Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > DVD Video > Criterion never fails to impress me

Reply
Thread Tools

Criterion never fails to impress me

 
 
Hamilcar Barca
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-08-2004
In article <9V5Rc.131232$(E-Mail Removed)> (Sat, 07 Aug 2004
14:44:21 +0000), Grand Inquisitor wrote:

> Another politically motivated choice from Criterion


Not enough car crashes or T&A for you?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Joshua Zyber
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-08-2004
"Grand Inquisitor" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:tbdRc.3539$(E-Mail Removed)...
> jayembee wrote:
> > In other words, you're ****ed off because they're wasting
> > precious resources on films you don't happen to like.

>
> I just wish they would stick to good movies rather than
> politically-motivated choices. Nobody in their right mind (key phrase
> there) actuallys likes all that Warhol crap, or I Am Curious Yellow,

etc.

Listen, idiot, please stop changing your posting profile. I tire of
continually adding you to my killfile. Just stay in there with the rest
of the morons like a good boy.




 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Vlvetmorning98
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-08-2004
>Nobody in their right mind (key phrase
>there) actuallys likes all that Warhol crap, or I Am Curious Yellow, etc.


I do like the I AM CURIOUS films. they're quite humorous and blurred the line
between real life and movies years before THE 4TH MAN or ADAPTATION.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Vlvetmorning98
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-08-2004
>
>Tell me, do you respect The Rock; Armageddon; Robocop; Bodies, Rest, and
>Motion; and Chasing Amy?
>


ROBOCOP and CHASING AMY are excellent films. I haven't seen THE ROCK since its
theatrical release, but it's a cool popcorn movie. I've never seen BODIES,
REST, and MOTION.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Douglas Bailey
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-08-2004
Grand Inquisitor wrote:
> jayembee wrote:
>> In other words, you're ****ed off because they're wasting
>> precious resources on films you don't happen to like.

>
> I just wish they would stick to good movies rather than
> politically-motivated choices.


So what, exactly, are the political motivations behind the decisions to
release _Eyes Without a Face_ and _Fat Girl_? For that matter, what makes
you so certain that _Secret Honor_ and _Tanner '88_ are being released for
political reasons, rather than for aesthetic or economic ones?

And even if they are, since when are "good movies" and
"politically-motivated choices" mutually exclusive? _The Battle of
Algiers_, another upcoming Criterion release which centres on conflict
between Western and Muslim cultures, has a 100% approval rating on
rottentomatoes.com and is widely recognised as a classic film. "Good movie"
or "politically-motivated choice"?


> Nobody in their right mind (key phrase there) actuallys likes all that
> Warhol crap, or I Am Curious Yellow, etc.


Nice use of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy there: I might with equal
validity state that nobody in their right mind actually doesn't like
_Singin' in the Rain_.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman>

And even if Criterion heeded your wish and only released likable movies,
there appear to be plenty of people who like the films you mention: six out
of eleven of the reviewers rated at rottentomatoes.com gave positive
ratings to _I Am Curious Yellow_, two of the four rated reviewers gave
positive ratings to _Blood For Dracula_, and four of four rated reviewers
gave positive ratings to _Flesh For Frankenstein_. Not unanimous approval
by any stretch of the imagination, but certainly evidence that *somebody*
likes those films. But then, I don't suppose any of those people are in
their right minds.

(Incidentally, _Singin' in the Rain_ also has a 100% approval rating. Just
thought you'd want to know.)


>> I respect Criterion's choices, even when I don't like them
>> Apparently, you can't do the same.

>
> Tell me, do you respect The Rock; Armageddon; Robocop; Bodies, Rest, and
> Motion; and Chasing Amy?


As Jerry says, I respect their choices of those films as Criterion
releases. I'm not crazy about _The Rock_ and _Armageddon_ as films, but if
revenue from those two big-ticket releases helped Criterion cover the
expenses of releasing, say, _Fishing With John_, then I'm content. And it's
not as if anyone held a gun to my head and forced me to buy the Bay
films...

Oh, and while I haven't seen _Bodies, Rest and Motion_ or _Chasing Amy_ and
can't comment on them, *yeah*, you'd better believe I respect _RoboCop_.
Damn straight.

doug

--
"The answer to your question is -- what can you afford?"
--H-A-L-O
 
Reply With Quote
 
Steve(JazzHunter)
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-08-2004
On 08 Aug 2004 02:13:32 GMT, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) (Vlvetmorning9
wrote:

>>Nobody in their right mind (key phrase
>>there) actuallys likes all that Warhol crap, or I Am Curious Yellow, etc.

>
>I do like the I AM CURIOUS films. they're quite humorous and blurred the line
>between real life and movies years before THE 4TH MAN or ADAPTATION.


I agree. I'm absolutely delighted that Criterion issued "I am curious
Yellow/Blue." And it is not up to someonee else to tell me that my
choices in film are "insane."

.. Steve .

