criterion
does anyone know why the criterion collection is wasting its time with this crap?
what a bunch of sissies, this is supposed to be a gun club not a blasted singing society.
Where were you when Criterion released Armageddon? Alphaville?
Wait a minute... 'Atomic Submarine'?
My lord, they plan to release ALL the crap of filmdom - starting with the 'A's'
first!
Well, this is the same company that produced the dvd of 'Salo', perhaps the worst movie ever made by a great director, that sells for $500 to anyone stupid enough to pay it. It also produced dvd's of 'Videodrome' and 'The Last Temptation of Christ'! Talk about bad! Low budget doesn't always mean bad, you know. Look at 'Carnival of Souls' or 'The Honeymoon Killers'. Anyway, I haven't seen any of these 4 films (at least I don't remember seeing them), so I won't pass judgement.
shareVideodrome is amazing. What are you talking about?
In Heaven, everything is fine
[deleted]
The Criterion Collection is defined as "a continuing series of important classic and contemporary films". They never state this as a collection of masterpieces. If you don't like 'em, don't buy 'em. 'Nuff said.
shareeven if alphaville isn't that great i think it still deserved a criterion release. as for this and armageddon...
shareWhat makes this film a "classic" or "important"? "Classic" is not a synonym for "old", it is, in fact, actually closer to having the same meaing as the word "masterpiece."
share[deleted]
[deleted]
I agree with you.
However, some of your last word were "fine examples from every genre/era", and every argument as to why Criterion does this or that makes me wonder why they haven't released one single western. It's obvious they have a "thing" with westerns, it can't be co-incidence there's none among the 300+ releases yet. Had they NOT made releases like Atomic Submarine, or Beastie Boys, etc., then one would think they only like high brow art films - but it can't be the case. There are many arty enough westerns out there, many haven't been released on DVD, and many westerns has had tremendous importance on other films and filmmakers around the world.
There are other questions, like Criterion's love of some directors and ignorance of others, but the western one is the most intriguing to me, and since they don't comment on that, we can only speculate.
This message has not yet been deleted by an administrator
Well, first, I never thought about Criterion's lack of westerns in its output, but as you probably know that's about to change as they're releasing THE FURIES (1950) on June 24 -- one of the Paramount films Criterion leased from their library.
As for THE ATOMIC SUBMARINE, I agree that Criterion may try a little too hard to imbue some of its, shall we say, chintzier releases with an importance they really don't merit. This and such fare as FIRST MAN INTO SPACE, FIEND WITHOUT A FACE, THE BLOB and a few others aren't masterpieces even of B-films. They did put out ROBINSON CRUSOE ON MARS, generally regarded as a "better" movie than those films, but it's a shame they haven't released some more important or higher quality 50s and 60s SF yet; or for that matter, much in the way of other kinds of B's or "routine" films. Still, I'm glad the vary their output. Not everything is, can be or should be a Weighty Classic with Meaning and Depth. I own a lot of Criterions of very variable variety, but there are many films in their library, regarded by some with awe and veneration, that I find dull, pretentious and uninteresting. Sure, I love Renoir, Kurosawa, Powell/Pressburger, ACE IN THE HOLE, BICYCLE THIEVES, Lubitsch and many other films of similar ilk, but it's also nice to have Sam Fuller's first films, and some B horror and sci-fi too. As I said, I just wish they'd cast the net even wider and pick up some other enjoyable but frankly not very important films never given a release.
Anyway, THE ATOMIC SUBMARINE is fun, and I'd rather have fun than self-conscious artiness.
Still waiting for "Bicycle Whores from the Lost Planet" myself.
Nothing is more beautiful than nothing.
The entire trilogy is coming from Eclipse.
shareI just saw the Atomic Submarine and thought it was terrible.
However, I believe Criterion decided to release the film more for its historical significance, being a movie that was released when nuclear powered submarines were catching the public's attention.
That being said, it doesn't excuse this film from not even being a B grade horror, sci-fi, action, drama, military or any other genre you care to mention. The makeup was cool when that one guy was being melted however.
All in all, if you want to see a more interesting portrayal of submarines and the ramifications of technology, 20000 Leagues Under the Sea is what I'd recommend, especially since it came out 5 years earlier!
You know, it's funny, because almost no one thinks this is a "good" film, but even those who point out its many deficiencies then turn around and admit to a certain fondness for this picture that they can't quite explain. I think that's the way a lot of us feel. I wouldn't go so far as to call TAS "terrible"; at worst, myself, I'd say "so-so", bearing in mind that this is a little B film and not some massive, all-star production. But in its small context it has its goofy charms, I think. Eerie music, fun monster, pretty good cast, spooky atmosphere...there are a lot worse.
Still, it's no surprise it didn't win even so much as one of the seventeen Oscars it was nominated for.
So is "Last Temptation" and "Carnival of Souls." What's with this guy?
share[deleted]
You have a problem with Godard, you have a problem with me.
On a serious note, I agree with Armageddon, but blasting Alphaville (which I have a feeling you haven't seen) is uncalled for.