Criterion Collection: a laugh track was accidentally added to Ikiru

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Cinema Discusso > Criterion Collection: a laugh track was accidentally added to Ikiru

«‹›4 »

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

zandert33 posted:

Check your public library. Many have tons of Criterions to borrow, and they're free.

Doubt you'll find much Troma there though.

If you're looking for a legit but free way to watch Troma films, they have a whole shitload of their stuff available for free on their youtube channel.

# ¿ Dec 9, 2016 23:27

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 04:18

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

Basebf555 posted:

The consensus seems to be slowly turning on that though. Dawn's reputation isn't quite what it used to be and Day's seems to get better and better as time goes on. I think the whole rampant consumerism thing in Dawn is seen as trite and simplistic today as compared to the 80's and 90's.

If that's what consensus is doing consensus is an idiot. Dawn of the Dead (1978) is one of a very small handful of genre films whose reach is felt beyond the genre and, for that matter, beyond film. It, even more than Night of the Living Dead (1968) is the template for virtually all living dead fiction that came after it. Recent films, games, comics, and asinine poo poo like zombie preppers all follow a line back to the urban survival fantasy of Dawn, not the fallout shelter drama of Night.

# ¿ Jul 8, 2017 11:27

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

Basebf555 posted:

It's influence is undeniable, no question about it. But, as Uncle B pointed out, not everyone agrees that the influence has been a positive thing. The survival fantasy element of zombie films is something that I think not everyone enjoys and you're correct that it can be traced back to Dawn of the Dead.

I know for myself, when I watch Day of the Dead I think "I wish more zombie movies were like this", while when I watch Dawn of the Dead it's more like "this is really good but I feel like I've seen it a thousand times before". Not that it still isn't relevant, because of course it is, but it's just not novel anymore, and Day feels like it still is.

In this model consensus is just a silly hipster saying that it liked Dawn back before it got popular.

But, you know, that's not really how consensus works. If something is still, approximately 40 years after its initial release, one of the most instantly-recognisable clusters of cultural signifiers and is the basis for a string of contemporary, popular, commercially-successful properties it's really loving hard to see this as an argument for declining consensus opinion.

# ¿ Jul 8, 2017 20:39

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

I organise Criterions according to the principles of theology and geometry, and I make an occasional cheese dip.

# ¿ Jul 10, 2017 03:22

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

Cat People (1942) is one of the best films ever made. All the Lewton/Tourneur joints are loving aces.

# ¿ Jul 11, 2017 10:45

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

ruddiger posted:

The two most American directors are John Hughes and David Lynch.

I know whimsical contrarianism is sorta the default CineD schtick, but I no poo poo think Bob Clark and Hal Needham are two directors that have tremendous reach in American cinema that isn't properly understood or appreciated because they worked in stuff that was largely considered mainstream fluff.

You could have made the same case for, say, Roger Corman like twenty years ago or so, but I feel like there's a more general recognition of his contributions these days. Same, although to a lesser extent, with Russ Meyer.

# ¿ Jul 12, 2017 00:01

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

K. Waste posted:

Anybody seen Kuroneko? I'm considering a blind buy just because it'd be cool to see a vengeful japanese ghost lady movie from '68 along with the splurge of them I've seen from the late-'90s/early-'00s. Getting that and Onibaba would be pretty sweet, I haven't seen that one in a long time.

It owns, but it's much more of a low-key mood piece then any more recent black-haired ghost j-horror you've probably seen. In the sense that, I dunno, something like Dreyer's Vampyr (1932) is more of a low-key mood piece than your typical vampire flick...even though the genre is full of low-key mood pieces. If that makes sense.

# ¿ Jul 12, 2017 07:07

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

Criterion's always had the reputation of skewing toward arthouse poo poo, but their reputation as the predominant arbiter of the film canon is really something that developed after the transition to DVD. Back in the laserdisc days the connotation of the Criterion label was more along the lines of what Arrow is today---that is, producers of high-quality special editions and that kind of thing. More of a if there's an edition by them it's the one you want then if there's an edition by them it's a Big Important Film To Take Seriously or whatever the gently caress. Although Arrow is pretty genre-specific, and Criterion never was. But when Criterion put out, I dunno, Ghostbusters (1984), The Princess Bride (1987), the Python films, RoboCop (1987), the Bond films, or The Prince of Tides (1991) I don't think anyone really felt the need to interpret their release as a referendum on the contemporary film canon. They were just popular films getting a nice release. And of course Armageddon (1998) got a Criterion laserdisc release (the highest released LD spine number, in fact).

