Get BETTER versions of Criterion Collection films
Credibility score: 46/100 — Mixed Credibility. Several questionable claims detected. Watch with healthy skepticism.
BSmeter analyzed "Get BETTER versions of Criterion Collection films" and rated it 46/100 for credibility (a BS score of 54/100 — mixed credibility), on 2026-07-15. Its weakest claim — "Tells viewers not to buy Criterion version — direct recommendation" — scored 20/100 and was flagged as plain sales pitch. 15 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 15 claims analyzed: 3 scored under 40, 10 between 40 and 69, and 2 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
Criterion was best, now others surpass it — Missing Context setup — Missing Context (45/100)
At 0:00
Sets up the whole premise by saying Criterion 'was' the best — implies current versions are inferior without naming any yet.
Why this score: This is classic framing for a recommendation video: create a before-and-after narrative so later examples feel like revelations. By saying Criterion's dominance 'was the case' for decades, the speaker positions any newer label as an improvement by default. No specific films or transfers mentioned yet, so the claim floats on reputation shift rather than evidence. A neutral version would be 'Criterion was long considered the gold standard; some newer releases now compete on picture quality.'
Original quote: “hello there today's video is about the Criterion Collection specifically about titles that you may wish to avoid buying that is if you want the best currently available versions of those films Criterion have built a reputation over the past four decades for being the best people to release these…”
Kino Lorber 4K of 12 Angry Men beats Criterion in picture and extras — direct comparison framing — Missing Context (45/100)
At 0:59
Presents Kino as clearly superior without mentioning Criterion's exclusive supplements that commenters flag.
Why this score: By focusing only on the 4K image upgrade and the remake as a bonus, the speaker omits that Criterion carries different special features (commentaries, essays, interviews) that many collectors specifically buy for. This Missing Context framing steers viewers toward the 'best picture' lens while downplaying why some still prefer Criterion. A neutral version would say both editions have trade-offs depending on priorities.
Original quote: “to kick things off I have 12 Angry Men the Criterion Blu-ray which came out many many years ago and has since been surpassed by Kino Lorber who released the film on this 4K disc the difference in quality between these two presentations is astounding and the 4K disc really does amp everything up it…”
Calls Columbia 4K "just so much better" — Missing Context on extras — Missing Context (45/100)
At 2:30
Prioritizes picture quality while skipping that Criterion versions often carry exclusive special features.
Why this score: The speaker frames the upgrade as obvious by only weighing image quality. Commenters note Criterion editions of Anatomy of a Murder still include substantial bonus material, so the "no-brainer" only holds if you ignore supplements entirely.
Original quote: “disc so I would not get the Criterion would get this one the same goes for Anatomy of a Murder one of the best courtroom dramas ever made that also had a 4K upgrade in one of the Colombia classic sets Volume 2 I had to get it from Germany so this is why this one has German text on the front but the…”
Predicts Criterion 4K upgrade soon — hedges with 'very likely' and 'I can see' — Missing Context (45/100)
At 4:29
Frames 'very likely' as reason to skip buying now — no timeline or past pattern given.
Why this score: Uses confident prediction language without evidence of Criterion's actual upgrade schedule. The framing pushes viewers toward waiting by treating an educated guess as actionable advice. A neutral version would say 'Criterion has upgraded similar titles in the past' instead of implying this one is imminent.
Original quote: “this Blu-ray Criterion is from a 4k digital restoration and I would say it's very likely that Criterion are going to upgrade this to 4K very soon so for that reason alone whether you get the studio Canal disc or not I would hold off on this because the likelihood is within the next year I can see…”
Calls Arrow 4K 'better' than Criterion Blu-ray — based on check disc only — Confidence Mismatch (35/100)
At 4:51
Strongly recommends skipping Criterion after admitting he only saw a check disc, not the final release.
Why this score: The recommendation carries high confidence ('the arrow video disc is better') while the evidence level is low ('I only got the chance to see a check disc'). This mismatch makes the advice feel more definitive than the actual comparison supports. A fair framing would note the limitation upfront.
Original quote: “now a great film but one that I would avoid on the Criterion Blu-ray because there are better versions is Boyhood the Richard link ler film this has a 4K release from Arrow video now the Blu-ray of this looks pretty good anyway so this might not be one that screams for a 4K upgrade to you but the…”
Recommends Columbia 4K over Criterion based on 'reports from people that I trust' — Anonymous Authority (40/100)
At 5:23
Cites unnamed trusted sources as proof of superiority — classic 'people I trust' move.
Why this score: The claim rests on anonymous authority rather than specific comparisons or named reviewers. By saying 'various other people that I trust,' the speaker borrows credibility without letting viewers evaluate the source. A cleaner version would name the reviewers or describe what the improvement actually is.
Original quote: “another one that has an upgrade in one of those big Columbia Classics 4K sets is punch drunk love the Paul Thomas Anderson film I don't have my hands on that new Columbia classic set yet but from reports I've seen from various other people that I trust it is a much better Improvement on the older…”
Calls 11-year-old Criterion 'very old' while praising newer 4K releases as equivalent — Loaded Language (50/100)
At 5:58
Uses 'very old' to make the Criterion disc sound outdated — even though both alternatives are recent 4Ks of the same master.
