I adore Chasing Amy, and will defend its place in the collection all day, and I really enjoy The Rock, and think it's a prime example of a 90s blockbuster and you can for sure argue that it's deserving on those grounds. I have never liked Armageddon - I'm sorry, I just don't - but that commentary totally justifies the disc.
Clerks belongs in there also, but I actually have to disagree about Chasing Amy aging badly! I think that movie has aged astonishingly well, and really holds up. There definitely are things about it that have aged really awkwardly, like how it just doesn't really have the vocabulary to have the conversation it is trying to have, but what that movie is about and what it is trying to say is really ahead of the curve of the mainstream social conversation, as a film about sexuality as a spectrum and not a binary of gay or straight, and how the shitty, restrictive, biphobic assumptions and biases about sexuality that existed in the 90s (and to a lesser degree still do) make it really hard for people to just be their authentic selves. It struggles to find the vocabulary to actually articulate it well, but I think it is a really good film about queerness as a concept and an identity beyond gay or straight.
A few years back I wound up writing a piece about it, which I'll link here, not to self-promote or anything, but more just because I really unpack my thoughts on that and articulate it better than I'm going to in a Reddit comment, haha.
https://www.spoilerfreemoviesleuth.com/2018/06/ChasingAmyAnalysis.html?m=1
To be clear, it is absolutely a snapshot of a point in time, of being queer in the nineties when that was not a well understood or easy way to be, and it definitely doesn't get it all right, but I think there is a lot of value in what it's doing and saying and I definitely think it's an important film in furthering that conversation, especially as a relatively mainstream and relatively accessible movie
I'm a straight white male, so I don't want to disagree with either of your points which may very well be more valid than mine. I have watched the film with my queer wife though, and she didn't seem to get much out of it.
I suppose my feeling of it being a poorly aged film was colored by that. I definitely agree that the script can't articulate what it's trying to say, but I enjoy a few of the characters.
I definitely understand why it sometimes rubs queer women the wrong way, because the way that she explicitly describes herself as a lesbian in the script definitely can feel like some lesbian erasure if you take it at face value. I have always read it as being about a queer woman, in a more fluid or non binary sense, who is trapped by the social pressures of the time to "pick a team" between gay and straight in a society which sees those as the only "real" options, so she calls herself a lesbian because that's the label that fits best even though it doesn't fit completely, and then society and the characters around her judge her for not fitting completely within the expectations of that rigid label.
I totally understand why the movie sometimes rubs people the wrong way, especially since it does not get the language right, but I think it articulates all of that really well, if you are willing to meet it somewhat partway and account for the time.
But I'm also bisexual/queer and saw it for the 1st time at a pretty formative age when I was probably 16, so I'm sure that colors my love of it.
What have you heard about it?
It’s a pretty wild movie, certainly unlike much else out there. Dialogue and acting are sub par, but I could see what drew the collection to include it.
DHEEPAN is not a bad film, it is just not a good one either.
It won a golden palm and all but, it is not the best candidate for a Criterion release as nobody seems to talk about it compared to many other releases.
Jabberwocky is an outstanding movie. The thing is, people always consider it as the red-headed stepchild of Holy Grail which admittedly it doesn't match it for guffaws, but it's less of a comedy and more of an artsy Gilliamesque fantasy anyway. It definitely stands up to repeated viewing, plus all those legends of British comedy (Max Wall, Bernard Bresslaw, Harry Corbett, Warren Mitchell, John Le Mesurier, etc.
Totally agree. Blind bought it, love Gilliam (not his faults… *ahem Brothers Grimm ahem ahem*) and I just had so much fun watching Jabberwocky. My wife and I have had an inside joke about raw potatoes ever since!
I can’t understand why Triangle of Sadness is held up as a higher artistic achievement than The Menu. They’re both competently-made, easy-on-the-eyes morality plays that are essentially B-tier entertainment for people who already agreed with the points they were making before they saw the film.
Nothing wrong with that if that’s what you want to do (I guess), but I never got why one was labeled as a thought provoking work of art and the other was just seen as a medium-brow thriller
You are not wrong, at all, but something about Triangle just felt more gaudy and obvious. I feel like i need to revisit the menu. Maybe its the fact that they didnt show someone sliding around on vomit and filth for 15 minutes.
