criterionforum.org

Berzeli wrote:

That layer of barely visible chalk writing makes it look like the big Stephen Hawking's jacket is covered in cat hair and dandruff. Get a lint roller, giant Stephen Hawking.

They're running over his neck/face too, which makes them seem like incredibly painful tattoos or demonic runes glowing beneath his skin.

Well, I assume the stars have a dual meaning.
They rate the film highly, but it's also astrophysicist Hawking looking up at the stars.
So here it works better than usual.

Stars are kind of lazy, but don't really bother me.
Probably plenty of folks just want to know that the film is considered good and not a clunker.
Stars = quality film is easy to understand at a glance.

I just realised what the worst part about that cover is; no it isn't the tacky gold on white, no it isn't that hideous banner on top, no it isn't the weirdly blue translucent Hawking, no it isn't the overuse of stars, it isn't even the "putting people inside of other people thing" which pretty much never works.
It is that the DVD cover is actually pretty nice:

Except for the Rex Reed pullquote.

I know, right? It's like, enough with the words, how many stars do you give it?

Lemmy Caution wrote:Well, I assume the stars have a dual meaning.
They rate the film highly, but it's also astrophysicist Hawking looking up at the stars.
So here it works better than usual.

Stars are kind of lazy, but don't really bother me.

Do they bother you now?

Meh, only 125 stars on the front and 5 additional on the back.

Lemmy Caution wrote:Well, I assume the stars have a dual meaning.
They rate the film highly, but it's also astrophysicist Hawking looking up at the stars.
So here it works better than usual.

If Hawking gazing up in awe at the stars of the film's accolades was seriously part of the basic cover concept, then it's probably the most preposterous cover ever designed and nothing else in this thread will match that again for sheer stoopidity.

That Amour cover would actually be really helpful for my first-grade daughter, who is starting to learn to count by fives and tens.

swo17 wrote:I know, right? It's like, enough with the words, how many stars do you give it?

Moreso that it's by Rex Reed

I just like that both the Amour and Theory of Everything covers have the same visual shorthand approach to portraying a grand love: grab your partner tightly by the face with both hands and don't let go!

Lemmy Caution wrote:Stars = quality film is easy to understand at a glance.

I'm not sure how well it'd stand out amongst all the other star/award littered covers, which appears to be the default lazy design approach in the UK and Australia. Unless there's a special 5-star section on the shelves, perhaps? The quality shelf.

colinr0380 wrote:I just like that both the Amour and Theory of Everything covers have the same visual shorthand approach to portraying a grand love: grab your partner tightly by the face with both hands and don't let go!

It's worked for me, but it does make everyday things like, driving, eating and typpng rsponsses ont he intrenet
;
;
;
;
;
difFCULT

I haven't seen such a look of strained-to-breaking-point anti-chemistry between two leads since Fifty Shades of Grey.

They can't even bear to look each other in the eyes instead grimacing painfully waiting for the photoshoot to end!

The straw hat and superman cape makes them look cute though.

I heard about CatDog, but this is first glimpse at conjoined Dog & Monkey...

This is a pretty garish cover.


Also, found this at amazon.fr. Could someone please explain how Performance translates
to vanilla?

The Performance cover was discussed years ago on Tim Lucas's blog, and Cammell biographers Rebecca and Sam Umland said they had never seen any evidence of the film having been titled that way in France before that DVD came out.

The Godard cover is lifted from the Rialto rerelease poster, which was itself based on original poster art

Speaking of "a woman is a woman", I'm wondering if this VHS cover of "Paisan"s woman is a woman or not?

I like that the dog's expression seems to suggest an urgent earnestness to its message of impending doom. While the ostrich has a more 'serves them right for their hubris' attitude to the whole thing!

colinr0380 wrote:
I like that the dog's expression seems to suggest an urgent earnestness to its message of impending doom. While the ostrich has a more 'serves them right for their hubris' attitude to the whole thing!

I can confirm from personal experience that urgent earnestness about completely frivolous matters is a border collie speciality.