364-368 Monsters and Madmen

[denti alligator]

Dreyer Box:

DAY OF WRATH
ORDET
GERTRUD

plus

MY METIER makes 4 films.

also KURO SAMURAI CLASSICS had 4 films. LIT ADAPTATIONS had 4 films. The REBEL SWORDPLAY had four films.

Oh, so it gets a spine number (as does the Bergman doc), but it's still an extra feature as far as anyone is concerned.

[HerrSchreck]

I dunno, extra features are commentaries, original docs, deleted scenes, short interviews. If something was shown in the theaters completely all it's own, sure it's "related to dreyer" so is in the box, but like HEARTS & MINDS, HARLAN COUNTY, GREY GARDENS, etc, it's a feature documentary with it's own spine number which has been released elsewhere as an isolated feature independant of CC.

[toiletduck!]

It's not only extortionate, it tastes terrible. It's a Nazified, bile-soaked, communist whore-tonguing, jew-baiting, brain eating, KKK-afiliated, Kahane Chai sourced, child-raping tissue of shit. And now toiletdcuk if you uh can't see my Nourishing Good Wisdom clear as thin mountain air, well then, uh, there's just nothing I can do for you. You can lead a fat man to the pot but you can't make him poop. I got The Education here to give but if you are not prepared to automatically and without hesitation yeild to my Truth well then I guess I just can't help you.

Except you, Schreck, levelheadedness from you would make me a little uneasy. Although, if you could elaborate on this communist whore-tonguing a little bit, it might help...

-Toilet Dcuk

[Napoleon]

The problem I have is that I'm pretty sure that all of cc's previous boxes will have cost them considerably more money to put together than Monsters and Madmen.
The Dreyer's, Cocteau's, Wajde etc sets contain films that will have cost a lot of money to license and fix up for release.
No other company has releases like those so there is pricing model to make a comparison against.

However Warners do make boxes similar to Monsters and Madmen.

They put together the 9 film Lewton collection together for $60.
They put together the 6 film Legends of Horror collection together for $40.

Thats $6.66. per film.

By comparison Monster and Madmen at $20 a film is 300% more expensive.

I don't expect Criterion to compete with Warners prices, but they aren't even close.

I wouldn't mind watching the Monster and Madmen films, and if I lived in R1 land I'd rent them. As I don't I either have to pay waaay over the odds or not see them at all, simply because they are on a *prestige* label.

Anyhow, is Corridors of Blood Lee's first film in the collection?

[Cinesimilitude]

Time Warner's Revenue in 2005: 43.7 Billion Dollars.
Image Entertainment/Criterion Co. Revenue in 2005: 130 Million

the 130 million is my rough estimate, because Image's best quarter brought in 34.4 million dollars. I still think the prices are justified, since criterion is a small operation.

[Gregory]

A better comparison might be to HVE (pre-buyout). How was HVE so often able to price their releases significantly under what Criterion charges for comparable content? It seems to me at least a major part of the reason was a combination of higher licensing costs and prestige pricing reflected in Criterion's RRPs.
Edit: To make my point clearer, since the higher-than-HVE price is in all probability not a result of high licensing fees, I think it can be chalked up to prestige pricing.

[jcelwin]

Comparing Time Warner's and Image/Criterions revenue isn't really going to reflect the pricing strategy.

Either way, the companies are going to try to make profit on the DVDs. I'm sure that the department doing classic discs at Warner have their own budget (some what independent from the rest of the company, they still have to justify their existence), as would Criterion. Warner might have more resources and lower costs, but they would have to be comparable. Criterion is just going for the highest price they think they can get; same thing Warner would do.

The only problem I [might] have, is criterion deviating from their mission statement:
'Important classic and contemporary films, is dedicated to gathering the greatest films from around the world'

Just because a film is old, low budget/independent or relatively unknown, doesn't mean it fits into this category. And, just because a film is popular doesn't mean it isn't important and/or great.

[Jeff]

Just a note for the title of this thread. Criterion has decided not to do this as double features. The box now occupies spine numbers 364-368.

[Cinesimilitude]

Just a note for the title of this thread. Criterion has decided not to do this as double features. The box now occupies spine numbers 364-368.

A response to the price bitching, I'm sure.

[Ledos]

The only problem I [might] have, is criterion deviating from their mission statement:
'Important classic and contemporary films, is dedicated to gathering the greatest films from around the world'

That's nothing new. Armageddon, Flesh for Frankenstein, Blood for Dracula, The Blob, Equinox, Fiend Without a Face. In fact I think they have often made oddball choices when releasing genre titles. I welcome this new set which offers some interesting films.

