It’s been a while since I’ve seen Ghost Dog, which I wrote about here.
But it’s definitely top tier. Probably my favorite of Jim Jarmusch’s movies (well, it’s between that and Dead Man, I guess).
And, since I was buying something anyway, I just had to check for a few other movies at the Criterion site. No Gosford Park, no eXistenZ, oh, but they do have Moonrise Kingdom — I just have to get that (right?). I was so obsessed with Moonrise Kingdom at one point that I watched it every night for a week or so, and I wrote about it a lot.
I forced myself to stop at that point. Early Christmas presents — that’s what they’ll be.
As I say, Criterion editions aren’t for everything (and a lot of my favorite movies are never going to be Criterion fodder anyway). So far, I’ve got Nashville (of course), and several by Orson Welles. Criterion’s very thorough approach is particularly helpful with Welles, since there is often not a definitive final version of Welles’ films — let alone any sort of Director’s Cut.
I’m still hoping for The Trial, too.
(Well, of course, what I’m really hoping for is that someday, somehow, the lost ending of The Magnificent Ambersons will come to light and be released, but that’s not going to happen. Of course, a lot of people said that The Other Side of the Wind would never come out, and then it did…)
Well, this started off being about Ghost Dog but then it quickly veered into Orson Welles, didn’t it?
I thought about Welles recently when I read about the movie Mank, here and here. It was interesting to read about, but I’m not going to (metaphorically speaking) rush out and see it. I may be a Welles enthusiast, but decoding the details of who wrote what in Kane (or any of Welles’ films) doesn’t intrigue me. The movies are there, and they’re all interesting and some are brilliant. Why see a movie about Kane when I can see Kane again?