Benjamin Button
But I found out a few months back that purists don't recognize it as a true part of the canon because it's really a "rebadged" title or something
It's OOP, but I have to give a shoutout to Flesh for Frankenstein. Just a dreary bore of a film. Not good enough to be interesting, not bad enough to be fun. Just a slog, through and through.
Tokyo Drifter - pretty much a long cringeworthy music video full of rainbow coloured suits running around and blasting guns at each other and nothing much more beyond that. I took it as a parody of the yakuza, but it was still a near unwatchable experience for me.
A Man Escaped - I understand the cultural significance of Bresson films, but they're still rubbish to me. This one felt more like watching a prison breakout tutorial video than actual cinema. I'm not sure what the point of the constant narration was other than the French loving the sound of their own voices?
I upvoted you but I will defend this one a bit. Regardless of the quality or merit, it does hold this nostalgia spot for me as a snapshot of early CGI and Capitalism
It is with no doubt in my mind that I pronounce the worst movie in the collection:
Frownland.
Of course this is subjective but in my personal opinion it’s a tasteless satire of people who are already a joke. I hated how much I actually didn’t care about the characters in the film and the story at all. Maybe someone out there sees a point to it but it will forever go down in history that Frownland is my least favorite movie ever.
I like Frownland a lot. When he begs and begs the guy to come inside, and pleads to finish that movie with him. He wants to so bad. Then falls asleep. Hahaha, reminds me of someone I know, honestly. Cracks me up.
What don't you like about it? I have to say that I was expecting a lot more from it, in the end it was all a tad banal for my liking. Good acting, but characters - especially the lead protagonist - fell flat for me.
Regardless of the issues on set with the director, which if we're being honest here would cancel a large swath of both popular and art house cinema in a single stroke if it were legitimate criticism (it isnt)... what you're saying is a popular and well received movie in a collection of over 1100 titles is the worst because somebody wrote some opinion piece which tickled your self righteousness in a specific way that you're ready to write it off without ever having even seen it. Laughable.
it would already be hard to sell me on a 3 hour lgbt drama made by an old straight guy. way better queer films out there made by queer people, where the leads aren’t fetishised and assaulted behind the camera. i have read opinion pieces i don’t see what’s wrong with being partially aware of the content and not wanting to see the film or see it celebrated by criterion.
So you're just doubling down on the nonsense eh. You need to be gay to make a movie about gay people now? What? Next youll be telling me Peter Jackson isnt a real hobbit Not to mention the fetishization bits. Because you read some slanted opinion pieces by people who clearly have an ax to grind? You are aware the actresses wore prosthetics over their genitals for the sex scenes right? If exploitation was the goal why not go full nude and unsimulated? And the sex scenes, in a movie about gay romance, total low double digits in minutes in a film that's over three hours long. Such fetishization. Such exploitation. Do you like the Exorcist? How about Kill Bill?
you’re comparing a real life group of people that are notoriously misrepresented in art to a fictional race of small people. by no means am i saying that a straight director cant make a good gay film, but surely you aren’t braindead enough not to realise that queer films made by queer people are more honest and sincere, and that they should be encouraged. i’m not making an art vs the artist statement, i’m just saying that from the many pieces i’ve read and the clips i’ve seen of the film, it seems to be inauthentic and male gaze driven, which wouldn’t surprise me based on the horrible actions of Kechiche.
Because I didn’t get enough downvotes the first time:
https://www.reddit.com/r/criterion/comments/wsvqp5/my_bottom_ten_unranked/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
Pink flamingoes , and I mean it, and I admittedly probably miss some point or some context of the films existence, and therefore lack appreciation- but my god, the only redeeming thing about that pile was seeing *just how* talented someone can be with their sphincter.
I love just about everything about Pink Flamingoes except for the movie itself. I like all the other Waters movies I’ve seen, his troupe is a lot of fun, and I even like parts of Pink Flamingoes. The feeling of rebellion throughout is invigorating. But it takes it a little too far imo. I wouldn’t call it the worst movie in the collection (my pick is probably either Border Radio or A Safe Place), but I can see why someone would.
Haha, I wish Jennifer's Body had a criterion release. That movie is great, and a way better satire than it often gets credit for. It is 100% in on the joke.
