramas. I like pretty much anything and everything now, though, and am willing to give anything a go. I watch at least one film a day, usually one I haven’t seen before, and sometimes a lot more if I have the time. It’s a hobby, but it’s also more than that. I want to say way of life, but that sounds a little melodramatic. A passion, maybe? Yeah, that sounds appropriate.
Go to Comment
INGMAR BERGMAN: GENIUS...OR...OVERRATED BORE? over 3 years ago
Hey, it’s okay to have a dissenting opinion. You’re just not going to find a lot of sympathy if you disagree about Bergman is all. Here’s a suggestion I hope you’ll find helpful: The Virgin Spring. A lot more happens in it than most of Bergman’s other films. The symbolism is pretty obvious. All the usual themes are still there, but they are hidden underneath of the few narratives Bergman ever put in his films. It has a clear start, middle, and end. It’s not his best work, but calling one Bergman film worse than another is like calling one bar of gold ugly in comparison to the next. The Virgin Spring is quite great. It’s not Bergman’s crowning achievement, but it’s noteworthy all on its own. It’s also one of the few Bergman movies where I felt he handled sexuality well. I thought he sort of stumbled with it in Through a Glass Darkly and a bit in The Silence as well, but here he does a pretty good job of handling the brutality of sexual abuse. It’s a rather horrifying movie, not in the strict sense of horror, but just what you feel for the characters. Which is another reason I’m recommending it to you. Although Bergman always makes great characters, not all of them are as clearly defined and sharply drawn as they are here. Which isn’t a bad thing, but I’m guessing that might be what put you off of Bergman’s other films.
Also, try Hour of the Wolf. It’s a little more surreal and a little less easy to understand, but it’s Bergman’s finest voyage into outright horror, in my opinion. There are several scenes in there that will stick with you more than any Saw film ever could. The fishing scene and the scene where Max von Sydow counts down a minute are just heart-stoppingly tense, and the journey into the castle is like walking into a nightmare. Great movie, and also a little more event-oriented than Bergman’s other films. Bergman always has great imagery in his films, but Hour of the Wolf will probably make you appreciate it more because it’s aggressively trying to affect you rather than flowing along and allowing you to admire its beauty.
You may also enjoy Winter Light. It’s pretty easy to understand, and it’s slow without being glacial. It’s a superb character study, with great performances from everyone involved. It puts its themes – love, apathy, spiritual crisis – right in front of you, as opposed to hinting at them. It was Winter Light that made me stop ‘appreciating’ Bergman films and start genuinely enjoying them.
Good luck with Bergman. If you give up, there’s no shame in that. Not all directors are for everybody. I just think you ought to give a fair chance to the man who many call the greatest director who ever lived before you call it a day. If he’s not for you, then at least you tried, which is always a commendable act. If you do end up liking him, then that’s even better. But don’t worry if you don’t like him even after seeing more of him. You can always reattempt to understand and enjoy his films later on in life. Maybe they’ll have a bigger effect on you once you’ve come face to face with some of the themes Bergman is preoccupied with. I don’t think it’s too big a coincidence that I started to understand Bergman a fair bit more after my aunt died of cancer. Once you stare death in the face, whether it’s your own or someone else’s, it colors your outlook on life. Bergman speaks to that part of you that doesn’t exist otherwise, which is something I really love about him. He knows about the big questions, and he’s one of the few directors who’s always asking them.
On that note, try Woody Allen if you don’t like Bergman after all. He’s the more lighthearted, more American, and more modern Bergman. He incorporates a lot of the same themes and, indeed, some of the same styles Bergman was famous for, but he laughs at them while secretly being bothered by them. Love and Death is a parody of Bergman and the Russian writers who were also deeply disturbed by death. You’ll already recognize the robed white figure as being a wink to Death in The Seventh Seal, but the whole thing is just a joke about how existential they all are, which I think you might appreciate. Also, Woody Allen’s Interiors is like Bergman-lite. Very very similar to Bergman’s films, but much less taxing on the intellect. Which isn’t to say it’s a dumb, easy film, but it doesn’t hide its questions/answers as thoroughly as Bergman sometimes does.
Go to Comment
Netflix; frustrations with over 3 years ago
Don’t worry, they’ll update soon enough, probably. They seem to be pretty good about stocking Criterions once it becomes an option.
I do find myself a little annoyed with it every now and then, though. Blood Simple is my favorite example. I realize it’s difficult to find, but come on, Netflix is one of the biggest rental companies operating. Surely they found at least one copy of Blood Simple they can share with the rest of the world? Oh well.
