criterionforum.org

I am soo buying these two. Been waiting for an announcement for ages. Good show, Criterion! Best month in years.

Sweet Movie (and trust me, I am not hyperbolic by nature) is absolutely one of the worst films I've ever seen. Morbid curiosity will drive me to watch WR.

A Hole in the Soul is an exciting extra, its almost an hour long too. The sweet movie cover is extremely ballsy and I think will result in it being hid in the mature section of B&M stores.

mteller wrote:Sweet Movie (and trust me, I am not hyperbolic by nature) is absolutely one of the worst films I've ever seen. Morbid curiosity will drive me to watch WR.

Tell us about it, please. On the basis of WR I'm very tempted by Sweet Movie.

Hmm, Sweet Movie vs. WR? Apples and oranges. Sweet Movie is very dated, and a bit trashy, but a lot of fun. Of course, my fond memory of it is enhanced by the fact that I saw it at a museum and two people had brought a kid to the flick. They lasted until Pierre Clementi whipped out his wiener for a piss.

Why didn't they box these together? Because of the price of WR I might as well skip Sweet Movie.

denti alligator wrote:Tell us about it, please. On the basis of WR I'm very tempted by Sweet Movie.

I'll just post what I wrote in my blog about it 3 years ago:

"Utterly retarded. The kind of film that hipster college sophomores "discover" and declare as brilliant social satire while they pretend to find meaning in the most inane non-sequiturs. Cheap gross-out tricks and dime store symbolism. But worst of all, pervaded with a philosophy of "look at me, I'm so different! I dare to BREAK THE RULES!" A willingness to break rules is always an asset, but when that's your raison d'etre, then you're just as much a slave to the rules as anyone else, just in a different way. And let's get one thing straight: I don't hate this film because I think it's "shocking". It's not shocking, for the same reason that G.G. Allin, Marilyn Manson, and John Waters aren't shocking... because it's such a blatant attempt to shock that it becomes pathetic. At least John Waters is funny, though, something that Makevejev desperately tries to be and fails completely at."

Previous Criterion laserdisc, I wonder if out-of-print Fox Lorber DVD of Montenegro will be coming too from Criterion?

mteller wrote:"Utterly retarded. The kind of film that hipster college sophomores "discover" and declare as brilliant social satire while they pretend to find meaning in the most inane non-sequiturs. Cheap gross-out tricks and dime store symbolism. But worst of all, pervaded with a philosophy of "look at me, I'm so different! I dare to BREAK THE RULES!" A willingness to break rules is always an asset, but when that's your raison d'etre, then you're just as much a slave to the rules as anyone else, just in a different way. And let's get one thing straight: I don't hate this film because I think it's "shocking". It's not shocking, for the same reason that G.G. Allin, Marilyn Manson, and John Waters aren't shocking... because it's such a blatant attempt to shock that it becomes pathetic. At least John Waters is funny, though, something that Makevejev desperately tries to be and fails completely at."

I am so sold on this one.

...and that's not meant to demean your view at all, mteller, but I know your type as well as you know my type (although I'm somewhat disgruntled towards the hipster line) and this is exactly the sort of response that usually ends up attached to something I enjoy. WR was great, but Sweet Movie has had my curiosity since I first read about it on this forum last year.

-Toilet Dcuk

toiletduck wrote:and that's not meant to demean your view at all, mteller, but I know your type as well as you know my type (although I'm somewhat disgruntled towards the hipster line) and this is exactly the sort of response that usually ends up attached to something I enjoy. WR was great, but Sweet Movie has had my curiosity since I first read about it on this forum last year.

-Toilet Dcuk

He's not called Toilet Duck for nothing!

Tribe

toiletduck! wrote:I am so sold on this one.

...and that's not meant to demean your view at all, mteller, but I know your type as well as you know my type (although I'm somewhat disgruntled towards the hipster line) and this is exactly the sort of response that usually ends up attached to something I enjoy. WR was great, but Sweet Movie has had my curiosity since I first read about it on this forum last year.

Agreed. Contrary to mteller's comments, I think there can be a great deal of inherent value in art that simply strives to break rules and push boundaries and shock. Not least because it can be really fun to watch. This film also sounds like a kind of comedic spiritual descendent of the Vienna Aktionists, another group of artists who were "just" out to shock and break rules. So I'm pretty excited for this one.

I didn't expect anyone to agree with my Sweet Movie opinion on this forum, I was just throwing it out there.

toiletduck! wrote:I know your type as well as you know my type

No, actually, I don't know your type at all, but I don't read these forums that much. What is your type? I am also DYING to know what my type is.

SM was a lot less shocking than I expected. I don't particularly care for "gross", but I wasn't grossed out. I'm not trying to argue that Makavejev is a GENIUS. But his films are fairly unique.

I'm with mteller on these. I'll have to see them first, but the idea of breaking rules just for the sake of breaking rules is much too simplistic for my tastes. Ken Park anyone?

I kind of get the sense these films might have a lot in common - in terms of presentation - with Godard's Weekend. Can anyone confirm or deny?

sevenarts wrote:This film also sounds like a kind of comedic spiritual descendent of the Vienna Aktionists...

Great comparison -- and all the more reason to watch!

mteller wrote:I am also DYING to know what my type is.

You see, this is why I say things like "And that's not to demean your view at all." I'm assuming that we are taking the capitals = mockery approach and you really have no interest in what I meant. "But correct me if I'm wrong."

But back on topic, Sweet Movie, hells yeah!

-Toilet Dcuk

Geez, I forgot about the Vienna Aktionists. I might have to watch this now. I hope that Netflix has it.

I love Sweet Movie easily one of my favorites and WR is also as good. Sweet Movie is defiantly not for everyone.

This is the best news I have heard in a long time. The Criterions for this year have been excellent.

ouatitw wrote: Sweet Movie is defiantly not for everyone.

I don't know if this is a misspelling-typo combo, but as such it's really nice.

How do you think the Durgnat commentary on WR will be?

Given that it's based on his book, it should be wide-ranging and a lot of fun, although I'm concerned about the delivery.

The cover of Sweet Movie is awesome, one of Criterion's most beautiful. As for the film, I have never seen it but look forward to. And WR: Mysteries of the Organism is a film I wanted to see for quite some time, so thanks Criterion.

denti alligator wrote:

ouatitw wrote: Sweet Movie is defiantly not for everyone.

I don't know if this is a misspelling-typo combo, but as such it's really nice.

That is a typo, I do that but I do also like it. It was pretty defiant.

toiletduck! wrote:You see, this is why I say things like "And that's not to demean your view at all." I'm assuming that we are taking the capitals = mockery approach and you really have no interest in what I meant. "But correct me if I'm wrong."

No, I really want to know what you think my type is, especially since it seems like you're writing off my opinion based on that perception.

give him a type so he can break the rules to break the rules

there are no "types", its all pretentious intellectual bullshit.