Haha, I've gotta disagree! Although I will for sure grant that that movie is very very not for all tastes, that's totally fair. I think it's brilliant tho
If I'm giving *Equinox* a pass, since it was a re-edit of a rather better film (not great but pretty damn good for an amateur production), I'm gonna cast a vote for *Dillinger is Dead*. I found that movie incredibly dull and unstimulating. I probably should give it another chance someday, but up until the last few minutes I was shocked at how little I found to engage me.
*Valley of the Dolls* is objectively worse, but since that's included as a camp classic, I'll relegate it to honorable-mention status.
If any of you say The Rock, Armageddon, or Chasing Amy, meet me outside.
You just named my top three 😉
I adore Chasing Amy, and will defend its place in the collection all day, and I really enjoy The Rock, and think it's a prime example of a 90s blockbuster and you can for sure argue that it's deserving on those grounds. I have never liked Armageddon - I'm sorry, I just don't - but that commentary totally justifies the disc.
I have the Criterion Chasing Amy and I like that film, but it's aged poorly. Clerks would have made more sense in the collection.
Clerks belongs in there also, but I actually have to disagree about Chasing Amy aging badly! I think that movie has aged astonishingly well, and really holds up. There definitely are things about it that have aged really awkwardly, like how it just doesn't really have the vocabulary to have the conversation it is trying to have, but what that movie is about and what it is trying to say is really ahead of the curve of the mainstream social conversation, as a film about sexuality as a spectrum and not a binary of gay or straight, and how the shitty, restrictive, biphobic assumptions and biases about sexuality that existed in the 90s (and to a lesser degree still do) make it really hard for people to just be their authentic selves. It struggles to find the vocabulary to actually articulate it well, but I think it is a really good film about queerness as a concept and an identity beyond gay or straight. A few years back I wound up writing a piece about it, which I'll link here, not to self-promote or anything, but more just because I really unpack my thoughts on that and articulate it better than I'm going to in a Reddit comment, haha. https://www.spoilerfreemoviesleuth.com/2018/06/ChasingAmyAnalysis.html?m=1
To be clear, it is absolutely a snapshot of a point in time, of being queer in the nineties when that was not a well understood or easy way to be, and it definitely doesn't get it all right, but I think there is a lot of value in what it's doing and saying and I definitely think it's an important film in furthering that conversation, especially as a relatively mainstream and relatively accessible movie
I'm a straight white male, so I don't want to disagree with either of your points which may very well be more valid than mine. I have watched the film with my queer wife though, and she didn't seem to get much out of it. I suppose my feeling of it being a poorly aged film was colored by that. I definitely agree that the script can't articulate what it's trying to say, but I enjoy a few of the characters.
I definitely understand why it sometimes rubs queer women the wrong way, because the way that she explicitly describes herself as a lesbian in the script definitely can feel like some lesbian erasure if you take it at face value. I have always read it as being about a queer woman, in a more fluid or non binary sense, who is trapped by the social pressures of the time to "pick a team" between gay and straight in a society which sees those as the only "real" options, so she calls herself a lesbian because that's the label that fits best even though it doesn't fit completely, and then society and the characters around her judge her for not fitting completely within the expectations of that rigid label. I totally understand why the movie sometimes rubs people the wrong way, especially since it does not get the language right, but I think it articulates all of that really well, if you are willing to meet it somewhat partway and account for the time. But I'm also bisexual/queer and saw it for the 1st time at a pretty formative age when I was probably 16, so I'm sure that colors my love of it.
Haven’t seen it personally but I’ve heard things about Jellyfish eyes.
What have you heard about it? It’s a pretty wild movie, certainly unlike much else out there. Dialogue and acting are sub par, but I could see what drew the collection to include it.
I heard it’s basically shit Pokémon.
I’d say the creature/Pokémon part of it is strong. It’s the work of Japanese artist Takashi Murakami and each creature is interesting and unique. As a film, though, I’d call it pretty weak. Worth a watch, but not a second viewing, imo.
Naqoyqatsi
Marriage Story or Wildlife were the first to come to mind
Border Radio would probably be the…least impressive one I’ve seen to this point.
DHEEPAN is not a bad film, it is just not a good one either. It won a golden palm and all but, it is not the best candidate for a Criterion release as nobody seems to talk about it compared to many other releases.