 
Reply With Quote
 
Grand Inquisitor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-08-2004
Joshua Zyber wrote:
>>I just wish they would stick to good movies rather than
>>politically-motivated choices. Nobody in their right mind (key phrase
>>there) actuallys likes all that Warhol crap, or I Am Curious Yellow,

>
> etc.
>
> Listen, idiot, please stop changing your posting profile. I tire of
> continually adding you to my killfile. Just stay in there with the rest
> of the morons like a good boy.


"Change my posting profile"? The problem is on your end, not mine.

And those two movies are crap (typical of Altman). People only like
them because they are liberal, the same way some Republicans swear Newt
Gingrich is a great novelist. Yes, I really mean that.

--

"One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom,
a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural
causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith, has not
yet been written."

--Hubert P. Yockey, Journal of Theoretical Biology
 
Reply With Quote
 
Grand Inquisitor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-08-2004
Douglas Bailey wrote:

> Grand Inquisitor wrote:
>
>>jayembee wrote:
>>
>>>In other words, you're ****ed off because they're wasting
>>>precious resources on films you don't happen to like.

>>
>>I just wish they would stick to good movies rather than
>>politically-motivated choices.

>
>
> So what, exactly, are the political motivations behind the decisions to
> release _Eyes Without a Face_ and _Fat Girl_?


Since I didn't even mention those movies, I won't answer your question.
Please stick to reality.

> For that matter, what makes
> you so certain that _Secret Honor_ and _Tanner '88_ are being released for
> political reasons, rather than for aesthetic or economic ones?
>


Because they're crap, they're forgettable movies from an over-rated
director.

> And even if they are, since when are "good movies" and
> "politically-motivated choices" mutually exclusive? _The Battle of
> Algiers_, another upcoming Criterion release which centres on conflict
> between Western and Muslim cultures, has a 100% approval rating on
> rottentomatoes.com and is widely recognised as a classic film. "Good movie"
> or "politically-motivated choice"?


Good movie. What's your point?

> Nice use of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy there: I might with equal
> validity state that nobody in their right mind actually doesn't like
> _Singin' in the Rain_.
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman>
>


And anybody who likes Warhol or I Am Curious Yellow is therefore not in
their right mind.

> And even if Criterion heeded your wish and only released likable movies,
> there appear to be plenty of people who like the films you mention: six out
> of eleven of the reviewers rated at rottentomatoes.com gave positive
> ratings to _I Am Curious Yellow_, two of the four rated reviewers gave
> positive ratings to _Blood For Dracula_, and four of four rated reviewers
> gave positive ratings to _Flesh For Frankenstein_. Not unanimous approval
> by any stretch of the imagination, but certainly evidence that *somebody*
> likes those films. But then, I don't suppose any of those people are in
> their right minds.
>


Now you're learning. The sooner we bury and forget about people like
Warhol the sooner genuine art (not pretentious, talentless frauds) can
become popular again.

> (Incidentally, _Singin' in the Rain_ also has a 100% approval rating. Just
> thought you'd want to know.)
>


I know. Don't care. Singin in the Rain was boring. It wasn't funny.
And it convinced me that musicals are not movies, they are a stage craft
put on film, they have nothing to do with the art form of film, which as
Tarkovsky says, is really about the expression of actual time, having
little or nothing to do with plots or stars, etc.

--

"One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom,
a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural
causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith, has not
yet been written."

--Hubert P. Yockey, Journal of Theoretical Biology
 
Reply With Quote
 
Grand Inquisitor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-08-2004
Hamilcar Barca wrote:
>>Another politically motivated choice from Criterion

>
>
> Not enough car crashes or T&A for you?


Typical liberal, anybody who disagrees is a NASCAR-loving yokel. Well
if you want to have a snob-off, I'll mention that my tastes lean towards
Tarkovsky, Fellini, Malick, Kubrick, Chaplin, Keaton, Welles, Ford,
Huston, and Weir.

--

"One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom,
a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural
causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith, has not
yet been written."

--Hubert P. Yockey, Journal of Theoretical Biology
 
Reply With Quote
 
Hamilcar Barca
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-08-2004
In article <(E-Mail Removed)> (Sun, 08 Aug
2004 02:13:32 +0000), Vlvetmorning98 wrote:

>>Nobody in their right mind (key phrase
>>there) actuallys likes all that Warhol crap, or I Am Curious Yellow, etc.

>
> I do like the I AM CURIOUS films.


I'm pleased Criterion released them, and I don't have even the
smallest regret for buying the set, but I didn't like them at all.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
OpenOffice Impress problem Christopher Jahn Computer Support 3 11-27-2007 04:39 PM
Last Day! DTS Criterion DAZED & CONFUSED dvd, Ltbx THE SHADOW DTS LD, Criterion BOOGIE NIGHTS ld J Rusnak DVD Video 0 01-02-2007 11:30 PM
XML Schema never-never occurence of declared elements / attributes Soren Kuula XML 1 12-01-2005 01:27 PM
OpenOffice Products-Writer,Calc,Impress,Draw Sharon Russell Computer Support 8 09-06-2004 04:56 AM
string routines go to never never land on unix Kevin C Programming 4 10-17-2003 06:07 PM



Advertisments