criterionforum.org

Brian C wrote:

movielocke wrote:My first criterion was Lord of the Flies, some now defunct webstore mispriced it at $6 when it released and I just happened to snap it up.

This is how I got The 39 Steps! It was released around the same time as a slew of cheapo Hitchcock discs, and Fry's had it mispriced and sorted in with those.

I think that was my first Criterion, although it could have been Rushmore. I think it was Steps, though, because it has the earlier spine number and I bought them both when they were new or almost new releases. But I already knew what Criterion was, although I have no idea how I knew.

My first Criterion (which was the first DVD I bought) was also mispriced, although, not as much as your firsts. I had just bought a DVD player and was trying to find a copy of Elite's first Re-Animator DVD (which had gone OOP a short while after they released it). I found myself at Wherehouse Music and they didn't have Re-Animator, so I bought Criterion's RoboCop which they had priced at the Image price of $29.99, but were selling it for $24.99. Not such a good deal now, but back then it was pretty sweet.

Does anyone have the sell sheets? Curious if this is being handled by Criterion/Image or Buena Vista.

It looks like Image is handling it. Not too surprising since Disney has been licencing a lot of their Touchstone titles to other distributors like Millcreek. They probably don't care about these titles so I'm sure we'll see the other Andersons on Blu at some point. (I want Tenenbaums on Blu more than Rushmore and Life Aquatic, but I really can't wait to see what The Life Aquatic looks like on Blu-ray.)

Pretty sure I bought mine on CDNow.com, which I think has since closed. I believe it's the only DVD I bought from the site, but bought quite a few CD's and a few tapes there as well.

flyonthewall2983 wrote:Pretty sure I bought mine on CDNow.com, which I think has since closed. I believe it's the only DVD I bought from the site, but bought quite a few CD's and a few tapes there as well.

CDNow was bought out by Amazon, and that's how I switched over to Amazon. This thread has increasingly become a "in the year 2000" thread.



Getting back to the movie and disc itself, there is nothing new content-wise, is there?

It appears there's going to be an Anderson-supervised "director's cut" of the film for the new Blu-ray. I thought this was an error, but even when Criterion updated the page with the cover's revised side border, they didn't remove it. Hope it's true!

It'd be nice if there was some new retrospective interviews, but I'll gladly accept a simple upgrade.

Sorry, but no way to the director's cut. I thought it might be a remote possibility before the announcement, if only for Anderson's seeming regrets over his early films in all the interviews I've seen, but if this was indeed a new cut there'd be a new DVD release, press release, etc.

I don't want a directors cut! I like the film as it is! [-X

No mention of whether there are changes to the original cut.

In fact, I don't know if I've ever read such a terribly written film review:

Dr. Svet Atanasov wrote:The film stutters a bit at the end. There is slightly more kitsch there than needed and the happy ending is disappointingly clichéd. A darker and perhaps more nihilistic finale would have made the film a lot more convincing.

This guy needs to get out more.

I would wager to say reviewing the blu-ray might have been the first time he's seen the movie.

mfunk9786 wrote:No mention of whether there are changes to the original cut.

In fact, I don't know if I've ever read such a terribly written film review:

Dr. Svet Atanasov wrote:The film stutters a bit at the end. There is slightly more kitsch there than needed and the happy ending is disappointingly clichéd. A darker and perhaps more nihilistic finale would have made the film a lot more convincing.

This guy needs to get out more.

And yet, two paragraphs above your selected quote, Dr Atanasov says this:

Wes Anderson's Rushmore certainly ranks amongst the very best serious comedies and the very best unserious dramas made during the 90s. There are scenes in it that are absolutely hilarious and then there are scenes that are beyond depressing. Like real life, a lot in the film happens when you least expect it.

After the paragraph you quoted, he writes:

The acting is fantastic. Schwartzman is perfect as the poor outsider who can't get a break. Williams and Cox are also terrific. The film, however, belongs to Murray, who is the glue that holds the comedy and drama together.

His review ends with:

Hilarious, sad and at times quite bizarre, Rushmore is arguably director Wes Anderson's most effective film. It is not for everyone, but those who get it will certainly appreciate what the Texas-born director has to say with it and how he does it. Criterion's Blu-ray release of the film is a thing of beauty, and I am absolutely convinced that its fans will be enormously pleased with it. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.

What exactly do you want? Perhaps it would be useful to peruse Dr Atanasov's reviews at Blu-ray.com, his earlier reviews at DVD Talk and his posts here under the nom de plume "pro-bassoonist". Film reviews are opinion informed by knowledge. If you look at his body of work, it's clear the reviewer has the knowledge. if his opinion differs from yours (and I'm not certain it does based on the paragraphs I selected and your earlier response), well, that's what makes horse races.

I have not met nor do I know Dr Atanasov. But he seems to get regularly savaged here by a certain subset of posters and I am a loss as to why. His reviews are articulate, clear and concise. Disagree if you must, but attacking his competence based on a quote taken out of context is unwarranted and rather childish.

I just don't understand the angle that a film about a young man discovering that the world isn't all about him should end on a "Fuck this kid!" bitter note - especially Rushmore. If Rushmore ended on a nihilistic note, there would be no purpose for the film, and it'd be emotionally dishonest to the viewer and the characters. It's one of those "smart student of film" things that some people just say even though there's no substance to it just to make sure their review of a film isn't only wall-to-wall hyperbole - it's a Tooze-ism, in other words. And I tend to think his reviews, even where video and audio quality is involved, are full of them.

dvdbeaver shows significant increase in the framing on the right side, the 2.35:1 increased to 2.40:1?

