336 Dazed and Confused

Message

justeleblanc · #126 Post by **justeleblanc** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 3:09 pm

Theodore R. Stockton wrote:Am I the only one thinking that this HAS to be a two disc set! To put all the features on one disc would certainly effect the quality of the film and that what Criterion's about.

davisdvd.com says its a 2 discer

skuhn8 · #127 Post by **skuhn8** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 5:41 pm

Narshty wrote:
justeleblanc wrote:Second, Criterion said fuck on their D & C page.
To quell the controversy, the number of times 'fuck', or derivative thereof, can be found on Criterion's site currently stands at a whopping 22 (including Dazed and Confused). What's more, there's a 'cunt' in there as well.

Are these CC product descriptions or synopsis; or are these to be found in the essays contributed by others? Might I ask how you put together this most impressive tally?

And yes, this has to be a double discer; plus, on the marketing side stoners really dig two for one of anything (i.e. two donuts, two pizzas).They should add a third disc where the whole move plays backwards and just slightly accelerated.

Narshty · #128 Post by **Narshty** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 6:02 pm

skuhn8 wrote:Are these CC product descriptions or synopsis; or are these to be found in the essays contributed by others? Might I ask how you put together this most impressive tally?

Nearly all essays. I just Googled Criterion's site for the offending appendage, like so.

justeleblanc · #129 Post by **justeleblanc** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 7:50 pm

Still doesn't work: Cunt

Narshty · #130 Post by **Narshty** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 11:31 pm

It's plural.

justeleblanc · #131 Post by **justeleblanc** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 11:59 pm

Narshty wrote:It's plural.

ah! \:D/

skuhn8 · #132 Post by **skuhn8** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:53 pm

Has anyone revisited this one since the whole uproar happened here on the forum? I just finished watching it. I think it'll fit fine in the collection. Certainly not Ugetsu, but it isn't Armaggedon either. I think part of the problem is that people watch it as just a high school party flick. And really it's...just...well, maybe it's just a high school party flick, but a real good one. Fuck, lighten up already.

It's the only film where Mathew McCaughnahy's (sic) presence doesn't completely annoy me. And Affleck is perfectly cast as well.

redbill · #133 Post by **redbill** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 6:25 pm

skuhn8 wrote:It's the only film where Mathew McCaughnahy's (sic) presence doesn't completely annoy me. And Affleck is perfectly cast as well.

Just realized this will be Affleck's third appearance in the collection. Could Phantoms be next???

LightBulbFilm · #134 Post by **LightBulbFilm** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 8:56 pm

No, Daddy the made for TV movie based on that one dumb bitches novel is coming next... Danielle Steel... That's the bitch's name.

Fletch F. Fletch · Wed Mar 22, 2006 9:30 pm

skuhn8 wrote:Has anyone revisited this one since the whole uproar happened here on the forum? I just finished watching it. I think it'll fit fine in the collection. Certainly not Ugetsu, but it isn't Armaggedon either. I think part of the problem is that people watch it as just a high school party flick. And really it's...just...well, maybe it's just a high school party flick, but a real good one. Fuck, lighten up already.

It's the only film where Mathew McCaughnahy's (sic) presence doesn't completely annoy me. And Affleck is perfectly cast as well.

I was watching this again on AMC the other night (ugh, butchered completely) and it made me realize how, for quite a few people in the film it may have been their best effort to date -- certainly for the likes of Jason London, Matthew McConaughey, Milla Jovovich (altho, that's not saying much), Rory Cochrane (altho, I do like him in Love and .45), Adam Goldberg (who has been typecast ever since as scary, crazy bully types) and Cole Hauser.

Linklater really knows how to cast his films well and get great performances out of non actors and/or inexperienced ones as well.

thewind · #136 Post by **thewind** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 2:04 am

Maybe I missed it, but did anyone mention the info from Wiley Wiggins' blog about this release?

The Criterion Collection: Dazed and Confused is now on the Criterion 'coming soon' page. Last I heard the release date is in June. Cool first look at the box art, though. I talked to Marc English (the designer) at the SXSW screening of A Scanner Darkly (more on that later), and he said that the box will have a die cut front with a pull out of Kozik's original premier poster. It's such a relief to escape Universal's branding and advertising 'art' after all these years!

Sounds like a nice package.

Guest · #137 Post by **Guest** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 4:11 pm

I, for one, am tired of seeing people try to defend this film's inclusion in the Criterion Collection. Hell, I'm tired of BEING one of those people. There's no use in debating an edition that's already in the works. I used to bitch about Armageddon "diminishing Criterion's respectability," but in the end the film still came out. All you can do is not buy it if you don't like it and hope the next release will be more to your liking.

