criterionforum.org

Hey guys. Long time Criterion fan (550, first 305). I don't mean to step out of formation here, but I can't believe the outpouring of love and admiration for this film. I like Dick Linklater's stuff--Slacker is bitingly funny, and of course Dazed and Confused is a true comedy classic for anyone my age who grew up on it--but I just didn't see this as anything other than a marketing gimmick and a piece of major Oscar bait.

Let's be honest and just call a spade a spade: if this was anything other than an albeit clever set-up and idea, would we consider it anything other than a bad Lifetime Movie? Had it not been filmed over a 12 year period with a troika of artistes as the main players, we'd have simply written it off as a cute little tchotchke. The kid is about as uninteresting as child actors get, the story is about a good hour too long, and finally, for all the crap we had to endure about how smart and empowered and wonderful Alabama Worley acted in the film and onstage, she kept making the dumbest decisions. I can abide a good deal in a film, but characters doing stupid things chaps my ass to no end. She leaves Ethan Hawke and we hear how childish he is. This seemed like a great direction. The cool dad who pits the kids against the mom who has to work hard. But that was entirely wasted when it became obvious that he had his shit together more than she did. He married a good woman, and became a good dad. Alabama on the other hand continued to marry drunks. How much worse could Ethan Hawke have been than the guys she ended up with?

Any points it got for being a unique concept it gave back by being...stop me if you've heard this one...a movie about a single mom who is cool enough to let her kids puff a little cheeba, with a dollar's worth of pluck and a nickel's worth of luck trying to fight (insert one): the establishment, corporate America, evil politicians, society in general, or her past. She does this despite raising the world's smartest kids all while making herself better in the process by going to night school in between two jobs. Wow. No movie has ever been made about that concept. And of course her kids happen to be the most brilliant and enlightened whippersnappers alive. They listen to Elvis Costello, smoke just enough ganja to be cool but not enough to do those drugs society says are badder than bad, and of course, they read Dave Eggers, volunteer to elect politicians and basically have it all figured out from about birth. Why do we need to be worried about how they turn out, again? Kids like that never turn our great, upstanding people in real life, or anything.

Give me a movie about a bunch of astronauts trying to blow up an asteroid--at least I don't know how that one will turn out. It's a C-- movie with a unique concept. Why was this movie beloved and yet Act of Valor universally panned by critics?

soprismb wrote:Give me a movie about a bunch of astronauts trying to blow up an asteroid--at least I don't know how that one will turn out.

Really?

I, for one, was quite surprised by that film's fatalist ending where the surviving astronauts realize their actions were all for naught, because the asteroid named ennui has already engulfed the entirety of humanity.

Also, typing "Dick Linklater" instead of "Richard Linklater" saved you less time than using Mayostard would have.

Yeah, no one calls him Dick unless that's their idea of clever. Those who know him well enough to use a nickname call him Rick. But I guess it's pointless to explain that to someone who refers to Arquette as "Alabama Worley." I was tempted to reply in earnest to some of the points in this post (many of which I'd already encountered so many times in 2014–15) but as a first post this seems like an obvious attempt at trolling the forum. Otherwise I can't even begin to understand why Act of Valor would come up as a point of comparison. Apparently the challenges faced by a driven single mother who has relationships with men that turn out badly are to be scoffed at, while Act of Valor, intelligently explores life problems such as: Oh no, what if other men don't see me as being "dangerous" enough?! Being dangerous is my "code," my badge of honor, and I need to make sure everyone knows it! I have to kill lots of bad guys and keep all the pain locked up in "a box" (this is paraphrasing the film) so I can die like a fearless hero—yeah, now that's healthy.

Gregory wrote:I was tempted to reply in earnest to some of the points in this post (many of which I'd already encountered so many times in 2014–15) but as a first post this seems like an obvious attempt at trolling the forum.

I approved the post but somewhat begrudgingly, as there are few things more tiring than new members trying too hard to offer their "controversial" hot takes-- I don't think it's trolling, but it is desperate

soprismb's rant about Boyhood reminds me of people who panned Before Midnight because "who wants to see a couple fighting ? I don't want to go to the theater for this, it's not fun, it's not original, we already see that in real life anyway !" obviously missing the whole point of the movie.