Why this score: The word 'very old' frames the 2015 release as obsolete to steer viewers toward the new 4Ks. In reality, the speaker says the Arrow and Turbine presentations are identical to each other, not necessarily superior to the Criterion transfer. The loaded phrasing creates urgency that the evidence doesn't fully support.
Original quote: “a very old disc at this point is cronenberg's Naked Lunch this is from 11 years ago can you believe it this has a 4K release from Arrow video and it also has a 4K release from turbine media I have their media book here which is absolutely fantastic and the presentation on the turbine release and…”
Recommends BFI's new Blu-ray for 'Naked' over Criterion, despite not owning the BFI disc. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 7:50
He's confident the BFI disc is 'so much better' based on a theatrical viewing and reviews, not direct comparison.
Why this score: He explicitly states, 'I don't have the Blu-ray' (referring to the BFI disc) but then confidently declares 'the presentation is so much better' and advises to 'avoid the Criterion.' While seeing a new 4K restoration theatrically can give a good impression, it's not the same as comparing the actual home video releases side-by-side. His confidence in the BFI disc's superiority, despite not owning or directly comparing it to the Criterion Blu-ray, creates a slight confidence mismatch. He does suggest checking reviews, which helps, but the initial strong recommendation is based on indirect…
Original quote: “next
I'll quickly talk about Mike Le's naked
which has this Criterion release from
many many years ago it got not not a 4K
UHD but a new blu-ray from BFI here in
the UK which is from a brand new 4k
restoration which looks so much better I
only saw it theatrically I don't have
the Blu-ray but I can…”
Eureka 4K set has better picture than Criterion Blu-rays — No Frame (75/100)
At 8:35
Straight comparison of transfers — names specific competing edition and calls it superior.
Why this score: He's picking a clear benchmark (Eureka's 4K) and saying the image quality beats Criterion's Blu-ray. No loaded language, no anonymous experts, just a direct quality claim. Neutral framing because he's naming the exact alternative and what it improves.
Original quote: “they have 4K releases elsewhere in the world particularly I'm talking about the Eureka entertainment Trilogy box set all in 4k and the presentations are better than those Criterion Blu-rays”
Police Story 1 & 2 unavailable on 4K in US, only via import — No Frame (75/100)
At 8:49
Clear fact about region availability — tells you exactly what you can and can't buy domestically.
Why this score: He's stating a straightforward market reality: Criterion didn't release 1 and 2 on 4K here, but Eureka did overseas. No exaggeration, just pointing out the gap so viewers know why the import exists. Clean framing.
Original quote: “you even get the third film which does have a 4K disc in the US from 88 films but you can't get police Story 1 and 2 on 4K in the the US”
Strongly recommends skipping Criterion set for Eureka imports — Plain Sales Pitch (45/100)
At 8:59
Shifts from info to direct purchase advice — 'don't buy that Criterion set' is the sales move.
Why this score: Up to this point he's just comparing specs. Now he tells you what to do with your money. The framing turns from 'here are your options' into 'here's the one you should actually buy.' That's the pivot into recommendation territory.
Original quote: “and these are all region free so if you can get your hands on this or I I think these are available separately from Eureka then I would definitely say get these discs don't buy that Jackie Chan box set from Criterion”
Direct advice against Criterion purchase — strong recommendation, no counter-features mentioned — Missing Context (40/100)
At 9:08
Tells people to skip Criterion entirely while ignoring the special features that often justify the purchase.
Why this score: The framing pushes a pure picture-quality hierarchy and leaves out the trade-off many collectors actually care about: Criterion's exclusive supplements. Commenters immediately flag this omission. A fairer framing would acknowledge 'if image quality is your only priority' instead of the blanket 'don't buy' directive.
Original quote: “don't buy that Jackie Chan box set from Criterion”
Direct 'don't buy' advice — plain sales pitch for alternatives — Plain Sales Pitch (35/100)
At 9:08
Tells viewers outright to skip Criterion — pushes Eureka without naming trade-offs.
Why this score: This is a clear recommendation pivot. By saying 'don't buy' instead of 'consider', the speaker steers the decision before viewers weigh special features or price. A neutral frame would present both sides and let the buyer decide.
Original quote: “don't buy that Jackie Chan box set from Criterion”
Tells viewers not to buy Criterion version — direct recommendation — Plain Sales Pitch (20/100)
At 9:08
Pushes alternative discs while framing Criterion as the inferior choice.
Why this score: The advice steers purchases toward Eureka without acknowledging Criterion's special features that commenters later defend.
Original quote: “don't buy that Jackie Chan box set from Criterion”
Claims many better alternatives exist worldwide and even in US — Missing Context (45/100)
At 9:13
Says 'so many other options' and 'better versions' without naming most of them or showing the actual improvements.
Why this score: He gave one concrete example (Eureka) then generalized to 'so many.' The framing makes it sound like a widespread pattern, but viewers only saw one specific case. A neutral version would list two or three concrete titles with their superior specs instead of the sweeping claim.
Original quote: “so as you can see there are so many other options from elsewhere in the world and still within the United States where you can get better versions of these films compared to the Criterion additions”
See the full analysis with timestamps →