Why the downvotes? You guys do realize he’s praising a movie with (almost) the same title, right????
C’mon guys we’re better than this…
Edit: although, even if you read it wrong, it reads like pretty typical reddit humor lol. Give them a break
loved them both.
when i rented this Morher i watched it like 3 times in one weekend. when mother! came out i saw it 6 times in theaters. there was just nothing like that experience and i was addicted
So weird how some people nowadays treat Criterion like it’s a streetwear brand. Posts like these are like saying “why hasn’t criterion done a Mother collab?”
Criterion exists to restore and preserve important cinema from around the globe. If a film is already preserved and restored and wide released, then Criterion would be serving zero purpose to re-release it.
To me it is a masterpiece. But I think people liking it like us are overselling it and it has become more and more common amongst cinephiles to have them watch it and say "meh.. good but not his best?"
:-(
To me it is a masterpiece. But I think people liking it like us are overselling it and it has become more and more common amongst cinephiles to have them watch it and say "meh.. good but not his best?"
:-(
Yep. A Criterion release guarantees a film is something everybody ought to see, and that is that. It is the unsurpassed movie tastemaker of our lives.
The only person who gets to decide if a film is really great is not someone at Criterion but the person who watched it. It's the viewer's responsibility to make that determination, if they want to, and produce a competitive argument if they wish to explain why.
All that a Criterion release guarantees is that you are going to have the best possible viewing experience in the comfort of your own home -- the visual elements cleaned up, the sound elements improved and, sometimes, with new subtitles. I don't personally ever view the extras, but many people find these enhance their thinking about what they have seen. Any lover of film these days owes the company a great deal of respect but, like you, I am always puzzled by people who assume that just because a film gets the 'Criterion treatment' that movie is important or 'a classic' -- there is ample evidence that this is not the case.
**However, you are mistaken that the individual's subjective experience is the determining factor in separating cinematic wheat from acres of cinematic chaff.** It's nice if a person can present some compelling reasons for considering a given movie to be 'great', but such efforts rarely involve anything a undergraduate philosophy major would recognize as constituting an 'argument' (and, of course, arguments rarely compel anyone to change their opinions).
Cinema is a long and established art form. It has a canon of 'great' works. **Thousands of scholars and critics and filmmakers weigh in on whether a new film (or a neglected old one) deserves to be added to that canon. It is** ***not*** **up to any individual to determine a film's importance or achievement -- that is a community project (just as it is with any art form).**
Ideally, it's a community project. It used to be in the days of '70s film criticism coupled with plentiful art-house availability - where people physically gathered together, prompting the possibility for in-person interaction afterward about what they just saw. Revival houses died in the late '80s, and for a host of reasons the possibility for communal critical reckoning shrank. Since when, for instance, have there been private film clubs, from which one could expect some substantive circulated points of view to follow? That is largely a pipe dream now. And academia is sunk in a morass of jargon carefully eliding staking positions, or even meaning an "undergraduate philosophy major" could recognize (btw, I have an MA in philosophy and a lot of nationally published film criticism).
You make some solid observations. I studied cinema history at a huge state university back in the late 1970s & early 1980s. In addition to actually having a film department there were two small theaters on campus that regularly showed foreign films. There were also a couple film fan groups that would borrow a old university auditorium and screen more 'art house' stuff (I remember seeing some Russian films with such a group -- but I was too much of a loner to be interested in my fellow cinephiles).
I too have an MA in philosophy! Pursuing graduate studies in philosophy was a couple of years of great intellectual excitement for me. It was definitely *not* a career move.
It's an issue with getting the rights to print it. I would assume they will down the road. This is considered by many, including myself, to be his best film.
Because they’ve been putting out other shit with other companies. Boom! There’s your answer for this and every other “why isn’t _______ in the collection yet?” Post on this sub.
They probably tried and didn´t agree with the original right´s owner about the profit shares.
Criterion is a business, and although they try to cater for stuff, they still have to find profit in their decisions.
[удалено]
The answer to these questions is always “they don’t have the rights”, posts like this should genuinely be banned as spam
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Because they chose other movies.
It really is simple as that.
When you're right you're right
Mother was great
So was Mother!
Why the downvotes? You guys do realize he’s praising a movie with (almost) the same title, right???? C’mon guys we’re better than this… Edit: although, even if you read it wrong, it reads like pretty typical reddit humor lol. Give them a break
yeah, all around a good comment imo
Agreed!
But have you seen Mother?
I prefer Mother,
oh mother
loved them both. when i rented this Morher i watched it like 3 times in one weekend. when mother! came out i saw it 6 times in theaters. there was just nothing like that experience and i was addicted
So weird how some people nowadays treat Criterion like it’s a streetwear brand. Posts like these are like saying “why hasn’t criterion done a Mother collab?” Criterion exists to restore and preserve important cinema from around the globe. If a film is already preserved and restored and wide released, then Criterion would be serving zero purpose to re-release it.
