Sadly, it looks like the Chapman might be owned by Studio Canal at this point.


I think it is best viewed through the prism of no budget noirs at the time (like the films VCI put out in that Forgotten Noir series). I think it's one of the best along those lines, along with Detour and Blast of Silence. It certainly isn't as "adventurous" as his later films, but it feels like a (very) low budget genre flick spun fresh with unique and excellent photography (a mixture of NY grit and wide angle expressionism that is unmistakably Kubrickian) and some interesting ideas (especially the finale in the factory). My main problem is with the looped dialogue, especially with the main actress. Obviously, if you try to forcibly compare Killer's Kiss to, say, A Clockwork Orange and Barry Lyndon, it's gonna look inferior, but I think it mostly achieves the modest goals it sets for itself, so to speak.Tribe wrote:In terms of the merits of Killer's Kiss, it's hardly a bad film noir, especially taking into consideration the bare bones budget (a factor that at least 3/4 of all noirs created during the classic period suffer from), and it does do a nice job of depicting a seedy New York City. It's far from perfect, but I'd hesitate in calling it mediocre.
Yes.kaujot wrote:Does MGM still hold the rights to Blue Velvet?
Though I haven't seen War, if it's at all in keeping with the rest of Lester's early work than it deserves it's place in the CC several times over. (And don't forget that they released Help! back in the laserdisc days) He's a consistently neglected director who's wit and verve is really extraordinary and whose influence has been enormous. The real schlock is the contemporary junk that's slipping into the sewers of the release schedule in order to fulfill the IFC contract. (Gamorrah, Hunger, Fish Tank)Tom Hagen wrote:Although I should just shut up and enjoy Night of the Hunter next week. That alone -- to say nothing of the Kubricks and other titles that were previously speculated -- excuses releasing this schlock and awards bait.
You're assuming that Criterion was allowed to choose anything they wanted. I have absolutely zero knowledge of how the list of titles came to be, but it's certainly possible that MGM kept certain titles off the table, and/or wanted more for some titles than Criterion was able/willing to pay.Tom Hagen wrote:Really? Someone gave Criterion the keys to the MGM vault and they come out with this stuff and De Palma?
Although I should just shut up and enjoy Night of the Hunter next week. That alone -- to say nothing of the Kubricks and other titles that were previously speculated -- excuses releasing this schlock and awards bait.
The truth is painful.zedz wrote:King of Hearts and La Cage aux folles are pretty edgy choices . . . if this were 1979. Does anybody care about these films nowadays?