criterionforum.org

Jeff Wells wrote yet another item about the absence of THE FRIENDS OF EDDIE COYLE on DVD.

Someone in the comments section simply replied: "Coming from Criterion in 2008. No B.S."

Of course, there's no reason to believe that. But if there's still juice left in the Paramount deal (past WHITE DOG and the Sternbergs), EDDIE COYLE does seem like a prime contender.

Oh man just imagine the awesome Mitchum-related supplements we could be treated to! =D>

domino harvey wrote:Oh man just imagine the awesome Mitchum-related supplements we could be treated to! =D>

Maybe they'll convince Bruce Weber to finally complete his Mitchum film.

Doug Pratt, in the February, 2008 issue of DVD-Laserdisc Newsletter, mentions that BLOOD AND ROSES was a requested title, and that it would make a good Criterion release. I certainly agree!

Jobla wrote:Doug Pratt, in the February, 2008 issue of DVD-Laserdisc Newsletter, mentions that BLOOD AND ROSES was a requested title, and that it would make a good Criterion release. I certainly agree!

Does he mean that Criterion staff requested it? I actually doubt that Paramount Pictures, USA possess a prime element of the uncut version, though, so they'd have to go sniffing around Europe. I'd love to finally see it, as it looks visually impressive, judging by the trailer.

Person wrote:

Jobla wrote:Doug Pratt, in the February, 2008 issue of DVD-Laserdisc Newsletter, mentions that BLOOD AND ROSES was a requested title, and that it would make a good Criterion release. I certainly agree!

Does he mean that Criterion staff requested it? I actually doubt that Paramount Pictures, USA possess a prime element of the uncut version, though, so they'd have to go sniffing around Europe.

To be fair, they pulled off Danger: Diabolik with no hitches at all - full length version and corrected soundtrack for, as far as I know, the first time on home video anywhere.

It was the readers of DVD Newsletter who wrote in who voted, in response to the publication's annual poll. In the early 1990s, Paramount Classics Division had a widescreen 35mm theatrical print that appeared at occasional film festivals. Also, I believe that the film played the LA Cinematheque just last year, but I don't the source of that print.

That said, there is an elusive European cut that is slightly longer than the US version. I've never seen the international version.

ONE-EYED JACKS

Narshty wrote:

Person wrote:

Jobla wrote:Doug Pratt, in the February, 2008 issue of DVD-Laserdisc Newsletter, mentions that BLOOD AND ROSES was a requested title, and that it would make a good Criterion release. I certainly agree!

Does he mean that Criterion staff requested it? I actually doubt that Paramount Pictures, USA possess a prime element of the uncut version, though, so they'd have to go sniffing around Europe.

To be fair, they pulled off Danger: Diabolik with no hitches at all - full length version and corrected soundtrack for, as far as I know, the first time on home video anywhere.

That was only after Tim Lucas got involved. Initially, Paramount were going to release a bare-bones DVD of the version with incorrect soundtrack. Incidentally, back in the early 90s, when Diabolik and Blood and Roses were released on VHS, they used really cheap videotape stock and they were in 6-hour mode.

Props55 wrote:ONE-EYED JACKS

I don't think this is coming... Criterion has never released a Brando film... I don't know... does Criterion have something against Brando, the best actor in movie history?

Mental Mike wrote:

Props55 wrote:ONE-EYED JACKS

I don't think this is coming... Criterion has never released a Brando film... I don't know... does Criterion have something against Brando, the best actor in movie history?

Yeah, that's it. Couldn't be oh, rights issues, or anything else. They just hate Brando.

Ugh.

Mulvaney calls him "Blando" during our weekly poker games. We laugh and laugh.

Speaking of Paramount properties, how about a Criterion SE of FOUR FLIES ON GREY VELVET? Unlikely, perhaps -- but probably the only way this film will get a worthy release.

Since we have several new members chiming in, I thought it might be time for an updated look at the Paramount deal.

Definitely Licensed from Paramount
If...
Ace in the Hole
Robinson Crusoe on Mars
Days of Heaven
The Naked Prey
The Furies
White Dog
The Wedding March
Sternberg silents (The Docks of New York?, The Last Command?, Underworld?)