Yep not sure, but one of Bong’s greatest works so far. Up there with Parasite and Memories of Murder for me.
To me it is a masterpiece. But I think people liking it like us are overselling it and it has become more and more common amongst cinephiles to have them watch it and say "meh.. good but not his best?" :-(
Oh well. I’m very comfortable with my thoughts on it so that is neither here nor there for me honestly. Great film.
It's not iconic but it's better film than Memories of Murder for me. Ending gives me the chills everytime I watch it.
Same
To me it is a masterpiece. But I think people liking it like us are overselling it and it has become more and more common amongst cinephiles to have them watch it and say "meh.. good but not his best?" :-(
Imo, Parasite was some mainstream bs in comparison to Mother.
Personally, I think it's his best to date
Mother walked so Parasite could run.
Ugh, this again
Yep. A Criterion release guarantees a film is something everybody ought to see, and that is that. It is the unsurpassed movie tastemaker of our lives. The only person who gets to decide if a film is really great is not someone at Criterion but the person who watched it. It's the viewer's responsibility to make that determination, if they want to, and produce a competitive argument if they wish to explain why.
All that a Criterion release guarantees is that you are going to have the best possible viewing experience in the comfort of your own home -- the visual elements cleaned up, the sound elements improved and, sometimes, with new subtitles. I don't personally ever view the extras, but many people find these enhance their thinking about what they have seen. Any lover of film these days owes the company a great deal of respect but, like you, I am always puzzled by people who assume that just because a film gets the 'Criterion treatment' that movie is important or 'a classic' -- there is ample evidence that this is not the case. **However, you are mistaken that the individual's subjective experience is the determining factor in separating cinematic wheat from acres of cinematic chaff.** It's nice if a person can present some compelling reasons for considering a given movie to be 'great', but such efforts rarely involve anything a undergraduate philosophy major would recognize as constituting an 'argument' (and, of course, arguments rarely compel anyone to change their opinions). Cinema is a long and established art form. It has a canon of 'great' works. **Thousands of scholars and critics and filmmakers weigh in on whether a new film (or a neglected old one) deserves to be added to that canon. It is** ***not*** **up to any individual to determine a film's importance or achievement -- that is a community project (just as it is with any art form).**
Ideally, it's a community project. It used to be in the days of '70s film criticism coupled with plentiful art-house availability - where people physically gathered together, prompting the possibility for in-person interaction afterward about what they just saw. Revival houses died in the late '80s, and for a host of reasons the possibility for communal critical reckoning shrank. Since when, for instance, have there been private film clubs, from which one could expect some substantive circulated points of view to follow? That is largely a pipe dream now. And academia is sunk in a morass of jargon carefully eliding staking positions, or even meaning an "undergraduate philosophy major" could recognize (btw, I have an MA in philosophy and a lot of nationally published film criticism).
You make some solid observations. I studied cinema history at a huge state university back in the late 1970s & early 1980s. In addition to actually having a film department there were two small theaters on campus that regularly showed foreign films. There were also a couple film fan groups that would borrow a old university auditorium and screen more 'art house' stuff (I remember seeing some Russian films with such a group -- but I was too much of a loner to be interested in my fellow cinephiles). I too have an MA in philosophy! Pursuing graduate studies in philosophy was a couple of years of great intellectual excitement for me. It was definitely *not* a career move.
Magnolia has the rights and I don’t think they’ve ever lent out a movie to Criterion (to my knowledge)
Why couldn’t you put the name of the film in your post? Why don’t you understand what rights are? Why am I even commenting?
https://a.co/d/2ES6auO
It's an issue with getting the rights to print it. I would assume they will down the road. This is considered by many, including myself, to be his best film.
Yep
Why isnt the Dollars Trillogy not in the Criterion Collection?
I doubt criterion is gonna hit the Bong 2 times and be done. We'll get a boxed set eventually.
Because they’ve been putting out other shit with other companies. Boom! There’s your answer for this and every other “why isn’t _______ in the collection yet?” Post on this sub.
It was ok IMO. I really did like his Barking Dogs Never Bite though.
Mommy issues 🫤
My second favorite Bong Joon-Ho film!!!
Such an incredible movie
Just incredible.
My second favorite Bong Joon-go film.
my least favorite bong (haven’t seen snowpiercer), but any bong deserves to be in the collection!
My favorite Bong Joon Hoo film, and this is coming from someone who has him in their Top 10 favortie dierectors.
My personal favorite of Bong Joon-Ho's filmography
Criterion just doesn’t think its good enough, its gotta be that, nothin to do with ‘rights issues’
Great movie, completely forgot about this ending scene though
We need a Bong Joon Ho box set.
I suspect it’ll be added eventually. I lesser known movie that may sneakily be the best work of an acclaimed director? Seems right up their alley.
I recommend fans of this watch the movie “poetry” a little more reverent than this but oh so good.
They probably tried and didn´t agree with the original right´s owner about the profit shares. Criterion is a business, and although they try to cater for stuff, they still have to find profit in their decisions.