Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
speedracer5

I Just Watched...

Recommended Posts

Well, I'll be watching The Great British Baking Show via Canadian TV (start a thread about shows featuring Native Americans today in lead roles), followed by news, Wheel of Fortune and Jeopardy (still think James H. lost on purpose) and (while I hate colorization) a Dick Van Dyke double header on TCM.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doctor Sleep (2019)-- Otherwise known as the sequel to 1980's famed horror film The Shining. -- 8/10 

doctor-sleep-teaser-poster.jpg

Doctor Sleep faces a task that is hard for any film to face. It has to face the fact it is a sequel to one of the best known and best regarded horror films in screen history, The Shining (1980). Like the earlier film, this too is drawn from a book by Stephen King, and it too makes changes from the book it is based on (I kind of feel after reading the difference that one part of the book's ending would have a better idea than one element of the movie's ending, but that's a small quibble).

So how does it hold up? Well, Doctor Sleep is a very solid, very creepy and disturbing film, a superior horror film... even if it link to the earlier film seems somewhat tenuous (in spite of Ewan McGregor playing a grown up Danny Torrence and a prologue which recreates the look of one famous scene) until the final act of the film returns us to the notorious Overlook Hotel. 

It is sort of interesting in a way as a semiotic experiment to see how film content has changed since 1980. This film is much gorier than the original film, but then again that can be somewhat expected. The Shining was very much a film in a tight, claustrophobic atmosphere in spite of the vast size of the hotel. That was a virtue as the tension kept rising, and by the end it was going at full steam. The film was taut, elegant, refined, and very effective. Doctor Sleep on the other hand is earthier, more rough and ready, and much more diffuse in its storyline.

That diffuse quality is probably the one thing that makes this not quite as good as the earlier film. It takes a little over an hour into this two and a half hour film for two of the three main characters to actually interact on screen, having given us so much backstory. The backstory helps us to understand how Danny has reconstructed his life from rock bottom, how the teenage Abra (Kyliegh Curran) has a very strong sense of the shining, and how disturbing Rose (Rebecca Ferguson) and her pack of vampiric, soul-sucking, child-killing reprobates are. But it also feels like all of this could have been slightly tightened as well. And a sadistic scene where the immortals bump off one of their prey really goes on too long, even though it is of critical importance to all in the film that comes after it.

But after that, the film hits its stride building as it goes, back to the places nightmares are made of. Even before this though, the film benefits from good acting all around, especially from McGregor and Curran (Kudos too to the casting director for finding somebody who emulates the late Scatman Crothers perfectly, and for the hairraising spectacle of seeing Henry Thomas look like a ringer for 1980 Jack Nicholson) and a general air of being carefully well-made.

is this a classic like the earlier film, no, but for what is is, its still a good journey into the macabre and a fine example of its genre.

  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CinemaInternational said:

Doctor Sleep faces a task that is hard for any film to face. It has to face the fact it is a sequel to one of the best known and best regarded horror films in screen history, The Shining (1980). Like the earlier film, this too is drawn from a book by Stephen King, and it too makes changes from the book it is based on (I kind of feel after reading the difference that one part of the book's ending would have a better idea than one element of the movie's ending, but that's a small quibble).

is this a classic like the earlier film, no, but for what is is, its still a good journey into the macabre and a fine example of its genre.

King wrote the book because he wanted to return to the character - But Warner did the movie because the studio's panickingly going through a shopping list of what they can prop up as literally "The NEXT New Warner Classic Franchise", now that the once-reliable Batman, Harry Potter and Frodo Baggins have now permanently spent themselves out, leaving the formerly smug studio adrift without a Plan B.   (And although being exiled to digital wasn't Scooby-Doo's fault, Wonder Woman may be next on the unemployment line, just sayin...)

And, in addition to currently flogging the last sorry drop out of Wizard of Oz, Gremlins, A Christmas Story, Willy Wonka and Space Jam to find something that fans will sit up, bark, and flock to endless sequels/prequels/Legacy-quels/solo-spinoffs of, they've somehow hit it into their heads that the original Kubrick Shining was "a classic decade-iconic Big-80's Movie", just because it was a cult-reference plot point in Ready Player One...Say, King already had a sequel ready!  How fortunate, this will simplify everything!

