What opinion has /tv/ about recent (less than 10 years) movies getting Criterion releases?
What's your favorite post 2000 movie released in Criterion?
>>71549469
Phoenix
>>71549469
tHEY NEEDt to release Inherent Vice, but perhaps more imporatnatly]
>Punch Drunk Love
>Sydney
>Irreversible (this is an important film)
>Kar-Wai Wong's earlier films
>Mr. Lonely / Gummo / Julien Donkey Boy
Blue is the Warmest Colour
>>71549903
>Blackhat (director's preferred cut)
Any film with miss piggy shouldn't be in the collection, period
>>71549943
Should I give it another go? I love Mann, but I clocked out after the dreadful CGI where we moved through computer circuits like it was Hackers in the 90s.
>>71549957
That's like the first five minutes.
>>71549971
So is that a yes?
![Blackhat.2015.1080p.BluRay.x264.DTS-WiKi.mkv_snapshot_00.52.12_[2016.06.21_03.42.56].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/4YC2LCT.jpg "Blackhat.2015.1080p.BluRay.x264.DTS-WiKi.mkv_snapshot_00.52.12_[2016.06.21_03.42.56].jpg")
>>71549957
try to watch it without being a faggot, if that's possible for you
>>71549903
Punch-Drunk Love for sure needs bluray love from them, or literally anybody, but i'd rather see them restore 80s - 90s Taiwanese films that are basically inaccessible right now. they started a trend with A Brighter Summer Day, and i hope they continue it. would love to see them do The Terrorizers, Mahjong, The River, Dust in the Wind, maybe more.
>>71549469
>What's your favorite post 2000 movie released in Criterion?
These are up there:
My Winnipeg
Yi Yi
The New World
In the Mood for Love
Still Walking
>>71549469
Criterion is a distribution company, not a museum.
Stop this meme that it is made up of only good movies, or that good movies should be "inducted" into it.
>>71549984
How do I stop being a faggot?
>>71550008
start by actually finishing movies you sit down to watch
>>71549903
>tHEY NEEDt to release Inherent Vice,
Why?
>>71549957
I hated that bit as well but the movie won me over and then some
>>71550027
I don't really know why I said that, probably because I want the extras and can listen to PTA talk all fucking day
>>71550021
I remember wathcing a bit further now and it did absolutely nothing to me. Talking to a gook in a coffee shop or some shit? Wow, maybe I won't give it another shot.
>>71549994
>Criterion is a distribution company, not a museum.
This equally misleading. Go and see the consideration they've put into works like Chaplin's 'The Gold Rush' and tell me that they are merely a "distribution company" without feeling like a disingenuous ass.
Go on.
>>71549994
this is true. Their deal with IFC films only proves this, as the quality/importance/uniqueness of those films varies wildly, taking Phoenix and Tiny Furniture as the easiest examples. I'm glad they release some of the modern films that they do, which probably wouldn't get good home video releases otherwise
>>71550074
Yea, they're a distribution company that does great work restoring classic/older films in rough shape. That doesn't mean they always stick to that sort of mantra though. They are beholden to market pressures and release cash cow films
>>71549986
this is about my list replacing the new world for pan's labyrinth or y tu mama tambien
>>71550074
Because nobody would ever buy a Charlie Chaplain movie, right? They released it because the market exists. I bet you think Chaplain made the movie for free in the first place.
>>71550142
Two times means it's not a typo, honey. Pathetic display, anti-criterionfag
>>71550108
>They are beholden to market pressures and release cash cow films
Well they are a company so revenue is always going to play a part. You can't survive in this industry on idealism alone.
I don't think they are some sacred vanguard of cinema that constantly deserve only the highest of praise - nor are they a mere distribution company with a modish trumped up reputation - the truth is somewhere in-between.
>>71550190
>point out DVD company exists to sell DVDs
>get called anti-DVD companies
Wow, retarded. Not everyone hates capitalism like you do.
>>71550142
It's amazing how poorly you missed the point of that post.
>>71550205
yea, I'd probably agree on that. Their reputation generally swings to the former though. People buy some of the movies with similar transfers at 4x the price for the label (especially looking at the Wes Anderson releases), often with a relatively low level of quality extras beyond what was already offered by a "generic."
>>71550205
>acquire old movie titles because they are cheap
>sells them
>acquire new movie titles with the profits
>sell them
So complicated. Glad we have you to explain things.
Continuation of the which DVD distributor team are you on thread from last night?
So what is it, /tv/ are you a Criterion baby or a supreme gentleman adult who likes whatever the fuck that guy was talking about yesterday.
>>71549469
One thing I like about contemporary stuff is how they do tend to involve directors and get some cool stuff. Inside Llewyn Davis is a really recent movie where I love their release because it's packed with neat features.
>>71550336
Sum up the thread and I'll let you know.
>>71550336
Made that post for these EXACT asshurt replies
Keep em coming
>>71549469
Shit I only have one post 2000 Criterion, Mulholland Drive.
One of my fave so it's good yeah.
>>71550289
>leave out the whole restoration factor because it doesn't fit conveniently into your angst post
Glad we have you to sperg things.
>>71550480
You Criterion fanboys get triggered over the slightest thing. You can't even accept that a for-profit company that sells DVDs was created with the intention of selling DVDs for profit? You ever think they might restore movies because that makes people more likely to buy them? "For the first time in half a century, remastered! See it like it was shown in theaters!" Yeah, totally not a selling point.
>>71549469
In the Mood for Love (2000)
Mulholland Dr. (2001)
Moonrise Kingdom (2012)
Phoenix (2014)
>>71550556
>You Criterion fanboys get triggered over the slightest thing.
You are projecting. I barely own any Criterion and I am not a "fanboy" like you're inferring.
>You can't even accept that a for-profit company that sells DVDs was created with the intention of selling DVDs for profit?
Of course I can. You are editorializing nonsense on my behalf.
You can deride their acts of restoration as nothing more than a strictly cynical ploy to ensure more sales, but you have no way of knowing the attitudes or passions of the people involved toward the medium that they are working with. You are taking the human dynamic out of the equation (yet again, I'd imagine) because you are a total spergtron.
>>71549933
Where's that re-release they promised?
>>71549903
I love Inherent Vice, but it's got a Blu, so the only reason if want it is if it had a ton of extras and deleted scenes.
Good call on Korine though, I'd love a Gummo/Trash Humpers duo or something.
>>71550786
>cynical
No, you're projecting. Only a faggot believes acts of profit are cynical. Not everyone is anti-capitalist like you, comrade.
>>71550848
>No, you're projecting.
Haha. I'll link it again to it finally sets in, I suppose.
>you have no way of knowing the attitudes or passions of the people involved toward the medium that they are working with.
Try to cope with the fact that you are very obviously projecting right now.
>>71550899
>I don't know why businesses sell things.
lol
>>71550975
I get it. You like your sophistry games.
It's fun to double-talk, isn't it?
You anons realize that like 95% of what is released under Criterion is based on what they can get the rights to right?
>>71551035
Nah dude, read the thread. Criterion is like if the Smithsonian, the Met, and the Louvre were all run by Mother Theresa.
>>71551103
"The Royal Tenenbaums" (2001)
"Mulholland Dr." (2001)
"The New World" (2005)
"The Secret of the Grain" (2007)
"My Winnipeg" (2007)
"Che" (2008)
"Fish Tank" (2009)
"Life During Wartime" (2009)
"Carlos" (2010)
"Tiny Furniture" (2010)
"Frances Ha" (2012)
"Inside Llewyn Davis" (2013)
Why is that getting released on there
