criterionforum.org

aox wrote:Do we even know if her essay is necessarily flattering to the film?

Well, it's no Bigger Than Life, that's for sure

I was in my thirties before I could truly appreciate this film. It's a gem. Even though I was in elementary school when it was released, its characters and themes still feel relevant for my generation, or better yet, my perspective. I do question the choice of Lena Dunham writing the essay. It's as if she's indicative of its not-so special features: the same doc from the 15th anniversary DVD; a group discussion from TIFF 2013; an essay from a woman, while well-respected in her own right, is too far removed from the film's core audience that it questions the motives of its addition. I highly doubt the deleted scenes contain the flashback with Costner (probably be the same ones from the 15th anniversary DVD). So, I'm basically paying $30 for 4k transfer of the film (still worth it). It's just too bad they couldn't secure Kasdan for a commentary, or at the very least, a film academic/critic. Seems like a film of this significance deserves more features, that's all.

I agree. Even a piece contextualizing the film with all the other post-Vietnam baby boom malaise works would be helpful and seemingly a no-brainer. It could very well be this was a package licensing or a title no one was passionate about and so it got short shrift since they know it'll sell to a certain quadrant anyways, but it's a real missed opportunity, especially for a film with an unfair legacy like this

too far removed from the film's core audience that it questions the motives of its addition

perhaps the motive is to introduce the film to younger folks? the film has a reputation for smug Boomer nostalgia--a reputation it gained upon release--and thus it could stand be re-introduced to the actual 20somethings and 30somethings who are likely to be familiar with Lena Dunham and her work. I think that's pretty fair.

I saw this when it was released. Granted, I am part of the 70's generation (all of the bad habits of the 60's, none of the idealism), but I thought it was a self-congratulatory, narcissistic film. Phonus-bolunus. Love BODY HEAT, but since then...meh.

I always felt this film was a semi-ripoff of the 1977 indie, Between The Lines. The plots were very different but I thought BTL captured post 60's disillusion more effectively than Kasden's film.

Jeff Goldblum is in both, playing essentially the same character. But that may be because Jeff Goldblum always plays that kinda guy.

I don't know if Between The Lines ever made it home video in any format. But catch it if you can. It's flawed but has some great moments, good music from Southside Johnny and the Asbury Jukes and Bruno Kirby!

domino harvey wrote:I agree. Even a piece contextualizing the film with all the other post-Vietnam baby boom malaise works would be helpful and seemingly a no-brainer. It could very well be this was a package licensing or a title no one was passionate about and so it got short shrift since they know it'll sell to a certain quadrant anyways, but it's a real missed opportunity, especially for a film with an unfair legacy like this

The Big Chill was the bargaining chip for CC to be allowed to license Tootsie. As I've said before.

Moe Dickstein wrote:As I've said before.

I don't think you have, actually. You were the one who let us know it was coming, but not that it was a package deal with Tootise and Criterion got stuck with it

domino harvey wrote:Uh, speaking of, the most obvious example would be Soderbergh walking back both King of the Hill and especially the Underneath

20 minutes of Soderbergh saying "sorry for the guys who worked with me on this one, but it's like I wasn't even thinking about it when I was shooting it. I even wish Universal was there to stop me."
Never seen a director being so self-critical.

The on-disc features have now been increased by 25%;

New interview with Kasdan

Yet, as period-specific ensemble pieces go, I actually enjoyed The Big Chill a hell of a lot more than Nashville, the appeal of which largely escapes me. I also prefer Tim Burton's second Batman to his first. It's all about expectations.

Holy non-sequitur Batman!

Though he is right about the Burton films.

I always prefered Batman Returns to Batman, but that's mostly due to the Penguin dramaturgy, especially at the end of the movie, which I always felt was treated in such a way it was appropriately touching.

I had more problems with the first Batman, even as a kid, mostly due to Basinger (which I never found very good in this one) and Nicholson's Joker which is weirdly written IMO. There is some kind of lack of cohesion about when his screen time, and I never knew if I felt he had too much or too few screen time, but he always felt as peripherical to the movie for me, which always seemed wrong.

Anyway.

I too prefer Batman Returns (does that mean I should have bought The Big Chill instead of Nashville this B&N sale? Drat!).

I never felt any of the 89-97 entries really worked well as Batman adaptations (the animated TV show, which adopted Danny Elfman's theme for its opening, was much better), and I think Returns works better just taken as a Burton film, rather than anything inspired by the comics. It's so wonderfully dark (the chick getting thrown off the building, Walken and Pfeiffer's kiss at the end).

I don't even know where to split this digression off to. So, that's enough. The point wasn't that he preferred the sequel to the original, it's that it's not relevant to the Big Chill-- and the same goes for this discussion.

How does this compare to Arcand's Decline of the American Empire (which seems to have a somewhat similar set-up).

Does anyone know the reason why Kasdan would seem to be so against showing the deleted flashback scene? I'm only assuming he's against showing it because it seems like the most obvious extra on a release would be that scene, and he's obviously not against having deleted scenes since he has them here (which are the exact same ones on the old DVD.) In the making-of he states it was cut because it changed the tone of the film and didn't work, but I don't see the harm in including it separately.

I hope this pays for an Andrei Rublev blu ray..I'm watching this on netflix and it seems impossibly hackneyed and predictable. I'd rather watch St Elmo's Fire, which is camp that seems almost to revel in its reductive characterizations, whereas this movie takes itself very seriously...

If we're shit talking other generations, let's observe that anyone buying this film today out of nostalgia is feeling nostalgic for a film about feeling nostalgia, which is about as empty as you can get.

If you want your thoughts on a film to matter to others, try waiting until it's done and not posting about it during

Michael Kerpan wrote:How does this compare to Arcand's Decline of the American Empire (which seems to have a somewhat similar set-up).

That's a good comparison. They're polar opposites in many ways. Arcand clearly identifies with his characters, and so does Kasdan. One big difference is that Arcand is incisive and mordant in his development of the characters. Kasdan, on the other hand is clearly wearing his heart on his sleeve. He's wistful and sentimental. Not a shred of either in Arcand's passionate but astringent movie.

Speaking of comparisons, I always felt that this was a rip off of John Sayles' superior debut Return of the Secaucus 7 that came out three years earlier. Is it just me?

Anyways, I'll skip this one, for sure.

Dr Svet gives a glowing reivew while he longingly loves this film Will probably be on his top ten list, he says.