Some people may just want the movies. And the Janus Box is a big commitment. Also, those who don’t want the ENTIRE Criterion Collection, just the, um, “essentials.”
Had I never read Lem’s book, or seen the Tarkovsky film, I would have liked Soderbergh’s “Solaris” just fine. It’s not a bad film, but it pales in comparison to the other two.
David:
It’s been awhile since I’ve seen either, so my opinions are not “fresh.”
I do think Tarkovsky’s film was closer to the book, at least with regard to the Kelvin character. In both the book and the Tarkovsky film, the guy is kind of a prick. You get a sense that he deserves the torture Solaris gives him. Also, I think it was much more open-ended as to whether the guy might just be crazy. The Soderbergh version, to me, tried too hard to explain what was going on, and obviously with Clooney in the lead they had to make the Kelvin character at least somewhat likable.
It’s still a good movie, I just liked the other tellings better. I do try to have an open mind when going into a film, but when it’s a remake or adaptation of something I’m familiar with, it’s difficult to judge it completely on its own merits.
So far, I’ve seen all the movies you folks have named… not to brag, I just have a voracious appetite and several years of life behind me.
Here are some I haven’t caught yet:
“Z”
“The Sting”
“American Graffiti”
“Mean Streets”
“Salò”
“The Ballad of Narayama”
“Kiss of the Spider Woman”
“Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters”
“Funny Games”
“Kundun”
I think Criterion is “honest” about their double-dipping, so I don’t mind. What I mean is, Criterion releases a film, The Third Man, using the best print/materials available at the time. Years later, a new print is made from new elements, and Criterion’s old DVD now looks like crap by comparison. So, they come up with a re-release, using the new print, and adding some special features to enhance the package. They only do this when there is a vastly superior product to put out there.
This is much different than when your average big studio releases a 1-disc release of a new release, fully intended to release a 2-disc extended/unrated/whatever edition 6 months down the road. That’s the kind of double-dipping that is annoying.
Also, I think the “downgrade” editions Criterion is starting to do is a nice idea for those who want to own great films, but aren’t interested in the special features. I am not a member of that group, but I can appreciate it for those who are.
I’m sure you won’t be alone here, there are lots of people who like to rag on a film that has gotten a lot of critical/social acclaim, but I think your example of elisions of time is a bad one. Dent/Gordon/Batman catch and arrest the Joker, Dent gives his speech. Then while the Joker is being taken to the police station, the two cops who were working for him, who were supposed to take Dawes and Dent home, instead took them to the warehouse locations where they were tied to the explosives. It’s not a big jump in time – the audience isn’t shown it because we (like Batman and Gordon) need to be surprised by the turnabout and by the identity of the bad cops. But it’s totally reasonable, timeline-wise.
A better example, to me, would be when the Joker shows up at Bruce Wayne’s fundraiser, after Batman goes flying off the building to grab Rachel, what does the Joker’s gang do? Ask which way to the elevator? Say “look over there!” and then run the other direction? That, to me, is a better example of a weird time transition in the film.
As for Heath’s performance, I thought it was phenomenal, and incredibly creepy and unsettling. That, I think, is what makes people think of the film as “dark.” That, and the downer ending. Heath’s Joker was actually revolting and scary, and yet you couldn’t take your eyes off him while he was on screen. Frankly, I don’t know what other roles in Heath Ledger’s canon people point to when calling him a great actor. I suppose “Brokeback Mountain,” but I didn’t find that role particularly amazing.
I’m sure more people on this forum will agree with you than agree with me though. To each his/her own!
Why Essential Arthouse DVDs? over 3 years ago
Some people may just want the movies. And the Janus Box is a big commitment. Also, those who don’t want the ENTIRE Criterion Collection, just the, um, “essentials.”
Go to Comment
Solaris over 3 years ago
Had I never read Lem’s book, or seen the Tarkovsky film, I would have liked Soderbergh’s “Solaris” just fine. It’s not a bad film, but it pales in comparison to the other two.
