'The Man Who Fell to Earth' (Criterion Collection) - High-Def Digest Review - Page 3 - High-Def Digest Forums
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21  
Old 05-09-2009, 02:18 PM
cupboy's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,110
Default

Worth a look? Just goes to show I rarely agree with the reviews on this site. Usually when something is Highly Recommended I don't like it at all.

But anyway I think this movie would be highly recommended if I was a reviewer.

I see they've highly recommended "Grease". Disgusting.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 05-10-2009, 01:11 AM
eastx's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,750
Default

Cheez Avenger is right.

And Jason X, I got you these paragraph breaks:






Those should help!
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-10-2009, 01:30 AM
Former Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 21,462
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester217300 View Post
I don't fancy attacking you, Nate, so I won't. I thoroughly enjoyed the film and would give it a solid 8/10. I do share some of your sentiments about the second act but I don't think it detracts from the film a great deal.
8/10 is a 4/5, which is just a hair over what I gave it here. we're both in agreement it is a good, but not perfect film.

Quote:
I will make one point that I feel is important...

The CC claims to bring to light films that are "important and classic" but not necessarily "great", as you put it. So an important film that sucks would fit perfectly in the CC. No matter how you feel about the film I think 'The Man Who Fell to Earth' clearly fits well within the intended scope of the CC. Armageddon, however, is still a cash cow no matter how you look at it.
I really didn't put it as great. Criterion's OWN SITE did only quoting them.

http://www.criterion.com/about_us

And yes, Armageddon = FAIL.

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkdaze73 View Post
Wow p-b, you really created a sh*t storm over this review. Personally, I've never seen this movie but I'm going to have to rent it just to see what all the fuss is about.
it happens.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cupboy View Post
Worth a look? Just goes to show I rarely agree with the reviews on this site. Usually when something is Highly Recommended I don't like it at all.

But anyway I think this movie would be highly recommended if I was a reviewer.

I see they've highly recommended "Grease". Disgusting.
i'm sure the other reviewers have their own ways of determining the bottom line, but to me, if something scores middle of the road, Worth a Look is about right. It encourages the reader to go out of their way and rent/borrow it, as they MAY NOT like it enough to buy it and watch it repeatedly, or the qualities to the disc, regardless of the film's qualities, aren't one that would demand someone rush out and buy it. I don't agree with every review out there either. There are some films that I absolutely adore, yet they get trashed pretty regularly. Everyone has varying tastes, and it is not a reviewer's job to appease the masses and tell them what they want to hear. If it were, a review for a film would just be a link the the IMDB score, and that's it. I'm against that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cheez avenger View Post
Nate, that was a well written review.


It just comes down to, IMO, some people getting bent out of shape, because you liked less than the person who liked it a lot. Like me.


It's no big deal, and people should relax.
Thanks G!

Internet. It's serious business.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 05-10-2009, 02:19 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,195
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by project-blu View Post
I really didn't put it as great. Criterion's OWN SITE did only quoting them.
Hmm I must be out of date. I've never seen that particular mission statement before. I was just using the blurb on the back of my DVDs.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 05-10-2009, 04:23 AM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 13
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eastx View Post
Cheez Avenger is right.

And Jason X, I got you these paragraph breaks:






Those should help!
Wow, thanks for adding to the discussion. If nothing else you have shown me I was right to not start to post here in the first place.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 05-10-2009, 04:39 AM
eastx's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,750
Default

Because I like paragraph breaks? Wow, I didn't know you were making some kind of statement by avoiding them. They're an integral part of our written language though. Walls of text are ugly and hard to read.

(And I did add my two cents to the actual topic by agreeing with Cheez Avenger. I'm not the one who can't handle contrary opinions and thus whines about them.)
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 05-10-2009, 01:17 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 38
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cheez avenger View Post
Nate, that was a well written review.
I agree. And I was glad to see it.

Quote:
It just comes down to, IMO, some people getting bent out of shape, because you liked less than the person who liked it a lot. Like me.
I respectfully disagree with this statement.

A reviewer has a responsibility to put forward reasoned arguments for their statements, and in an online publication with a commentary function, to discuss them.

I'll give the other posters the benefit of the doubt and assume they were disagreeing not with opinions about personal likes and dislikes but with the reasoning and judgments put forth in the review.

As to the second point, it's great to see that such a discussion is beginning.
Quote:
It's no big deal, and people should relax.
I agree. This is a friendly discussion. But vehement reasoned disagreement is healthy.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 05-11-2009, 07:19 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 38
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by knuckles View Post
What a ridiculous example to illustrate any sort of incongruity between Criterion's intentions and their actual releases. It might seem a little more nuanced to point towards Bottle Rocket (especially when discussing a director's oeuvre in regards to the collection) than to, say, Armageddon... but, it's still a silly example. Hell, even within Anderson's films Criterion has released, I would say The Life Aquatic is a much more suspect choice. If Criterion acknowledges that Anderson is a significant contributor to modern cinema, than it only makes sense to spotlight his debut feature. A debut, I might add, that has been heralded by even Martin Scorsese himself.

