criterionforum.org

I'd buy The 39 Steps for that cover art alone.

Love the new 39 Steps cover....very very nice. Others are fine - none to really complain about which is nice. I'm assuming once i've seen Shallow Grave that the wall of hammers will make sense?

That 39 Steps is a characterless mess. It should read a film by Alfred Hotchpotch.

They're clearly trying to reposition the film as an old timey North by Northwest.

Also, all the covers except for Shallow Grave feature clouds. Once again, Danny Boyle ruins everything.

That's a well-hidden clue for the upcoming Criterion release of Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs.

swo17 wrote:They're clearly trying to reposition the film as an old timey North by Northwest.

Which it is (or rather, North by Northwest was a looser, bigger-budgeted American remaking of The 39 Steps).

I love the cover, BTW.

Official press release image for Samurai Trilogy



Note the "Cover Art Not Final" text on the bottom right. I'm curious about what they'll come up with...

Beautiful covers for The 39 Steps and especially for The Gold Rush!!
Great month overall, title wise. Both of the above are instant buys and looking forward to delving into the Soderbergh and Doyle films that I haven`t seen yet.
Finally, finally another good month as so far there hasn`t been a great month this year in my book.

-edit- make that a GREAT month if they`ll release the Samurai trilogy on blu as well.

knives wrote:Agree to disagree. For me only Modern Times and Limelight are of any interest from the features.

How anyone who likes Modern Times couldn't also like at the very least City Lights is beyond my comprehension. I'm not a huge fan of The Gold Rush, but for the most part, Chaplin is Chaplin in my book. I actually think The Circus is criminally underrated.

Roger Ryan wrote:

cdnchris wrote:

TotheLastShot wrote:Notice the Chaplin doesn't have a year on the side of the cover yet.

I think it's because it has the '42 sound version and the '25 silent version on it.

They should really go with the original release year on there; nobody (with the possible exception of the Chaplin Estate) thinks of it as a 1942 release.

That's the problem. The Chaplin Estate probably forbids them from putting "1925" on there. Ultimately, who cares - at least we're getting the '25 version in HD, which was something that was in doubt before.

He's right about Limelight, though! My favorite of his outright talkies.

Brian C wrote:And speaking of smartass, the Shallow Grave art is a little offputting to me. I haven't seen the film, so for all I know it's appropriate, but to me it looks like fan art by someone who really wanted to communicate how clever they are more than they want to communicate anything about the movie.

It is likely an allusion to the great scene in the DIY store where Eccleston and McGregor are wheeling their trolley around and picking up the tools for their grisly task whilst debating the ethics of body disposal.

No big surprise on leaving the year off of the Gold Rush cover. They always do when there are multiple films on board (like La Jetee/Sans Soleil), and they ostensibly are two different films. I certainly don't have any interest in the '42 version, but of course they're going to give them equal billing so as not to alienate the Chaplin estate which has licensed both versions to them.

Also, you're all nuts. City Lights and Monsieur Verdoux are the best Chaplin films.

Whatever Chabrol.

Whatever Rivette.

I just realized you guys were talking about Chaplin's Limelight...and not about Limbaugh. But then, again I got drunk early. So never mind.

does anyone else want Criterion to just finish the Chaplin and put out "A Countess From Hong Kong"... I would love to see the same people who do the supplements for the other Chaplin's discuss this film, there could be interesting supplements on why he would come back to make it after tinkering with his other films to secure his relevance despite not doing new work....

Jeff wrote:Also, you're all nuts. City Lights and Monsieur Verdoux are the best Chaplin films.

One out of two aint bad. You're right about Monsieur Verdoux, but his other great masterwork is The Great Dictator. That unfairly maligned speech at the end always gets me. But, whatever, in my opinion he probably has half a dozen films that are masterpieces or near so. And, as I stated yesterday in a different thread, we aren't even picking out any real properties in the world when we do this kind of ranking, just subjective tastes that can be guided by artistic norms.

Oh yeah, now everyone comes out to defend Monsieur Verdoux, but nobody wanted to bother when I attacked it in the 40s thread.

(The two best are clearly City Lights and Modern Times)

I have a soft spot for A Woman in Paris, although I fall into the odd camp that prefers Chaplin behind the camera rather than in front of it.

duck duck wrote:does anyone else want Criterion to just finish the Chaplin and put out "A Countess From Hong Kong"

Having actually seen the film, God no. Put discussion of it on A King in New York's disc and be done with it

Murdoch wrote:I have a soft spot for A Woman in Paris, although I fall into the odd camp that prefers Chaplin behind the camera rather than in front of it.

You're not alone though I might not be the best person to be paired with.

I don't think A Countess from Hong Kong was even included in the recent Chaplin theatrical tour, was it? It didn't play here, anyway. I wouldn't be surprised if it got tacked on as a bonus feature, a la Killer's Kiss, if we even see it at all.

It wasn't.

A Countess from Hong Kong is a Universal property, no? There's little reason to think Criterion will be releasing it.

Yeah, Criterion never releases Universal movies. Pfft.

David Lean Directs Noel Coward
A Night to Remember