However, if they are going to be occasionally releasing popular, recent titles, they could do FAR WORSE than Dazed and Confused, which I truly believe is one of the finest American films of the past 15 years.

Besides, it's confession time. I own maybe 15-20 Criterion DVDs at this point. I typically try to buy ones of films I honestly love and/or can watch numerous times, since I'm only 27 and living off a first-year teacher's salary. I have always felt that many of the Criterion films aren't the kind you can pop in to the DVD player any old time, kick back, and enjoy. Dazed, however, is such a film. Shit, there I go...defending it again.

I know I should just be happy that it's coming out via Criterion, and believe me, I truly am thrilled. Nevertheless, I am thoroughly underwhelmed by that cover art.

richast2 · #138 Post by **richast2** » Fri May 05, 2006 4:21 pm

Narshty wrote:
justeleblanc wrote:Second, Criterion said fuck on their D & C page.
To quell the controversy, the number of times 'fuck', or derivative thereof, can be found on Criterion's site currently stands at a whopping 22 (including Dazed and Confused). What's more, there's a 'cunt' in there as well.

the f-bomb is gone now, actually.

Antoine Doinel · #139 Post by **Antoine Doinel** » Thu May 11, 2006 7:33 pm

It seems the "booklet" has turned into a full fledged "72 page book." Wow. I just got a little more excited for this release:

A 72-page book featuring new essays by Kent Jones, Jim DeRogatis, and Chuck Klosterman, plus character profiles, and memories of the film from cast and crew. And the original film poster designed by Frank Kozik

Fletch F. Fletch · Thu May 11, 2006 8:19 pm

I bet they're taking a lot of stuff from Dazed and Confused : Teenage Nostalgia. Instant and Cool 70's Memorabilia. A Celebration of the Hit Movie. Makes sense as it was a pretty cool companion piece to the film. The Slacker version is quite good too.

Ashirg · #141 Post by **Ashirg** » Tue May 16, 2006 6:39 am

DVD Movie Central Review

DVD Movie Guide Review

Antoine Doinel · Tue May 16, 2006 12:06 pm

Wow, the extras really look fantastic. And the Linklater commentary sounds great.

solaris72 · #143 Post by **solaris72** » Tue May 16, 2006 12:41 pm

Wiley Wiggins wrote in his blog that he received a copy, and says it has a feature that seems to have gone unreported on the Criterion website and in both reviews: an isolated score.

Cinesimilitude · #144 Post by **Cinesimilitude** » Tue May 16, 2006 2:48 pm

love the fact the photos on the front are cut outs... hate the fact that posey is still on the cover...

Lino · #145 Post by **Lino** » Tue May 16, 2006 3:00 pm

Hmm, haven't seen this movie so I don't know if there is a direct association or not but "Dazed and Confused" is the name of a Led Zeppelin song and that CC cover with the holes in it is straight out of the cover of Led Zeppelin III. Any thoughts? Or am I late in on all this?

oldsheperd · #146 Post by **oldsheperd** » Tue May 16, 2006 3:37 pm

I can't really see how the song fits with the movie. I think they're acutally quite opposite each other.

Narshty · #147 Post by **Narshty** » Tue May 16, 2006 5:29 pm

An isolated score? How on earth did they pull that off? Given that there isn't really a score but just wall-to-wall seventies tunes, I can't imagine how expensive that must have been to clear.

Antoine Doinel · #148 Post by **Antoine Doinel** » Tue May 16, 2006 5:31 pm

oldsheperd wrote:I can't really see how the song fits with the movie. I think they're acutally quite opposite each other.

I think he's talking about the artwork, and it wouldn't suprise me if the diecut cover is a secret (and appropriate) Zeppelin homage. Pretty awesome.

Eurotrash · #149 Post by **Eurotrash** » Tue May 16, 2006 7:01 pm

Or maybe not so secret. I think the resemblance is quite striking.

GringoTex · #150 Post by **GringoTex** » Tue May 16, 2006 7:13 pm

Annie Mall wrote:Hmm, haven't seen this movie so I don't know if there is a direct association or not but "Dazed and Confused" is the name of a Led Zeppelin song and that CC cover with the holes in it is straight out of the cover of Led Zeppelin III. Any thoughts? Or am I late in on all this?

Linklater tried to get the rights to the song. Page agreed but Plant refused. Linklater was pretty bitter with Plant over it.

Internal Resources

External Sites

Specialty Labels

Site Menu

336 Dazed and Confused