I've already wrote that elsewhere : Boyhood's way of being shot isn't a technical gimmick, but a practical one allowing people to be more attached to how things unroll and people grow up. I'm actually always quite disappointed when people critic the movie with that argument because THEY are making this technicality a gimmick, while it actually isn't.
If a director thinks using CGI will help making his movie more realistic than with practical / optical effects, he'll do that.
Boyhood's 12 years of shooting follows the same reasoning : if it can bring wiewership closer to the on-screen characters that way, why not ? It's just a different way of doing what has been working for the Before movies.

As for the rest... well I guess to each his/her own. Some people are sensitive to what is shown on-screen, others aren't. I'm always moved to tears by The Tree of Life for instance, not only because of its visual qualities but also because of the story and themes told by the movie, while all the people I work or live with dislike the movie.

Gregory wrote: Otherwise I can't even begin to understand why Act of Valor would come up as a point of comparison.

I had been thinking about my response to the post and hadn't even considered trolling as an possibility until I got to this truly inane non-sequitur, then thought, "Oh, I can stop taking any of this seriously now."

soprismb, you are... stop me if you've heard this one... not half as clever as you think you are.

soprismb wrote:anything other than a marketing gimmick and a piece of major Oscar bait.

Talk about a long con. If that was the aim, Dickie Linklater could just have made ARGO, SPOTLIGHT, and/or KING'S SPEECH.

soprismb wrote:Give me a movie about a bunch of astronauts trying to blow up an asteroid--at least I don't know how that one will turn out.

You were almost certainly the only person who didn't know how that one would turn out.

Gregory wrote:Otherwise I can't even begin to understand why Act of Valor would come up as a point of comparison.

If one were to give him the benefit of the doubt, it could be that he is categorizing both as films with a "unique concept": Boyhood was filmed over 12 years with the same actors, Act Of Valor was "starring real Navy SEALs."

That did occur to me but that's not exactly a unique concept, and even within the war genre it had been done with much greater purpose in Battle for Haditha, for example. The really gimmicky thing about Act of Valor was that they used live ammunition for the battle scenes. (How could the Academy have overlooked what a great idea that was?) It just seems to me that a film like that is in no significant way comparable to Boyhood.

As a Linklater fan, I see the whole argument like this: People went into Boyhood expecting a masterpiece that required twelve years of filming in order to be the most perfect film designed. Those same people came out of Boyhood having instead watched a Richard Linklater movie that took place over twelve years.

Simply put, I think people put the concept of the film before the film itself. Or something like that; I'm not good with explaining things.

Yaanu wrote:Simply put, I think people put the concept of the film before the film itself.

I've discussed the movie with many of my colleagues after it came out in France (I'm still surprised so many of them went and see the movie, because it's not really the type of movie they usually watch) and that's part of the feeling from them I had too : a lot talked about how it wasn't so exceptional for a movie that took so long to shoot, that it didn't add a lot, etc, and most of the discussion was around the 12-years shoot. Some discussed a bit the actors (I remember many liked Arquette's performance), but many were really focusing on the 12-years shoot, and I basically was the only one to talk about what it gives to the movie rather than how it was done.

This was moved to Oct 11 from Oct 18. The del Toro's were moved to the 18th.

Why do they even bother to release anything in months other than July and November?

Criterion sale direct from Criterion in October, brah

Criterion has this and Short Cuts Blu-rays listed as 2 discs. Thought that was interesting.

I wonder how long that new documentary is.

flyonthewall2983 wrote:I wonder how long that new documentary is.

And how many years it took to make it?

Disappointing that DVDBeaver didn't do a comparison against the previous Blu-Ray -- I wonder if there's any difference in the picture/sound transfer.

It's a very recent film - what would you be expecting, exactly?

Hard to say without some idea of any differences between the two -- differences in color timing, audio, cleanness of the print, speckling, whatever.

If you haven't noticed any problems with the current disc and would only be upgrading for PQ reasons, I would just hang onto the current disc. If you're upgrading regardless or don't even have the current disc, it shouldn't matter anyway.