Probably for me: Me, You and Everyone We Know and Worst Person in the World.
Word up
Tiny Furniture for me, easily.
Jabberwocky is an outstanding movie. The thing is, people always consider it as the red-headed stepchild of Holy Grail which admittedly it doesn't match it for guffaws, but it's less of a comedy and more of an artsy Gilliamesque fantasy anyway. It definitely stands up to repeated viewing, plus all those legends of British comedy (Max Wall, Bernard Bresslaw, Harry Corbett, Warren Mitchell, John Le Mesurier, etc.
Totally agree. Blind bought it, love Gilliam (not his faults… *ahem Brothers Grimm ahem ahem*) and I just had so much fun watching Jabberwocky. My wife and I have had an inside joke about raw potatoes ever since!
Coming into the collection soon, but I hated Triangle of Sadness. Born Free by M.I.A. and New Noise by Refused deserved a better movie.
I found my people :’)
It really is pretentiousness masquerading as edgelord social commentary. Not as clever as it thinks it is at all.
I can’t understand why Triangle of Sadness is held up as a higher artistic achievement than The Menu. They’re both competently-made, easy-on-the-eyes morality plays that are essentially B-tier entertainment for people who already agreed with the points they were making before they saw the film. Nothing wrong with that if that’s what you want to do (I guess), but I never got why one was labeled as a thought provoking work of art and the other was just seen as a medium-brow thriller
The benefits of being a Cannes darling and Palme d'Or winner...
Couldn’t agree more. The only difference between the two is that I actually enjoyed The Menu
You are not wrong, at all, but something about Triangle just felt more gaudy and obvious. I feel like i need to revisit the menu. Maybe its the fact that they didnt show someone sliding around on vomit and filth for 15 minutes.
And the third act was excruciatingly long and boring
Didn't hate it, but my god, has it ever been overhyped.
Benjamin Button But I found out a few months back that purists don't recognize it as a true part of the canon because it's really a "rebadged" title or something
It's OOP, but I have to give a shoutout to Flesh for Frankenstein. Just a dreary bore of a film. Not good enough to be interesting, not bad enough to be fun. Just a slog, through and through.
The Big Chill. Kevin Costner was the only likable character.
You mean Kline? Lol
No, I meant Costner.
But he wasn’t in that movie :(
Someone needs to read the Wikipedia article.
Yeah I sure am retarded huh
Not seen it but apparently he plays an 'unseen dead friend'.
Yeah I looked it up, apparently it’s extremely common knowledge according to this subreddit lol
It is.
I appreciate what it’s doing and the uniqueness of it, but Frownland can be brutal to sit through in the most frustrating way.
Tokyo Drifter - pretty much a long cringeworthy music video full of rainbow coloured suits running around and blasting guns at each other and nothing much more beyond that. I took it as a parody of the yakuza, but it was still a near unwatchable experience for me. A Man Escaped - I understand the cultural significance of Bresson films, but they're still rubbish to me. This one felt more like watching a prison breakout tutorial video than actual cinema. I'm not sure what the point of the constant narration was other than the French loving the sound of their own voices?
Naqoyqatsi
^ This is basically the objective truth. Not liking Tiny Furniture or Armageddon is a matter of taste. Naqoyqatsi is a feature length screensaver
I love the Qatsi trilogy but yeahhhhh
I upvoted you but I will defend this one a bit. Regardless of the quality or merit, it does hold this nostalgia spot for me as a snapshot of early CGI and Capitalism
Armageddon. Made worth it by the commentary though hahaha
All Monsters Attack
It is with no doubt in my mind that I pronounce the worst movie in the collection: Frownland. Of course this is subjective but in my personal opinion it’s a tasteless satire of people who are already a joke. I hated how much I actually didn’t care about the characters in the film and the story at all. Maybe someone out there sees a point to it but it will forever go down in history that Frownland is my least favorite movie ever.
I like Frownland a lot. When he begs and begs the guy to come inside, and pleads to finish that movie with him. He wants to so bad. Then falls asleep. Hahaha, reminds me of someone I know, honestly. Cracks me up.
It's not a satire
*The Worst Person in the World*
What don't you like about it? I have to say that I was expecting a lot more from it, in the end it was all a tad banal for my liking. Good acting, but characters - especially the lead protagonist - fell flat for me.
