criterionforum.org

N. Wilson wrote:I like the Life Aquatic as well. Captures Anderson's deadpan humour.

If only the CC had a poster subsidiary. Sigh.

Well, The Life Aquatic cover is pretty much the actual movie poster (US at least), so you could just buy that.

Wow - this is the standard CC should continue with! Bloody hell they look good. I'm in love...

Wadja cover are gone again!?

No, they are not gone.

Ashirg wrote:No, they are not gone.

I just checked again and they still have the "Box Art Coming Soon" images, so why would you say that?

hammock wrote:

Ashirg wrote:No, they are not gone.

I just checked again and they still have the "Box Art Coming Soon" images, so why would you say that?

The covers are there. Your browser might be displaying the cached images? Try to refresh the page.

Fidelio wrote:

hammock wrote:

Ashirg wrote:No, they are not gone.

I just checked again and they still have the "Box Art Coming Soon" images, so why would you say that?

The covers are there. Your browser might be displaying the cached images? Try to refresh the page.

Boy, that was humiliating! F5 and they were there again - ups! I wont even mention that I worked 12 years at the police as an EDB expert with level 5 access (only 3 persons had that) before I started my own record company. I'm getting old - sorry for the confusion!

Hammock,
What the hell is your avatar, it kind of scares me when it blinks ( I wasn't sure if it actually did until I just sat and watched it) but it is intreguing at the same time.

Burden of Dreams cover

http://www.criterion.com/content/images ... 48x490.jpg

Theodore R. Stockton wrote:Hammock,
What the hell is your avatar, it kind of scares me when it blinks ( I wasn't sure if it actually did until I just sat and watched it) but it is intreguing at the same time.

its a bright blue puppet of a dinosaur, get a grip on yourself.

next!

ellipsis7 wrote:Burden of Dreams cover

http://www.criterion.com/content/images ... 48x490.jpg

Wow do I hate that cover. I mean, it's shockingly awful-- the colors are horrible and the style sort of almost-cool, which just makes its utter failure that much worse. Jesus.

Hmm...I really love it.

I feel like if the cover were animated, Herzog's mouth would open and his teeth would dance to a ragtime organ solo, then a foot would come down to crush it.

ellipsis7 wrote:Burden of Dreams cover

http://www.criterion.com/content/images ... 48x490.jpg

That cover is very nice. It reminds me Drew Tucker's artwork, from the days when I used to play Magic Cards. I remember really hating his style when I was younger, but I have a much better appreciation for his work now. Wait a minute... did I just admit I used to play magic cards? I've been bamboozled... I want my dignity back. *Sigh*

Any way here's a link to some of his art: Drew Tucker

Criterionradiohead

criterionradiohead wrote:...from the days when I used to play Magic Cards.

NERD!!!!!!!

Actually, I am torn between that cover. I like it but I don't. Agh, it's hard to explain. I do like the style of it but don't know if it was executed right. Maybe it will grow on me once I have this sucker in my hand. I can't wait to see the Phantom of Liberty, Hoop Dreams and inner Life Aquatic covers. I hate it when they leave me hanging like this.

Ack, I'm a nerd, too!

the third man wrote: . . .or the meaningless abstractions like La Commare Seca.

Awww. . . and I thought La Commare Secca was the only cover this year that was universally liked. . . I guess you proved your own point, Mr Lime.

Ehhw, looks like a menu-card from a seaside restaurant in Greece. How can they do this to us right after the excellent Wajda covers?

Hmm...I'm with Martha on the Burden cover...looks like a mess and worst of all, it makes Herzog look like a mess...

Anyway, as for the Phantom of Liberty cover, I really hope that they use the poster for it:

http://www.moviegoods.com/movie_product ... 5Fid=23937

It would really make a nice double-bill with the Discreet Charm(...) cover and it would make me especially happy as those two posters are among my all-time favorites!

That 'Burden of Dreams' really wouldn't be out of place in here. Right next to 'This Man Must Die'.

This is kind of a weird question to anyone who owns [The Dreyer Box Set], but is anyone elses box a tad bit bigger than the cases. I got mine down at The Sound Garden in Baltimore brandnew, so I know it's not a bootleg.

It's just mine is kind of oddly shaped. It's about a quarter inch taller than every other Criterion boxset that I own. It's also a little of a quarter of an inch wider than the cases that fit into the box. being as how all the other boxes house the cases just perfectly.

I was just wondering if anyone elses was like this?

katjakassin wrote:This is kind of a weird question to anyone who owns [The Dreyer Box Set], but is anyone elses box a tad bit bigger than the cases. I got mine down at The Sound Garden in Baltimore brandnew, so I know it's not a bootleg.

It's funny that you say this as I have a friend of mine whose box looks exactly like the one you describe. His is legit. So is mine but mine perfectly acommodates the DVDs.

My case is too big also. I got it awhile ago, so I don't remember where I got it from, but should that matter? They're not the ones making the boxes.

My box seems to fit just fine. The one thing I missed was a warning on the box not to watch the documentary disc (which gives away the ending of Ordet) before Ordet, which is exactly what I did. Really spoiled the experience of watching (for me) an excellent film.

Probably should 'a put this in the packaging thread, but there you go, been a bad boy...

flixyflox wrote:Curiously mine is bit too tight - like all the other Criterion boxes! (This from now abandoned DeepDiscount (I mean Deep Disappearing) DVD. Maybe it expanded/contracted during international air travel? (I usually do.)

Ya may want to take a look inside the box...often, those black magnetic security tags are placed on the inside of the boxes, rather than inside the disc containers.

I may have the reason for all of your ill-fitting boxes, if the problem is that it looks there's room for all three discs plus a substantial booklet - and there's no booklet. I got mine second-hand and it included the booklet in question. It was that big illustrated CC catalogue that came out several years ago (the heavily illustrated one featuring several titles that never actually came out). With this included, the box is still slightly roomy, but not ridiculously so.

Another factor is that several of the earlier boxes (e.g. Cocteau and Eisenstein) were sturdier affairs, with thicker cardboard, which makes them taller than the later ones.

Back to the films, I watched Gertrud recently, and it's always far more hypnotic and compelling a viewing experience than I recall. It's a film where the text and on-screen action are no more important than normally minor formal elements, such as the small camera movements (always significant) and gaze (possibly the most expressive element of the film). This makes for a very unusual viewing experience (though Eugene Green's recent Le Pont des Arts seems to be an indirect descendant, at least) but I find the whole thing, so perfectly balanced, utterly mesmerising, and ultimately emotionally draining.

of all the box sets i have, the only two i have problems with are the ingmar bergman NON-criterion set and the kubrick set. the bergman films are all sitting in the box too loose, whereas the kubricks are too tight. no problems with any criterion sets though.