And I think to some extent the changing perception of Criterion owes a lot to the changing demographics. If you owned a LD player in the years before they became a retro technology you were almost certainly a hobbyist, enthusiast, or however you want to say it. The best selling LDs of all time (Fantasia (1940) and Terminator 2: Judgement Day (1991)) moved about 250,000 copies. On DVD and/or blu a popular Disney film moves tens of millions of copies. Frozen (2013) sold around a million copies the first week it was available.

The reason I bother to point all that out is that Criterion reaches a much, much larger audience now then they used to, just because of the proliferation of the home video media they work in---back in the LD days, if you knew who Criterion was you were almost certainly an enthusiast, kind of like you're way more likely to know about Arrow if you're an enthusiast. But now you're pretty likely to know Criterion if you're just a random person who's even vaguely interested in film. And if you're just a random person and look at a list of Criterion releases you're more likely to think hoo boy that's a bunch of arty poo poo. Or whatever.

I also think the perception gets amplified by the segregation of part of their stuff off onto the Eclipse label, which I think nurtures the idea that the Criterion is elite and exclusive or whatever. Like the stated purpose is to release inexpensive bare-bones releases and it totally makes sense to make that a separate thing when a big part of your schtick is deluxe releases with lots of extras. But when anthologies of genre potboilers (like the Shochiku and Nikkatsu Eclipse sets, which for the record I adore) get released on the off-brand label I think it encourages the idea that the Criterion label is only for the very best stuff or whatever.

# ¿ Jul 13, 2017 21:36

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

Xenomrph posted:

I'm not familiar with Arrow, what are they?

I'm not sure if this is a joke I'm not getting but they're a British label that does fancy releases of films, predominantly cult/genre stuff.

# ¿ Jul 14, 2017 03:09

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

Xenomrph posted:

Not joking, I genuinely hadn't heard of them. So they do special editions like Shout Factory does?
You said they're British, does that mean they only release stuff in region B/2?

Like Uncle Boogeyman says some of their stuff is B/2 but there's also a lot of A/1 as well.

The only reason I thought you might be joking is because I'm surprised any CineD regular wouldn't have heard of them. They're not exactly a household name, but if you're into horror, giallo, poliziotteschi, and so on you're likely to run into them because they've been putting out a lot of stuff that isn't available otherwise, or is only available in a completely dire form. They're not exclusively horror and so on, but most of their other releases are also stuff with niche/cult appeal (like e.g. Fukasaku's Battles Without Honor and Humanity films).

# ¿ Jul 14, 2017 04:45

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

Basebf555 posted:

drat if I'd known it had a Morricone score I'd have watched it years ago. I won't go in expecting anything great but there's only so many Morricone scores out there to experience.

I don't know a single goddamn thing about your viewing habits but I'd be willing to lay money you haven't even heard a quarter of Morricone's scores. And Mission to Mars (2000) isn't even top-tier Morricone. Like if you're going to watch a bad movie just for the Morricone score at least go for a hidden gem of a score like Vergogna Schifosi (1969) or something.

# ¿ Jul 18, 2017 21:04

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

Hector Beerlioz posted:

His score for Cannibal Holocaust is really good too

Riz Ortolani. Unless there's some joke here I'm missing.

# ¿ Jul 18, 2017 21:14

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

Nah, it's the one where an aircraft carrier from WWII gets sent into the future to meet RoboCop's partner.

# ¿ Aug 1, 2017 09:29

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 04:18

SubG: Aug 19, 2004; It's a hard world for little things.

Samuel Clemens posted:

Look at this fool not owning High Noon.

Or Johnny Guitar (1954) or Forty Guns (1957).

# ¿ Dec 8, 2017 11:25

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Cinema Discusso > Criterion Collection: a laugh track was accidentally added to Ikiru

«‹›4 »