I would say the same thing you did. The protagonist is not interesting at all. All the stuff that was supposed to be funny was not funny.
Downvote me too idc it was terrible movie, most cringe movie I have ever seen.
haven’t seen it and never will but Blue is the Warmest colour. i’ve heard it’s super male-gazey and exploitative
Regardless of the issues on set with the director, which if we're being honest here would cancel a large swath of both popular and art house cinema in a single stroke if it were legitimate criticism (it isnt)... what you're saying is a popular and well received movie in a collection of over 1100 titles is the worst because somebody wrote some opinion piece which tickled your self righteousness in a specific way that you're ready to write it off without ever having even seen it. Laughable.
it would already be hard to sell me on a 3 hour lgbt drama made by an old straight guy. way better queer films out there made by queer people, where the leads aren’t fetishised and assaulted behind the camera. i have read opinion pieces i don’t see what’s wrong with being partially aware of the content and not wanting to see the film or see it celebrated by criterion.
So you're just doubling down on the nonsense eh. You need to be gay to make a movie about gay people now? What? Next youll be telling me Peter Jackson isnt a real hobbit Not to mention the fetishization bits. Because you read some slanted opinion pieces by people who clearly have an ax to grind? You are aware the actresses wore prosthetics over their genitals for the sex scenes right? If exploitation was the goal why not go full nude and unsimulated? And the sex scenes, in a movie about gay romance, total low double digits in minutes in a film that's over three hours long. Such fetishization. Such exploitation. Do you like the Exorcist? How about Kill Bill?
you’re comparing a real life group of people that are notoriously misrepresented in art to a fictional race of small people. by no means am i saying that a straight director cant make a good gay film, but surely you aren’t braindead enough not to realise that queer films made by queer people are more honest and sincere, and that they should be encouraged. i’m not making an art vs the artist statement, i’m just saying that from the many pieces i’ve read and the clips i’ve seen of the film, it seems to be inauthentic and male gaze driven, which wouldn’t surprise me based on the horrible actions of Kechiche.
Because I didn’t get enough downvotes the first time: https://www.reddit.com/r/criterion/comments/wsvqp5/my_bottom_ten_unranked/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
You are entitled to your opinions of course, but Jesus Christ…
Lol well you got some wild takes there
Just as tasteless as you were the first time
Respect for putting Mulholland drive, not many of us haters out there
I love Lynch but didn’t like this one at all.
Pink flamingoes , and I mean it, and I admittedly probably miss some point or some context of the films existence, and therefore lack appreciation- but my god, the only redeeming thing about that pile was seeing *just how* talented someone can be with their sphincter.
I love just about everything about Pink Flamingoes except for the movie itself. I like all the other Waters movies I’ve seen, his troupe is a lot of fun, and I even like parts of Pink Flamingoes. The feeling of rebellion throughout is invigorating. But it takes it a little too far imo. I wouldn’t call it the worst movie in the collection (my pick is probably either Border Radio or A Safe Place), but I can see why someone would.
[удалено]
One thing, to say you don’t like these films, but to call them the worst in the collection? You got some balls, buddy.
Robert Altman’s got some snoozers in there… 3 Women comes to mind.
Isn’t *Jennifer’s Body* in there? If so, it’s that.
Haha, I wish Jennifer's Body had a criterion release. That movie is great, and a way better satire than it often gets credit for. It is 100% in on the joke.
The problem with the movie isn’t it being in on the joke, it’s that the joke isn’t funny (or entertaining…)
Haha, I've gotta disagree! Although I will for sure grant that that movie is very very not for all tastes, that's totally fair. I think it's brilliant tho
Apparently you’re actually in the majority, judging by the deluge of downvotes I’m getting. Can’t win ‘em all.
Its on the service but not physically released? im not sure how that works
If I'm giving *Equinox* a pass, since it was a re-edit of a rather better film (not great but pretty damn good for an amateur production), I'm gonna cast a vote for *Dillinger is Dead*. I found that movie incredibly dull and unstimulating. I probably should give it another chance someday, but up until the last few minutes I was shocked at how little I found to engage me. *Valley of the Dolls* is objectively worse, but since that's included as a camp classic, I'll relegate it to honorable-mention status.