And judging from Sleep's fate at the box office, okay, Warner, note to ourselves.  Just try not to make the Space Jam sequel quite as obnoxious this time.  🙄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CinemaInternational said:

Doctor Sleep (2019)-- Otherwise known as the sequel to 1980's famed horror film The Shining. -- 8/10 

doctor-sleep-teaser-poster.jpg

Doctor Sleep faces a task that is hard for any film to face. It has to face the fact it is a sequel to one of the best known and best regarded horror films in screen history, The Shining (1980). Like the earlier film, this too is drawn from a book by Stephen King, and it too makes changes from the book it is based on (I kind of feel after reading the difference that one part of the book's ending would have a better idea than one element of the movie's ending, but that's a small quibble).

So how does it hold up? Well, Doctor Sleep is a very solid, very creepy and disturbing film, a superior horror film... even if it link to the earlier film seems somewhat tenuous (in spite of Ewan McGregor playing a grown up Danny Torrence and a prologue which recreates the look of one famous scene) until the final act of the film returns us to the notorious Overlook Hotel. 

It is sort of interesting in a way as a semiotic experiment to see how film content has changed since 1980. This film is much gorier than the original film, but then again that can be somewhat expected. The Shining was very much a film in a tight, claustrophobic atmosphere in spite of the vast size of the hotel. That was a virtue as the tension kept rising, and by the end it was going at full steam. The film was taut, elegant, refined, and very effective. Doctor Sleep on the other hand is earthier, more rough and ready, and much more diffuse in its storyline.

That diffuse quality is probably the one thing that makes this not quite as good as the earlier film. It takes a little over an hour into this two and a half hour film for two of the three main characters to actually interact on screen, having given us so much backstory. The backstory helps us to understand how Danny has reconstructed his life from rock bottom, how the teenage Abra (Kyliegh Curran) has a very strong sense of the shining, and how disturbing Rose (Rebecca Ferguson) and her pack of vampiric, soul-sucking, child-killing reprobates are. But it also feels like all of this could have been slightly tightened as well. And a sadistic scene where the immortals bump off one of their prey really goes on too long, even though it is of critical importance to all in the film that comes after it.

But after that, the film hits its stride building as it goes, back to the places nightmares are made of. Even before this though, the film benefits from good acting all around, especially from McGregor and Curran (Kudos too to the casting director for finding somebody who emulates the late Scatman Crothers perfectly, and for the hairraising spectacle of seeing Henry Thomas look like a ringer for 1980 Jack Nicholson) and a general air of being carefully well-made.

is this a classic like the earlier film, no, but for what is is, its still a good journey into the macabre and a fine example of its genre.

I've been dying to see this movie, I've always liked Ewan McGregor and it would be interesting to compare it to Kubrick's film.

I didn't read the book DOCTOR SLEEP though, so maybe I  should read that first then see the movie.

Hard to imagine the little boy Elliot as a dead ringer substitute for Jack Nicholson.....but then I've hardly seen a lot of Henry Thomas in any of his adult roles. I'll have to see it to believe it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Controversial (?) opinion: THE SHINING is not that great. 
 

ETA: I didn’t say it was bad, I just said it’s not “that great.”

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

Controversial (?) opinion: THE SHINING is not that great. 
 

ETA: I didn’t say it was bad, I just said it’s not “that great.”

Lol I agree with you. In the Noir Alley thread, I was talking about Kubrick and flat out just said that the movie was boring. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

SPACE JAM 2: THE UN-CALLED FOR

Lol. 

I doubt R. Kelly will get another hit song with this movie. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, speedracer5 said:

Lol. 

I doubt R. Kelly will get another hit song with this movie. 

I did not even THINK about that! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said this some time ago, Kubrick is the type of director that is not to everyone's tastes and I can certainly understand why his style of filmmaking can turn some folks off. But it has always fascinated me.

 I suppose I have a special place in my heart for THE SHINING because it was the first horror movie I ever saw and it blew me away. It also introduced me to Kubrick and as I grew older I sought his other movies, and they have grown on me as I grew older.