Confirmed/Rumored by a Source Outside Criterion
Face to Face
The Spy Who Came in From the Cold
The Friends of Eddie Coyle

Denied by Criterion staff
One-Eyed Jacks (email from Turrell to me)
The Mattei Affair (email to member Alain3000 from Tamara)
Don't Look Now (email to member kaujot from Tamara)
Harold and Maude (email to member LightBulbFilm from Turrell)
The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (email to member Derek Estes from Tamara)

Sorcerer is definitely coming from Universal. As for Harold & Maude and the Man Who Shot Liberty Valence-- I'd say you're crazy, but I also would have bet money against anyone who claimed Days of Heaven would be released by Criterion so who knows

Wouldn't Skidoo hit some kind of problem involving the fact that Preminger's widow never wants that film to see the light of day again?

domino harvey wrote:Sorcerer is definitely coming from Universal. As for Harold & Maude and the Man Who Shot Liberty Valence-- I'd say you're crazy, but I also would have bet money against anyone who claimed Days of Heaven would be released by Criterion so who knows

I don't why know what I was thinking on Sorcerer. I'll remove that. You're probably right about TMWSLV, it's a pretty marketable title for Paramount with Ford and Wayne. I think Narshty brought it up at one point, and I was so smitten with the idea that I can't resist including it.

I think Harold and Maude is a pretty cultish title, with little following outside the film dork community, so I could definitely see Criterion tackling that.

I emailed Criterion asking about The Tenant back when the Paramount deal came to light (I also asked about Cul-de-Sac) but never got a reply.

davebert wrote:Wouldn't Skidoo hit some kind of problem involving the fact that Preminger's widow never wants that film to see the light of day again?

Nah. Fuck her. Paramount owns it lock, stock, and barrel. She can bitch and moan about it, but unless someone at Criterion or Paramount decides they care about her opinion, it doesn't amount to much. Unless your name is Oja Kodar or Gena Rowlands, Criterion shouldn't be interested in "widow-approved" editions.

Add her to that list we all keep...

Jeff wrote:I think Harold and Maude is a pretty cultish title, with little following outside the film dork community, so I could definitely see Criterion tackling that.

I'd love to have HAROLD AND MAUDE, but Turell has denied it.

Jeff wrote:Unless your name is Oja Kodar or Gena Rowlands, Criterion shouldn't be interested in "widow-approved" editions.

Didn't Rowlands actually suppress the early cut of Shadows and then force Criterion into disavowing Ray Carney when he tried to insist on its inclusion in the Cassavetes set? Also, Kodar never married Welles and has no rights with regard to his estate. She is, however, the only person I'd want having anything to do with Welles work. His damned daughter only seems to be acting vindictively.

arsonfilms wrote:Didn't Rowlands actually suppress the erly cut of Shadows and then force Criterion into disavowing Ray Carney when he tried to insist on its inclusion in the Cassavetes set? Also, Kodar never married Welles and has no rights with regard to his estate. She is, however, the only person I'd want having anything to do with Welles work. His damned daughter only seems to be acting vindictively.

Well, Kodar does own all that unfinished stuff (the physical film).

jaredsap wrote:I'd love to have HAROLD AND MAUDE, but Turell has denied it.

Duly noted.

arsonfilms wrote:Didn't Rowlands actually suppress the early cut of Shadows and then force Criterion into disavowing Ray Carney when he tried to insist on its inclusion in the Cassavetes set? Also, Kodar never married Welles and has no rights with regard to his estate. She is, however, the only person I'd want having anything to do with Welles work. His damned daughter only seems to be acting vindictively.

I included the note about Rowlands and Kodar because Criterion has actively sought their input and approval, and because they have access (and often rights to) source materials. Let's not veer too far off topic. I only brought it up because I don't think Preminger's estate has much say over what happens to Skidoo -- try as she might to supress it. We do have a Bitchy Widows thread, where this can be discussed further.

davebert wrote:Wouldn't Skidoo hit some kind of problem involving the fact that Preminger's widow never wants that film to see the light of day again?

I think TCM qualifies as "the light of day" even though it was most recently shown around 1am. I was finally able to see it and found it awful, although its still on my DVR and I've watched it twice now.

With the right supplements, this could be a very interesting package for Criterion. But how to rationalize its canonization?