[125100]

When I first heard about this set I wasn't at all interested, to be honest I didn't realise it was four films, I thought it was just 2 camp 50's sci-fi movies. Now that I've checked it out on the Criterion website personally I think it looks fab. Okay, the films may not be the strongest (However I did see 'The Haunted Strangler' on TV here in the UK a few years ago and as far as I can remember it wasn't a bad effort, certainly entertaining)

However this is Criterion so the quality will be first rate, the artwork is sublime and it will hopefully be wonderfully packaged. As for moaning about the price, well like the guy said no-one is putting a gun to your head and making you buy it. With online prices it won't even cost you $80. It'll probably just cost me $80 after paying postage to the UK but even then that only converts to about £40 which is nothing really.

[foggy eyes]

When I first heard about this set I wasn't at all interested, to be honest I didn't realise it was four films, I thought it was just 2 camp 50's sci-fi movies. Now that I've checked it out on the Criterion website personally I think it looks fab. Okay, the films may not be the strongest (However I did see 'The Haunted Strangler' on TV here in the UK a few years ago and as far as I can remember it wasn't a bad effort, certainly entertaining)

This is a fair point. I am inclined to quibble with the price of this boxset, but I believe Criterion are being as brave with this release as they were with, say, Fiend Without a Face (prime example of British sf genre cinema of the 1950s shamelessly masquerading as rival American product). Is the combination of genre and price really so offputting?

Also: The Haunted Strangler has been shown on TV here in the UK under the title Grip of the Strangler. It's a good 'un.

Edited for clarity.

[Gordon]

Why are some of you comparing the pricing-to-content issue with Warner? Anchor Bay or Blue Underground would be fairer opponents. Both of AB's Herzog sets had SRPs of $69.98 and can be found for around $44.00. 6 or 7 films, good transfers, commentaries with Herzog - one of the great bargains in my collection!

These films have intrigued me over the years, but they have never been at the forefront of my movie-searching. I love movies like these, but $50-60 for an exclusive set is not what I had hoped for and frankly, there are too many other releases that will push this set way, way down my wish list.

Also, if Criterion are willing to releases films like these, there are a few others that I'd prefer to see. Karel Zeman's A Deadly Invention (1958) and Baron Prásil (1961) would be wonderful additions - they aren't even available in the Czech Rep.

[Lino]

Also, if Criterion are willing to releases films like these, there are a few others that I'd prefer to see. Karel Zeman's A Deadly Invention (1958) and Baron Prásil (1961) would be wonderful additions - they aren't even available in the Czech Rep.

You know you can find them over in Japan, don't you? Yes, I do know they don't carry english subs but all of Zeman's filmography is available over there. Lucky bastards!

[colinr0380]

Also: The Haunted Strangler has been shown on TV here in the UK under the title Grip of the Strangler. It's a good 'un.

That's where I first saw it - shown on BBC1 at one in the morning on a Friday night in Summer 1996 - followed by the live opening ceremony of the Atlanta Olympics!

[Gordon]

I see that the great Les Bowie created special effects for The Haunted Strangler. Bowie is credited with inventing the glass matte shot, though I can't find any decent info on this. His contributions to countless Hammer films is strong, with many beautiful matte shots adding to the atmospherics. He supervised the matte shots on 2001, which must have been a tough gig. He retired in 1976, but this man of vast experience was needed to supervise the effects on Star Wars and Superman. I just thought I'd mention Les Bowie, as he's one of the great unknowns in Cinema history.

[Gordon]

And speaking of 2001, I see that Tony Masters was the art director on Corridors of Blood.

[arsonfilms]

I have to say, I was a little on the fence about this release (the horror films look a lot cooler than the sci-fi) until the new artwork came out. Now I'm pretty well sold. It oughtta come out to about $50 for the four films, and I'm more than fine with that.

As to whether or not Criterion should be focusing on something else... I'm anticipating getting a lot of enjoyment out of this box, and if I'm being honest I'd guess I probably wouldn't think twice about these films if they weren't Criterion. I know that probably represents a disturbing brand-loyalty in my psychological makeup, but I have yet to be let down by anything they've done that I've decided to pick up. Don't get me wrong, I'd rather be getting excited about something else in January, but when that something else gets put out eventually, I'm sure I'll pick that up, too.

[HerrSchreck]

I As to whether or not Criterion should be focusing on something else... I'm anticipating getting a lot of enjoyment out of this box, and if I'm being honest I'd guess I probably wouldn't think twice about these films if they weren't Criterion. .

That's funny because I feel totally opposite. I buy so much low budget sci-fi/horror snot that I feel that CC is slapping their logo on, and charging a heck of a lot more, than so so so so much of what I have in my collection from Universal Paramount Sony/Columbia Warner/MGM and VCI and so many other smaller labels, dozens and dozens and dozens of films from the same time/studios/actors, with nothing really to differentiate these films from the others, except that now it's CC putting it out now so it's now A Big Thing.

What I'm saying is that, as opposed to you, I'm actually thinking twice because it is Criterion. If it was another label charging a little less it'd be a no brainer for me-- I'd get around to it, without a doubt, is what I'm probably sayin-- because there's a lot of this sci-fi/horror b-line stuff coming out now and it's all very very very cheap, many with transfers unbeatable by even CC. It's almost like they threw a dart at a list of some good sci-horror, and slapped their label on it, and now it's a Cause For Celebration... but I know better.

