criterionforum.org

solaris72 wrote:It was a 70mm blowup they threw out- the Days of Heaven negative is 35mm.

Two 70mm blow-ups, if I remember rightly - half the total surviving number.

(But I suspect this is less of a loss now than it seemed then: I imagine the colours would have faded horribly by now. A 35mm print of similar vintage that I saw in the early 1990s wasn't looking too great - it was already developing a noticeable magenta cast even then, which didn't do the "magic hour" shots any favours at all).

Do we have a release date on this yet?

TedW wrote:Do we have a release date on this yet?

10/23/07

Thanks. Good news. The PQ of the current release is actually pretty good; but this'll be worth it nevertheless.

soma wrote:As much as I love Malick this is my least favourite of his works, I'll probably skip buying this truth be told. But if Criterion ever released The Thin Red Line or The New World I'd cling to them ceaselessly, watch them tirelessly, praise Criterion endlessly.

not to derail this thread, but I remember hearing that The New World was going to get a 2 disc special edition a few months after the bare bones disc came out...but then nothing. Anyone know if there is something in the works?

HistoryProf wrote:

soma wrote:As much as I love Malick this is my least favourite of his works, I'll probably skip buying this truth be told. But if Criterion ever released The Thin Red Line or The New World I'd cling to them ceaselessly, watch them tirelessly, praise Criterion endlessly.

not to derail this thread, but I remember hearing that The New World was going to get a 2 disc special edition a few months after the bare bones disc came out...but then nothing. Anyone know if there is something in the works?

You can find discussion of that topic here.

I do not think Thin Red or New World are Criterion worthy - they lack the focus of Days and Badlands...

...and I think Salinger would have hated Tennenbaums...

Sorry about this last post. I was in a rotten mood. I did not mean to offend peoples' taste if they liked these movies... it just so happens that I love Days of Heaven and Badlands, so that when Malick came back to making pictures I was disappointed in the more recent films...

A lot of people liked the Coen Brothers since Fargo...I only liked Miller's Crossing and Blood Simple... people loved Gangs of New York, I prefer Taxi Driver and Mean Streets.

A lot of directors are more raw and seem to put more energy and thought into their earlier work, compared to their work once they have become established... But Criterion has done a great job in releasing "the Greats" before they were called "the Greats"... but that's just my opinion

Simple question, here. I didn't like Badlands, is it possible for me to like this?

Mental Mike wrote:A lot of directors are more raw and seem to put more energy and thought into their earlier work, compared to their work once they have become established... But Criterion has done a great job in releasing "the Greats" before they were called "the Greats"... but that's just my opinion

I agree. I always try to seek out debuts from directors I admire. A lot of the time I end up enjoying their first work more than anything else they've done. David Gordon Green and Wes Anderson come to mind.

teddyleevin wrote:Simple question, here. I didn't like Badlands, is it possible for me to like this?

In my opinion Badlands is the least Malick of all his pictures, he had a tight budget so it has a very strict construction to it. While Days of Heaven kinda floats through. But in all honestly if you didn't like Badlands you probably won't like Days of Heaven, but it would be worth watching just for the cinematography.

Saarijas wrote:In my opinion Badlands is the least Malick of all his pictures, he had a tight budget so it has a very strict construction to it. While Days of Heaven kinda floats through. But in all honestly if you didn't like Badlands you probably won't like Days of Heaven, but it would be worth watching just for the cinematography.

I, also, agree completely, but the "worth watching just for the cinematography" is an argument that could arguably apply to all his movies without diminishing their value. "The Thin Red Line" had both plot and characters but they bore little resemblance to the plot and characters in the James Jones novel and I still get the uncomfortable feeling that Malick was really trying to tell us that artillery blasts upset the natural phenomenon of wind blowing in the tall grass.

Strictly as an aside, (and if anybody cares), the novel reveals the homage that the "thin red line" refers to the thin line of British Redcoats that created the empire.

Saarijas wrote:

teddyleevin wrote:Simple question, here. I didn't like Badlands, is it possible for me to like this?

In my opinion Badlands is the least Malick of all his pictures, he had a tight budget so it has a very strict construction to it. While Days of Heaven kinda floats through. But in all honestly if you didn't like Badlands you probably won't like Days of Heaven, but it would be worth watching just for the cinematography.

Badlands is the only Malick film that I find entirely successful, so that might say something for both sides of the argument as to its worth relative to the rest of his catalog.

Badlands is partly interesting to watch, just to see how Tarantino ripped it off for True Romance and Natural Born Killers...

...I see it as Malick's contribution to the "lovers-on-the-run" genre-picture, superior to the Warren Beaty-Faye Dunaway Bonny and Clyde...

Bonnie and Clyde is a masterpiece.

But Badlands is better.

And how come no one ever mentions how Lynne Ramsay ripped off both Badlands and Days of Heaven? Shameful.

you gotta be kidding me wrote:And how come no one ever mentions how Lynne Ramsay ripped off both Badlands and Days of Heaven? Shameful.

Because all good filmmakers borrow from one another and it's tiresome to continually make a federal case out of it? Dunno, just a guess.

you gotta be kidding me wrote:But Badlands is better.

No, it's not. But I do like it.

you gotta be kidding me wrote:And how come no one ever mentions how Lynne Ramsay ripped off both Badlands and Days of Heaven? Shameful.

Because of the Orff thing "Musica Poetica"? Wong nicked Preisner for 2046... Scorsese bit from Delerue for Casino, right? Matt makes a good point.

I see: if Scott and Tarantino rip off Badlands, it's not cool, but if Ramsay does it, it's all right? I'll keep that in mind. ZZZZZ

Also, Ramsay basically lifted *entire* scenes - music *and* images, from Badlands and Days of Heaven, as did whats-his-nuts with George Washington.

Whatever, I'm not making a federal case out of it. *cough*bullshit*cough*

you gotta be kidding me wrote:I see: if Scott and Tarantino rip off Badlands, it's not cool, but if Ramsay does it, it's all right? I'll keep that in mind.

As Godard told Paul Schrader, "It doesn't matter what you take, it's where you take it to." Schrader had just admitted that he had borrowed elements from A Married Woman for American Gigolo.

Ramsay creates something wonderful out of what she's taken. Tarantino and Scott, not so much!

you gotta be kidding me wrote:I see: if Scott and Tarantino rip off Badlands, it's not cool, but if Ramsay does it, it's all right? I'll keep that in mind.

Also, Ramsay basically lifted *entire* scenes - music *and* images, from Badlands and Days of Heaven, as did whats-his-nuts with George Washington.

i see the music connection in Ratcatcher but i see no images or scenes from any Malick film in Morvern Callar. don't tell me you think filming in magic hour is ripping off Malick?

Macintosh wrote:i see the music connection in Ratcatcher but i see no images or scenes from any Malick film in Morvern Callar. don't tell me you think filmming in magic hour is ripping off Malick?

I speak only of Ratcatcher.

The rarely seen, Malick-scripted, Deadhead Miles on DVD-R.

you gotta be kidding me wrote:Also, Ramsay basically lifted *entire* scenes - music *and* images, from Badlands and Days of Heaven, as did whats-his-nuts with George Washington.

Indeed. Ratcatcher and George Washington are little more than poor Malick immitations. Morvern Callar is a little bit more interesting (still, I could easily pass).

Nothing wrote:George Washington [is] little more than [a] poor Malick imitation.

You really need to see Killer of Sheep.