25 comments

  • By Gustavo
    July 23, 2010
    04:24 PM

    Lovely. Striking shot of Kirk. Better than the current DVD's colored cover.
    Reply
    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Moses Lumpkin
    July 23, 2010
    04:32 PM

    C'mon Criterion. This looks like a poor and quick photoshop cover at best. Who was asleep at the wheel on this one?
    Reply
    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Stephen
    July 23, 2010
    05:05 PM

    Wow! I've been dreaming of the day when this came to Criterion.
    Reply
    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By David Hollingsworth
    July 23, 2010
    05:06 PM

    Simple, stark, and beautiful. Criterion makes the best DVD covers.
    Reply
    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Stuart A Milc
    July 23, 2010
    05:19 PM

    Perfect – could as easily be a picture of some anonymous, shattered infantryman in a WWI trench…
    Reply
    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By David Hargrove
    July 23, 2010
    09:06 PM

    I like the spareness and intensity. There's a claustrophobic feeling, perfect for a man in a trench.
    Reply
    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By JJ
    July 23, 2010
    10:31 PM

    I love off center shots, makes the imagery that much more dynamic.
    Reply
    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Alex Kuznetsov
    July 24, 2010
    05:46 AM

    awesome still! something isn't right with the title placement... In different font/size and in Red might make me like it it more))
    Reply
    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Alex Kuznetsov
    July 24, 2010
    05:48 AM

    if you could use the font similar to one on his collar...
    Reply
    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By adam
    July 24, 2010
    01:10 PM

    Love it. though for some reason, the Vertical P O G makes me think of Purity Of Essence. :D
    Reply
    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By TJ W
    July 24, 2010
    07:49 PM

    What, did someone fall asleep the night before this was due and then rush a photoshop job through in the morning? You are WAY better than this, guys.
    Reply
    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By George
    July 25, 2010
    06:24 PM

    Shut up "Moses Lumpkin" & "TJ W", this is a good cover. Your mothers fell asleep when they got knocked up with you two.
    Reply
    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By TJ W
    July 25, 2010
    06:50 PM

    Hey George? When someone can put together a duplicate of a Criterion cover in Photoshop in less than ten minutes, it's a rush job. Sorry.
    Reply
    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By V2001K
    July 25, 2010
    07:41 PM

    I'm indifferent to the cover, but the fact that the cover art is artistically 'simple,' and easy to create/reproduce shouldn't determine whether or not its a 'good' or 'bad' box cover. I think that the box art should be evaluated on its ability to capture/embody the essence of the film, and not solely on the artistic techniques/level of difficulty.
    Reply
    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Pierrot Le Fou
    July 25, 2010
    08:32 PM

    Jesus!@ I'm not against someone taking cheap shots but at least be a little creative, especially when you're on such a high end film website Just because you can photoshop something doesn't mean its worthless. A lot of other Criterion covers are still from the film, they are chosen because they express something of the nature of the film. I personally love this cover, simple, raw and expressive. After all, the Mona Lisa is just a girl sitting down right? I can paint a girl too but that doesn't make me Leonardo Da Vinci.
    Reply
    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Larry David
    July 26, 2010
    12:37 AM

    I thought the still transcended the title/font placement...sometimes simplicity wins...I adore the film & this felt not only respectful, but artistic & fitting.
    Reply
    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Ross
    July 26, 2010
    04:09 PM

    I am very glad that criterion has the rights to this film but unfortunately very poor cover art for such high quality film... Criterion could do better job than this.
    Reply
    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By NATHAN
    July 26, 2010
    05:42 PM

    Nice one; Fantastic photo. My only criticism is the images used on these recent photo covers of new releases look to be artificially enlarged in Photoshop instead of correctly scanned in at the printed size, but I know it’s the video quality that counts, not the package.
    Reply
    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Erik C
    July 26, 2010
    07:19 PM

    The photo that Criterion has chosen for the cover says so much about the tone and feeling of Paths of Glory. It's simple and entirely effective. It's gritty, dirty, and emotional. The layout, spacing, and font used don't take away from the photo's juxtaposition, but actually intensifies it. Just because somebody can copy it on Photoshop in a short amount of time means nothing. If that is your criteria then you have completely missed the point of design. Good job Criterion!
    Reply
    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Josh
    July 27, 2010
    05:09 AM

    I really love the photo element of this cover, but like a few others, think the font elements could be stronger.... Criterion does have the best covers ever though. Repulsion is one of my faves...
    Reply
    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Jack
    July 27, 2010
    10:22 AM

    I think I understand the idea behind the cover art. It still stands out compared to what other companies would have done but the execution seems to have been flawed. It just doesn't express the devastating experience of the film. I like the decision to expand on a detail but the idea seems to have stopped there. Oh well....
    Reply
    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By John
    July 28, 2010
    03:09 PM

    Criterion's cover art has consistently been some of the most arresting and beautiful of any company in the business, and this latest cover is no exception. As a graphic designer I often work with photographers, and while some images lend themselves to further exploration and manipulation, others are so strong only the most minimal type treatment need be applied to carry the idea across. The look on Mr. Douglas' face says all that needs to be said, and marring the image with gimmicky typefaces or even worse, color, would destroy the power of it. It doesn't matter if something can be "photoshopped up" in "ten minutes," if the photograph can carry the piece. (Look at the cover art for "The Wages of Fear," for example). My only real complaint/wish is that Criterion would make some of their covers available as limited edition prints so they didn't have to stay hidden on the shelf!
    Reply
    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Heroin
    July 28, 2010
    08:59 PM

    Love the cover in theory but the font use is kind of awful. Why is the tracking so different between the kubrick line and the kirk douglas line? is the font the same? (I don't think so -- look at the R's.) Just seems arbitrary. An intern's work perhaps?
    Reply
    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By MANDRAKE
    August 28, 2010
    09:21 PM

    All have made a good point from different sides of the argument. Of course simplicity can often carry far more impact if pulled off well, but my first reaction on seeing this cover was that not much effort had been put into it at all. A week later and I am still not sold. This IS dissapointing and it DOES look like it could have been banged up on Photoshop during somebody's lunch half-hour between bites of a hogie. Although much better than some of the older collage covers (Silence of the Lambs; The Long Good Friday; Fishing With John; UGH!) that look just plain ugly, it misses the the mark of beautiful simplistic elegance of some of the best Criterion covers (In The Mood For Love, Antonio Gaudi, Rashomon, Hiroshima Mon Amour, F For Fake, The Seventh Seal(reissue), Days Of Heaven) and looks a little TOO simple. In most cases, I would suggest Criterion's use of the original poster art is best, as these are often superior to any new design, and for some reason are almost never used on regular non-criterion DVD releases. The use of the original studio-commissioned artwork (Straw Dogs, The Harder They Come, Time Bandits, The Discreet Charm.., Playtime, Taste Of Cherry, Contempt, Spartacus) is often very fitting and looks best to my eyes. Not always the case, of course (Wes Anderson's covers are a big exception). What do you guys think? What are your favourites?
    Reply
    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Jack Parsons
    October 01, 2010
    05:21 PM

    The idea for the DVD cover is really good but the execution of it didn't quite make it. Maybe its the particular shot of Kirk Douglas. I think the raw and obliterated feel of the war landscape might have been better served by a shot of an extra from the film(?). Anyway, I know where the designer is coming from but it does look somewhat rushed.
    Reply
    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

Or using your Criterion.com account.

You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.