Go to Comment
Worst Criterion DVDs over 3 years ago
I found “Fishing With John” to be not funny at all. Not even a little bit.
Go to Comment
Solaris over 3 years ago
David:
It’s been awhile since I’ve seen either, so my opinions are not “fresh.”
I do think Tarkovsky’s film was closer to the book, at least with regard to the Kelvin character. In both the book and the Tarkovsky film, the guy is kind of a prick. You get a sense that he deserves the torture Solaris gives him. Also, I think it was much more open-ended as to whether the guy might just be crazy. The Soderbergh version, to me, tried too hard to explain what was going on, and obviously with Clooney in the lead they had to make the Kelvin character at least somewhat likable.
It’s still a good movie, I just liked the other tellings better. I do try to have an open mind when going into a film, but when it’s a remake or adaptation of something I’m familiar with, it’s difficult to judge it completely on its own merits.
Go to Comment
CONFESSIONS--FILMS YOU ARE ASHAMED TO SAY YOU HAVE NOT SEEN (YET) over 3 years ago
So far, I’ve seen all the movies you folks have named… not to brag, I just have a voracious appetite and several years of life behind me.
Here are some I haven’t caught yet:
“Z”
“The Sting”
“American Graffiti”
“Mean Streets”
“Salò”
“The Ballad of Narayama”
“Kiss of the Spider Woman”
“Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters”
“Funny Games”
“Kundun”
Go to Comment
As it must to all DVD, Double Dip came to Criterion... over 3 years ago
I think Criterion is “honest” about their double-dipping, so I don’t mind. What I mean is, Criterion releases a film, The Third Man, using the best print/materials available at the time. Years later, a new print is made from new elements, and Criterion’s old DVD now looks like crap by comparison. So, they come up with a re-release, using the new print, and adding some special features to enhance the package. They only do this when there is a vastly superior product to put out there.
This is much different than when your average big studio releases a 1-disc release of a new release, fully intended to release a 2-disc extended/unrated/whatever edition 6 months down the road. That’s the kind of double-dipping that is annoying.
Also, I think the “downgrade” editions Criterion is starting to do is a nice idea for those who want to own great films, but aren’t interested in the special features. I am not a member of that group, but I can appreciate it for those who are.
Go to Comment
Uncommonly dark night, or just a new moon? over 3 years ago
I’m sure you won’t be alone here, there are lots of people who like to rag on a film that has gotten a lot of critical/social acclaim, but I think your example of elisions of time is a bad one. Dent/Gordon/Batman catch and arrest the Joker, Dent gives his speech. Then while the Joker is being taken to the police station, the two cops who were working for him, who were supposed to take Dawes and Dent home, instead took them to the warehouse locations where they were tied to the explosives. It’s not a big jump in time – the audience isn’t shown it because we (like Batman and Gordon) need to be surprised by the turnabout and by the identity of the bad cops. But it’s totally reasonable, timeline-wise.
A better example, to me, would be when the Joker shows up at Bruce Wayne’s fundraiser, after Batman goes flying off the building to grab Rachel, what does the Joker’s gang do? Ask which way to the elevator? Say “look over there!” and then run the other direction? That, to me, is a better example of a weird time transition in the film.
As for Heath’s performance, I thought it was phenomenal, and incredibly creepy and unsettling. That, I think, is what makes people think of the film as “dark.” That, and the downer ending. Heath’s Joker was actually revolting and scary, and yet you couldn’t take your eyes off him while he was on screen. Frankly, I don’t know what other roles in Heath Ledger’s canon people point to when calling him a great actor. I suppose “Brokeback Mountain,” but I didn’t find that role particularly amazing.
I’m sure more people on this forum will agree with you than agree with me though. To each his/her own!
Go to Comment
Best Shakespeare Adaptations over 3 years ago
I love Taymor’s “Titus.”
Then of course there’s the Kurosawa adaptations: “Throne of Blood” and “Ran”
Go to Comment