Look at Karloff's THE BLACK ROOM or THE MAN THEY COULD NOT HANG in the Sony KARLOFF box (each film approx 5 bucks). GOJIRA VS HEDORAH. Look at THIS ISLAND EARTH, or IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE from Uni. ook at CONQUEST OF SPACE, THE SEVENTH PLANET, IT THE CREATURE FROM BEYOND SPACE, and so many more... not to mention the WARNER LEGENDS OF HORROR box.

You could slap the CC label on anyone of these films and it would be equally if not more justified than the films in the M & M box. It just feels very random and inexplicable to me on a premium line like CC. If Eclipse existed and hadda lower price point I'd feel it made more sense and not quite as arbitrary. Even FEIND WITHOUT A FACE, THE BLOB, the Warhols, all were benchmark films in their own little ways. These here are completely indistinguishable from the huge mass of sci-horror films coming out in droves as the moment in spectacular transfers, and it all feels entirely random to me. Even when CC released the two Fox Dassin's smack inna middle of the Fox Noir releases, it made total sense for me to pay the higher price point because it was Dassin, the films were genuine masterpieces towering over the bulk of the noir glut, and their telecine operators gave it a little bit of extra oomph & sparkle.

But, hopeless maniac I am, I'll probably buy the M&M box anyhow. It'll probably just take awhile.

[Tribe]

You could slap the CC label on anyone of these films and it would be equally if not more justified than the films in the M & M box. It just feels very random and inexplicable to me on a premium line like CC.

Not necessarily disagreeing with you, Schreckster...especially since I'm unfamiliar with these and the production house, but doesn't the "importance" of these lay more in the fact that they were produced by the Gordons?

Tribe

[arsonfilms]

That's funny because I feel totally opposite. I buy so much low budget sci-fi/horror snot that I feel that CC is slapping their logo on, and charging a heck of a lot more, than so so so so much of what I have in my collection from Universal Paramount Sony/Columbia Warner/MGM and VCI and so many other smaller labels, dozens and dozens and dozens of films from the same time/studios/actors, with nothing really to differentiate these films from the others, except that now it's CC putting it out now so it's now A Big Thing.

What I'm saying is that, as opposed to you, I'm actually thinking twice because it is Criterion. If it was another label charging a little less it'd be a no brainer for me-- I'd get around to it, without a doubt, is what I'm probably sayin-- because there's a lot of this sci-fi/horror b-line stuff coming out now and it's all very very very cheap, many with transfers unbeatable by even CC. It's almost like they threw a dart at a list of some good sci-horror, and slapped their label on it, and now it's a Cause For Celebration... but I know better.

I think it's that knowing better on your end that makes me interested in the release. I don't buy much in the way of B-movie or horror fare at all, since I'm just so unfamiliar with so much of those genres. I also try to be very selective with the discs that I buy (back in college I had a tendancy to buy anything that cost as much as a rental and a couple of subway tokens since it seemed cost effective - I wound up with tons of crap that I'm still trying to sell off). At this point I only buy multi-disc releases (so as to justify owning it), and I'll only pick up something I'm unfamiliar with if its Criterion. I know thats a weird standard, but I've never been let down by them before.

Given the kind of work Criterion does, I'd venture to guess that I'm exactly the sort of consumer they're hoping to get - someone who wouldn't check these films out otherwise, who isn't particularly dedicated to B-cinema. Is there something else I'm better off checking out? Probably, but having made my living selling DVDs in college and producing them after, I've just seen so much crap put out by so many different companies that I need a little hand-holding in unfamiliar territory.

[foggy eyes]

Edited.

[jcelwin]

Criterion seems to be having a difficult time finding 'important' and 'great' films to fill their catalogue.

Instead of looking for films from around the world that really are important and great (but probably are not so obviously so), they are starting to release films that look like they should be important and great (because of their age, budget or the fact that they are relatively unknown).

Also, I don't think the fact that someone worked on a 'minor' film means it deserves recognition if it isn't great or important.

[Tribe]

Criterion seems to be having a difficult time finding 'important' and 'great' films to fill their catalogue.

Instead of looking for films from around the world that really are important and great (but probably are not so obviously so), they are starting to release films that look like they should be important and great (because of their age, budget or the fact that they are relatively unknown).

Also, I don't think the fact that someone worked on a 'minor' film means it deserves recognition if it isn't great or important.

An interesting post from someone who barely a month ago noted:

That said, art is subjective. ... You don't have to like something because someone else does. Regardless of who they are.

Tribe

[jcelwin]

Nice work looking up old posts...

I'm going to stand by both posts, you can try to shoot holes in them if you want. I'd rather you did try instead of just posting quotes, thinking they are contradictory, and that it leaves my points incorrect, untrue or whatever you are implying.

I am glad that you found my post interesting though...