But I will concede that Kubrick's film, great as it is, really doesn't do justice to Stephen King's novel, which King himself has constantly made a point of this over the years.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blow-Up (1966)

This is one of the greatest films ever made. This is a film that will keep you questioning what you just witnessed for hours and hours, pondering the opening, conclusion, and meaning of the entire thing. I honestly have very little idea what I just watched, but I have never had a film leave me in the sort of trance that I was in for nearly two hours. I could not pull myself away from the screen and I was constantly attempting to figure out what was going to happen next and why it was going to happen. This film is on TCM onDemand through the 22nd, and if you happen to watch it, please do not read anything about it; the plot, reviews, or even the one-sentence blurb that TCM provides. You will be mesmerized by the beauty of the cinematography, direction, and acting. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

SPACE JAM 2: THE UN-CALLED FOR

 Well, you're right, it wasn't.  It's just that Warner is literally stack-of-bibles convinced that the public has, quote, "forgotten" about Bugs Bunny and the Looney Toons--except for the misplaced children-of-the-90's love for the obnoxious basketball movie--simply because we're not watching the insufferable Cartoon Network versions, or those crappy new HBOMax versions that took Elmer Fudd's gun away.

And, thoroughly convinced of that self-delusion, they equally literally believe they have no other way of marketing the Looneys into their "Next Franchise" horse race.  So, they're calling up all the NBA stars they know, and seeing whose agent picks up the phone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, EricJ said:

 those crappy new HBOMax versions that took Elmer Fudd's gun away.

 So, they're calling up all the NBA stars they know, and seeing whose agent picks up the phone.

1. SERIOUSLY?!

2. “I have Allen Iverson’s people on line one...”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, YourManGodfrey said:

Blow-Up (1966)

I have this on DVD after reading favorable impressions like yours. I was puzzled by it, didn't seem to gel for me. This may be the kind of movie another viewing might strike the viewer wholly differently.

And I loved Kubrick's THE SHINING. It's a cerebral horror story, very dreamlike, a nightmare. The visual impact is from the sets & actors-no need for gore.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By now you've probably all heard my spiel about how I mostly avoid films made since 2000, but every now and then, I am either by force or my own free will compelled to watch something made in the past 20 years.

On that note, I watched GET OUT (2017)- which I have been meaning to see since it came out. There are not a lot of people making movies/tv nowadays who get my interest or admiration, but JORDAN PEELE absolutely has both.

OIP.-9Irwp57ZkYjJ3Ti4l3ODAHaK3?pid=Api&rThis movie is everything a Horror movie should be.

Imagine if someone left DJANGO UNCHAINED and (the original) WICKER MAN alone in a moldy cellar one night and they mated in UNGODLY union to spew forth something so UTTERLY discomfiting that MY DAY AND POSSIBLY MY WEEKEND IS RUINED. This film got in my brain and laid eggs.

[EVERYTHING I just said is a compliment of the highest order btw.]

If you are not SCREAMING at THE SCREEN at some point in this film you need to get a neurological test.

The acting was- across the board- excellent. I'm sorry only one member of the cast was nominated for an Oscar (Daniel Kaluuyah) because there are some really good supporting turns in this film [I think the fact that there are so many and so spread out effected everyone's chances],  BETTY GABRIEL and LIL REL HOWERY [who succeeds in the IMPOSSIBLE TASK of bringing some much needed levity] are especially good.

saw this on AMAZON prime AND THE ALTERNATE ENDING IS INCLUDED (and I am glad) You can decide which one you want to accept as what happened (1+1+2+1 is...) they're both equally effective.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there was a 199something TV miniseries (i think 6 hours long) of THE SHINING with THE GUY FROM WINGS and REBECCA DeMORNAY which was very faithful to the book, but just did not come off. Chief among the issues I had is that THE PREMISE OF BEING TRAPPED IN A HOTEL WITH REBECCA DeMORNAY is not the premise for a horror movie.

Being trapped for any amount of time with SHELLEY DUVAL tho? That is 100 proof NIGHTMARE FUEL. 

ALSO THIS:

Qfvf51GSJpakMl7UyQBhNXOggkI=.gif

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blondie Brings Up Baby Poster

Blondie Brings Up Baby (1939) Movies! TV Network 6/10

Blondie is conned by an encyclopedia salesman that Baby Dumpling is a genius.