It's been achieved by cropping the left. Look at bench picture: Olivia Williams' right shoulder should be snuggly framed, instead it's been slightly lopped off.

Should be? Who says? Look at picture near end with Wilson in scrubs. Clearly adjustment is right there as the frame is now centered, not just oddly off. Seems like there's be a fix of an earlier mistake.

Tooze makes the good doctor look like a Pulitzer Prize winner:

Gary Tooze wrote:When Blu-ray was first evolving I used to say that I wouldn't be interested in comedies as the jokes don't get any funnier in HD but I wasn't considering Wes Anderson and the energetic score that really brings this viewing up a significant notch.

You forgot to add:
"Gary Tooze comes to the English language in a stunning transfer from Swahili and has Mfunk's highest recommendation."

My favourite recent Tooze sentence:

The Second Run is described as "Brand new anamorphic 16:9 digital transfer with restored image and sound, approved by the director" so I see no reason to debate the aspect ratio - and the new UK image is significantly improved over the Clavis (an open-matte print?) in just about every area - and also looks to be vertically stretched beside the Second Run which has much stronger colors and contrast via the dual-layered transfer - with a higher bitrate.

I'm awful with sentence structure too, I just thought the content was pretty funny

swo17 wrote:Try not to think of it as "another Anderson film" but more as a documentary about my formative years.

OK, I'll start here. Just for you and my BFF Brian, I sat down and watched Rushmore this AM. I have now given nearly 4 hours of my life to Anderson's ouvre and I need to know where I can go to collect that debt.

(1) Watching the film, I was reminded of the joke about Wagner's operas: Q: How do you know your at an opera by Wagner? A: You look at your watch when the curtain goes up at 8PM. Three hours later you look at your watch again and it's 8:20. I just spent a very long hour and a half entirely devoid of humor.

(2) It's rare to see a film bring together such a collection of annoying, unlikeable and pathetic characters. I thought Bill Murray would be the saving grace but as the film wound on, Murray's manchild almost made me forget the reason I was still watching was my fervent hope that something truly awful would happen to Jason Schwartzman's Max. In fact, Schwartzman set a new personal record. My previous earliest point at which I began hoping for a character's demise was about 40 minutes into Terms of Endearment when I began actively wishing for Debra Winger to just die off and be done with it. I started hoping for evil things to happen to Max in the restaurant.

(3) Like trying to find water in a desert, finding a sympathetic character in this film was difficult. But Sara Tanaka as Margaret and Seymour Cassel as Max's all too affable father (I shudder to think what my attitude would be toward a son like Max) are as close as I was able to come.

From seeing this film and The Royal Tenenbaums, I can only conclude that Anderson sees swathing cultural touchstones in hyperbolic excess is a working substitute for wit. That and clearly I'm the wrong audience for his films. If I'm going to watch a film about "school days", either give me the adult view of The Browning Version or the cotton candy of a Garland/Rooney musical.

Swo, if this represents your formative years, I am truly sorry. It would take me years in therapy to overcome something like this.

OK, bring on the flame war.

But other than that, you loved it, right?

But it really grows on you during the second viewing.

domino harvey wrote:But other than that, you loved it, right?

Sure, XOXO.

I think I went into the film with a reasonably open mind. Polybius had sent me an encouraging PM so I gave it a shot. I really, really wanted to like it, possibly because people who post here that I like liked it. But alas, it didn't work for me. I would refrain from saying it's a "good" or "bad" film because I think when one has such a visceral reaction it's impossible to be objective. Many people praise Anderson so he's doing something right. He just doesn't get across to me.

Maybe it would help to say not a lot of current American cinema appeals to me. I went through my database this AM just to check. Out of over 1500 titles, there are exactly 14 that could be called American/Hollywood that were released after 1970. Eight of those are concentrated in two directors - Coppola's GF trilogy and five Scorsese films. Eagle Pennell accounts for two and that's hardly Hollywood. Two more - Leone's Once Upon a Time in America (a particular favorite of yours, Dom, IIRC ) and Tavernier's 'Round Midnight are only American in part. Another, Sayles' Eight Men Out, resides in the collection because of my love of Deadball Era baseball. And then there's Mike Nichols' remake of La Cage aux Folles because I don't want to live in a world without Nathan Lane's John Wayne imitation. Hell, I don't own much from the '60s and certainly nothing about my high school or college years.

My interest in film is primarily as historical and cultural documents - windows on the mores of a given time, you might say. As such, there aren't many films made about periods I personally experienced that hold my interest to the degree that I want to own them so that I can revisit them frequently. So you get a ton of silents and films from the Studio Era because the predate my time here. A smattering of films from the '50s - noir and musicals - because I was a boy then. And a ton of films we in the US call "foreign" because they represent cultures I've never experienced or only experienced from the outside. I admit it's probably a weird way to put together a collection and not what a student of film would do, but it suits my wife and I.

Brian C wrote:But it really grows on you during the second viewing.

I'll never know. Vaporized that sucker the minute the credits rolled.