criterionforum.org

Rhys, we're only going to have one-day cameos in this movie if the production company will sign something promising that we're uncredited. No, we're not joking.

Caught this today at Barnes and Noble.

I can't wait to see the 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die edition of Au Hasard, Balthazar.

More like Movies You'd Rather Die Than See, amirite?

The first rule of the 1001 Films You Must See Before You Die is that no one gives a shit

dx23 wrote:

I know his career's gone down the toilet, but it's a bit of an insult to leave Kilmer off the cover and stick his lesbian aunt up there instead.

dx23 wrote:

What is this movie about? The title is awfully ambiguous

I am assuming it is sort of like that documentary, Hands on a Hard Body, but with guns instead of a truck.

It's about a dyslexic zookeeper and his friendship with a wildebeest

It probably isn't worth seeing. It's getting the worst reviews since Heaven's Gate.

i am very happy to own this.

Probably the truest use of the word 'variety' you'll ever see.

domino harvey wrote:The first rule of the 1001 Films You Must See Before You Die is that no one gives a shit

I actually own that book (2008 edition I think) but the list is quite worthless indeed. Recent editions include such films as Avatar, Precious, Paranormal Activity, The Hangover, etc.

More like films to die before you see, amirite

Does the list actually stay constant at 1001 from year to year? I would be interested to know what was bumped off to make room for The Hangover.

Prolly one of them movies where the people don't talk

Brian C wrote:Does the list actually stay constant at 1001 from year to year? I would be interested to know what was bumped off to make room for The Hangover.

Days of Wine and Roses?

I know you're not supposed to ask questions like this, but what is even the point of including on a list like this films that take more effort to avoid than to watch? I mean, is it possible somebody picks this book up and goes "Oh, The Hangover! I was meaning to see that!"

swo17 wrote:I know you're not supposed to ask questions like this, but what is even the point of including on a list like this films that take more effort to avoid than to watch? I mean, is it possible somebody picks this book up and goes "Oh, The Hangover! I was meaning to see that!"

"Let's consult the book: Okay, when we get to Blockbuster, we're gonna rent Wedding Crashers... Iron Man... and Pather Panchali!"

swo17 wrote:I know you're not supposed to ask questions like this, but what is even the point of including on a list like this films that take more effort to avoid than to watch? I mean, is it possible somebody picks this book up and goes "Oh, The Hangover! I was meaning to see that!"

I've looked through that book- I got the impression it was larded with the occasional movie most people have seen so that if you were doing the 'how many of these have I watched' thing nobody would wind up with zero.

Hey it's the book that changed my life. I had never seen anything older than Star Wars before buying it, and the presence of a number of films I don't think much of today but did back then was simply the bait. Then I discovered Hitchcock made more than this TV series I heard of (the 80s one) and that Chaplin actually existed. Then about two years later I discovered this forum after seeing Abel Gance's Napoleon. I was watching almost a film per day back then, and of course I looked further than what was in the book (especially silents or a few directors like Ozu) but I think of this book as a real fine introduction to cinema for complete newbies. It's just something that is able to turn someone into a cinephile. I'm sure there's better, but nobody looks at these because they don't include Avatar, Lord of the Rings and Forrest Gump. Or film school, but that's a lot of time and money.

So yeah, I did rent Wedding Crashers, Iron Man and Pather Panchali when I started. Then I only rented Pather Panchali's sequels. (not exactly though, since my edition of the book is too old for Wedding Crashers and Iron Man)

Fair enough. I think we can at least all agree the initial thing that started this, the custom retail cover flaunting its placement on said list, is ridic

Cinephrenic wrote:

11th commandment: Thou shall hate this cover

Just saw this atrocious cover and was about post it here. I'm gratified to discover that a like-minded soul has beat me to it! I sincerely hope that the plastic-figurine look of Heston on the cover doesn't foretell a ruthlessly scrubbed and waxy image on the Blu-ray itself.