A good entry in the series, not as funny as the last two. Baby Dumpling, along with his next door pal precocious Alvin, have some funny lines. Other things happening in this one has Daisy being caught by the dog catcher and Dagwood being fired... again. Mr Dithers has a funny moment acting furious at Dagwood, more like his comic strip character. This one also goes for some sentiment with a subplot about a rich girl in a wheel chair (played by Peggy Ann Garner, later in A Tree Grows In Brooklyn (1945). 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been on a Joel McCrea kick lately.  I watched a bunch of movies of his that I owned (The Palm Beach Story, Sullivan's Travels, The More the Merrier).  Then, I  finally watched my Criterion copy of Foreign Correspondent--a blind buy, from a while back. I'm happy to say that my blind buy turned out to be an excellent purchase.

In Foreign Correspondent (1940), McCrea plays Johnny Jones, a crime reporter who is enlisted by his employer, Mr. Powers, to cover the emerging situation in 1939 Europe.  Powers is concerned about the amount of power Hitler and the Nazis seem to be gaining.  Jones is re-christened "Huntley Haverstock," a pen name that he should use when writing his reports.  When Jones arrives in London, his first assignment is to interview Stephen Fisher (Herbert Marshall), the leader of the Universal Peace Party.  It seems that Fisher will be holding a luncheon in honor of Van Meer (Albert Basserman), a Dutch diplomat who participated in the drafting of a treaty that Fisher and others are interested in.  Jones also meets Fisher's daughter, Carol, played by Laraine Day.

When Jones arrives at the luncheon, he discovers that the guest of honor, Van Meer, has bailed and is headed to Amsterdam for a political conference.  Powers wires Jones to instruct him to head to Amsterdam and interview Van Meer.  When Jones arrives at the building where his political conference will be held, and sees Van Meer walking up to the facility.  However, he is assassinated by an unknown assailant before making it inside.  Jones commandeers a car to chase the assailant's getaway vehicle.  When he gets inside the vehicle, he just happens to meet Carol and Scott ffolliott (George Sanders), another reporter.  The three chase the getaway car to a windmill farm.  Soon it becomes apparent that all is not what it seems with both Van Meer and Fisher.

I loved this movie.  McCrea and Sanders were fantastic.  I love Sanders' voice.  I never realized how much McCrea and Sanders resembled one another.  They should have played relatives in a film.  I loved Sanders' character's name--ffolliott. The windmill farm and the inside windmill set was amazing.  The ending scene on the plane was excellent.  This film also reaffirmed how much I love Herbert Marshall and made me want to watch Trouble in Paradise again. 

---

Paths of Glory (1957).  I watched this Kubrick film after multiple recommendations here on the message board. I had recorded it during Kirk Douglas' memorial tribute a few months ago.  I loved it.  I knew that Douglas was in it, and was advised that Timothy Carey was in it over on the Noir Alley board.  I was pleasantly surprised when I discovered that Ralph Meeker was in it too! Ralph Meeker is a new favorite of mine that I just discovered within the last year or two.  I wouldn't have recognized him with the beard, but when he spoke, the voice was instantly recognizable.  Timothy Carey still brought his weird quality to the film, but in this movie he didn't speak through clenched teeth like he did in The Killing.  Douglas was excellent as he usually is in his films and he brought a stoic quality to his character.  I would have never recognized George Macready as the Brigadier General if I hadn't known he was in the film.  Adolphe Menjou was also in this film and was good as well.  I like how Menjou can play a sophisticated, rich character or a villain without doing anything different with his performance. 

In this film, Major General Menjou asks his subordinate, Brigadier General Macready to send his division on a suicide mission to take over "the anthill," a well-defended German position.  Macready is initially hesitant, but is easily persuaded when Menjou promises him a big promotion.  Macready, wanting the promotion, convinces himself that the mission will succeed.  The next day, Macready walks the trenches and leaves a detailed plan of the attack with Colonel Douglas, who protests this mission, stating that they'll only lose a large number of men with little reward.  

That evening, three of the men (including Corporal Ralph Meeker) are sent on a scouting mission.  However, one of the men, Lieutenant Wayne Morris (leader of the scouting mission) is drunk sends Meeker and another man ahead.  He then gets scared while waiting for them to return, and lobs a grenade and retreats. Unfortunately, the grenade kills one of his own men (the one who isn't Meeker).  When confronted about the incident, Morris denies any wrongdoing and even lies to Douglas in his report.  