Also, the shipping thing. I have the three at a time plan, and I only get six a week maximum. Sometimes less if I don’t have time to watch them all immediately after getting them. If they shipped on Saturdays, it would be helpful, because if it’s after Wednesday and you haven’t watched a film yet, you’re not going to be able to send it back and get the next one. Wednesday is the cut off date for watching and exchanging, which I find rather restrictive, especially since my Queue is packed all the way up to 500 with paper lists nearby listing all the film I want to see but don’t have room for on my Queue yet.
But it’s a great website. Complaining about Netflix is like complaining about your spouse. Sure they have some minor flaws, some more irksome than others, but you’re still perpetually grateful that they exist and would be lost without them. I would know absolutely nothing about films if Netflix wasn’t exposing me to them, and for that I’m forever in their debt.
Go to Comment
Netflix; frustrations with over 3 years ago
For me, the shipping process goes like this:
Day 1: Send it
Day 2: Wait
Day 3: Receive new movie
I guess not everybody has that, but that’s how it is for me. Theoretically, if I watch one really early in the morning and put it out before the mail comes, I could do it on a Thursday, but that never happens. So I have to watch them Wednesday night or else I don’t get the chance to exchange for the rest of the week. I did manage to watch a film this morning (Saturday) and beat the mail, though, which is always kind of satisfying.
Also, the Availability Unknown is kind of dumb. I know they don’t have it, they know they don’t have it, so I don’t see what the pretense is for.
But, again, I would be nowhere without Netflix. They can screw up all they want as long as I keep getting six or so new films a week.
Go to Comment
Worries about the future... over 3 years ago
I’m kind of counting on this website being full of Criterion fanatics. Boards like IMDB and RottenTomatoes are just for your average joe who thinks Fight Club and Boondock Saints are the best movies ever made. Most (hopefully) people who actually hang around Criterion on a regular basis are above that. If I want to talk about The Dark Knight or whatever, I’ll go somewhere else. This is one of the few places where I can talk Weerasethakul and actually get a discussion going. I’m immensely thankful for that.
Go to Comment
David Lynch Overrated? over 3 years ago
Personally, I’ve always respected directors who can bounce between commercial and personal and not bring a sweat: Soderbergh, Gordon Greene, Van Sant, etc. It’s getting harder and harder to keep yourself alive by making independent movies in America. As much as we’d all like a world where we could live off of making art, we don’t live in a world like that. Artists have to compromise. I have nothing but respect for Lynch for not giving in, but there’s no denying his filmography is smaller than it could have been if he had gone mainstream for a film or two. Soderbergh’s churning out films at least once every two years, sometimes more frequently than that, even, and you can definitely attribute that to him making stuff like Ocean’s and Erin Brockovich. Because of those mainstream efforts, he has so much more freedom and funding to make his own project. Ideally, Soderbergh and other independent filmmakers would get funding simply because they’re good directors and because they deserve it, but, again, that’s not how it works. I’m tremendously satisfied with Lynch and his work, and if he never makes another film again, he has left us an excellent filmography anyhow. I won’t deny that I’d love to see at least one more pure Lynch film before he goes, but INLAND EMPIRE does sort of seem like his swan song. It’s a great end to a great career, and it would remain so even if he died before making another film. He seems to be doing stuff other than film currently, and I respect that. I’ll support whatever kind of art he wants to give us.
Go to Comment
Netflix; frustrations with over 3 years ago
Their selection is pretty great, actually. They have near every Criterion film (High and Low is curiously unavailable, and I’m not sure why.), and apart from that, they are pretty quick with their deliveries (I’m saying this as a person with one of the longer shipping plans). Their DVDs are usually in usable condition, and the Recommendation system is helpful to me and probably a lot of other folks as well. I personally love Documentaries, but I wouldn’t have a clue where to start looking. Netflix recommends me Documentaries based on the ones I’ve already seen, and I use the Star Rating to gauge how good the Documentary in question is. It’s very helpful. Criterion will always be my go-to site for important, classic, and/or foreign films, but Netflix does a nice job of taking care of everything else.
Go to Comment
INGMAR BERGMAN: GENIUS...OR...OVERRATED BORE? over 3 years ago
Ingrid Thulin’s six minute soliloquy in Winter Light is one of the greatest things I’ve ever seen in a film.
Go to Comment
What do you think about Park Chan-wook? over 3 years ago
Park’s okay. He has his ups and downs, but overall he rounds out to being somewhere above average. I keep an eye on him nonetheless, because Lady Vengeance was really good.
Go to Comment
The longest movie you've ever sat through over 3 years ago
Well, I’ll be watching Berlin Alexanderplatz this Christmas break since I’ll finally have the time to watch not only it, but the Bonus material as well. If memory serves, that’s nineteen hours. Should be an unforgettable experience in one way or another.
Go to Comment
What do you think about Park Chan-wook? over 3 years ago
Park is pretty much the springboard for finding better Korean directors. You watch Oldboy or Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance and then you start looking for better Korean movies. That’s my opinion, at least.
Go to Comment