Personally, I adore Bottle Rocket, as much as Tenenbaums and Rushmore, if not more than those two. It might be a bit clumsy, and not as detailed as Anderson's continuing work - but it compensates with unbridled optimism. It is also the closest Anderson has made to a film that takes place in the "real world", not yet filled with the mannerisms and set designs so closely associated with his later work (Darjeeling, by comparison almost seems like a spoof of a Wes Anderson film. It is sincere and sweet without ever being cloying. Then, to discuss the disc itself - the transfer and (most of) the features are fucking phenomenal.

You want to argue a suspect title? I don't know... how about Border Radio? Or Fat Girl?

I disagree with your opinion on Bottle Rocket, but that doesn't make it invalid... it's your opinion and that's fine. But, to say Bottle Rocket is included only because it is by Wes Anderson is a little presumptuous.
Couple of things. Anderson's movies, along with Armageddon, were released-I believe-as part of a licensing deal with Buena Vista entertainment. The Royal Tenenbaums and The Life Aquatic were released solely as Criterions probably because of some licensing negotiation with the company (ditto for Armageddon and the Rock, I believe). The Darjeeling Limited was NOT released by Buena Vista because Anderson had a falling out with them after the lack of success from The Life Aquatic.

Sony Pictures didn't use to let other people license their films for home video release. They recently stopped this arrangement (along with a couple of other major studios like Warner Bros and Paramount... I think...) which allowed for Criterion to license the film for home release. His other films-Rushmore, The Royal Tenenbaums, The Life Aquatic were released due to a deal with the production company. This is a different. I think it's the same deal with House of Games and the early Cuaron. Both were categorized as "important" filmmakers later on in their careers and Criterion wanted to give the early releases discs-however it should be noted that these discs are very much based on the directors popularity. It's hard to say for sure what the exact motivations of Criterion were in releasing Bottle Rocket and they are well-aware of the divisiveness of the film.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 05-11-2009, 09:31 AM
BambooLounge's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,115
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisAndy View Post
Couple of things. Anderson's movies, along with Armageddon, were released-I believe-as part of a licensing deal with Buena Vista entertainment. The Royal Tenenbaums and The Life Aquatic were released solely as Criterions probably because of some licensing negotiation with the company (ditto for Armageddon and the Rock, I believe). The Darjeeling Limited was NOT released by Buena Vista because Anderson had a falling out with them after the lack of success from The Life Aquatic.

Sony Pictures didn't use to let other people license their films for home video release. They recently stopped this arrangement (along with a couple of other major studios like Warner Bros and Paramount... I think...) which allowed for Criterion to license the film for home release. His other films-Rushmore, The Royal Tenenbaums, The Life Aquatic were released due to a deal with the production company. This is a different. I think it's the same deal with House of Games and the early Cuaron. Both were categorized as "important" filmmakers later on in their careers and Criterion wanted to give the early releases discs-however it should be noted that these discs are very much based on the directors popularity. It's hard to say for sure what the exact motivations of Criterion were in releasing Bottle Rocket and they are well-aware of the divisiveness of the film.
If the "directors" being referred to in the bold portion of the above are Anderson and Bay, I think you are in error. Criterion generally speaking released things that are "critically popular" (Grand Illusion, Fellini, etc) or film snob popular (genre fare that appeals to sub-sets of the film geek community). Anderson is "critically popular" like the rest of the films in their collection (excepting the strict genre fare), but the Bay movies were clearly cash-ins.

The critical consensus on Bay is that his movies are trash (I agree), but they are popular (see: Box Office). So, while I agree that the Bay movies got released b/c they are popular and Criterion wanted a nice cash infusion, I would stop short of make the comparison between Bay and Anderson. One is a box office earning idiot whose films are simply blurs of noise and the other is an artist whose biggest criticism is that his films can be seen as "mannered" because he has a very unique world that he likes his characters to operate in.

The Bay movies are the only ones I deem not "Criterion worthy" simply because there is no critical justification for them being there. Criterion needed an income boost so they released 2 popcorn flicks by one idiot director. A film is "Criterion worthy" if it is either critically acclaimed or at the very least can spur critical debate. Bay's films are neither, the "debate" they spur if any, is people who know film ranting and raving and people who like "LOUD NOISESSSSSS!!!!" saying basically that. There is no artistic rationalization for Michael Bay.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 05-11-2009, 11:38 AM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 17
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cupboy View Post
Worth a look? Just goes to show I rarely agree with the reviews on this site. Usually when something is Highly Recommended I don't like it at all.

But anyway I think this movie would be highly recommended if I was a reviewer.

I see they've highly recommended "Grease". Disgusting.
Grease is more relevant and a more loved movie to many more people than would care about this film. Just because you find Grease to be less a movie than this one does not make that true to others.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
'The Man Who Fell to Earth: Limited Collector's Edition' - High-Def Digest Review Attebery Blu-ray Software General Discussion 15 06-15-2017 06:57 PM
man who fell to earth + charade criterion blu-rays FS Clint Eastwood Blu-ray Disc Exchange 0 03-27-2011 07:17 PM
FS : Pierrot le fou & The Man Who Fell To Earth & 400 Blows CC myrdh Blu-ray Disc Exchange 1 08-13-2010 06:16 PM
'The Man Who Fell to Earth' is going out of print Landy Blu-ray Software General Discussion 0 06-13-2010 11:35 AM
The Man Who Fell To Earth SoupRKnowva Film Forum 4 08-21-2009 09:23 AM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

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 Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off