The next morning, the attack on the Anthill takes place and as expected, it is a disaster.  There are numerous casualties and the remaining members of the division do not even make it to the German side.  Some of the men, like Meeker, don't even leave the barracks. Macready and Menjou are furious and go as far as to declare the men, including Douglas, cowards.  To deflect blame for the failed mission (and presumably to cover up corruption within the higher ranks), Macready and Menjou decide to court martial the entire division.  Douglas manages to convince them to court martial 3 men instead, 1 from each company.  3 men are offered up for tribute.

I didn't realize that his movie was so short.  I paused it toward the end (not knowing it was the end), and the film just ended.  I was like "oh, it's over.  I wanted to see what happened next." That's a good sign that I liked the movie.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PATHS OF GLORY is one of Kubrick's all time best, and I've heard many put it on their top ten best list, even from those who don't care for Kubrick's films in general. There is much to recommend it.

You have a great performance from Kirk Douglas as the officer who tries in vain to defend and save the 3 men chosen to be the sacrifice of the power-hungry generals. And you have superb actors like Adolph Menjou and George Macready as the ambitious officers who seek the glory for themselves in a mission doomed to failure from the start and  when it does fail, want to take it out on their men in their division rather than face up to their own screw-ups. And Wayne Morris is such a marvelous weasel in here (a sharp contrast to his real life heroism in the war).

The movie doesn't end on a happy note, but rarely does any of Kubrick's films have a happily-ever-after-note. It was a box office flop at the time, but time has proven its worth through the decades.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bomba the Jungle Boy. Need I say more?  Somebody pass me the Pepto...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, speedracer5 said:

Then, I  finally watched my Criterion copy of Foreign Correspondent--a blind buy, from a while back. I'm happy to say that my blind buy turned out to be an excellent purchase.

You missed Edmund Gwenn as a hired killer!  :lol:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, TikiSoo said:

I have this on DVD after reading favorable impressions like yours. I was puzzled by it, didn't seem to gel for me. This may be the kind of movie another viewing might strike the viewer wholly differently.

And I loved Kubrick's THE SHINING. It's a cerebral horror story, very dreamlike, a nightmare. The visual impact is from the sets & actors-no need for gore.

That is one thing I admired about The Shining too. Very little gore. And actually only one murder.  I'm not one for a lot of violence in films. This sequel had a lot more (although frankly the scene where the villainess gets hers at the end was rather worth it), and that one sadistic scene I mentioned where young Jacob Tremblay  (or Room and Wonder) gets bumped off by the vampiric ones really goes too far, even though I have heard it was toned down  from the original cut ( I shudder to imagine the longer cut). But if you leave out that scene, (plus a scene where a lot of the vampires get shot) its not too bad (plus if you see it on a DVD or on  HBO like I did, its very easy to fast forward quickly and painlessly if a scene gets to be too much). The Kubrick though is still the better film.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

By now you've probably all heard my spiel about how I mostly avoid films made since 2000, but every now and then, I am either by force or my own free will compelled to watch something made in the past 20 years.

On that note, I watched GET OUT (2017)- which I have been meaning to see since it came out. There are not a lot of people making movies/tv nowadays who get my interest or admiration, but JORDAN PEELE absolutely has both.

Imagine if someone left DJANGO UNCHAINED and (the original) WICKER MAN alone in a moldy cellar one night and they mated in UNGODLY union to spew forth something so UTTERLY discomfiting that MY DAY AND POSSIBLY MY WEEKEND IS RUINED. This film got in my brain and laid eggs.

[EVERYTHING I just said is a compliment of the highest order btw.]

I noted similarities to The Stepford Wives and Guess Who's Coming to Dinner myself when I saw it. It definitely is a creepy film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fedya said:

You missed Edmund Gwenn as a hired killer!  :lol:

I did forget to write about him, but I didn’t forget about him in my mind! I just knew that *that* would happen to him! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, CinemaInternational said:

I noted similarities to The Stepford Wives and Guess Who's Coming to Dinner myself when I saw it. It definitely is a creepy film.

I like this idea of a double feature. I’ve also always thought that “The Stepford Wives” and “Burnt Offerings” would make a great double feature. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...