60/60 Review #49: The Shining (1980).

All work and no play makes Nick a dull boy. All work and no play makes Nick a dull boy. all work and no play makes nick a dull boy. alL work and nO play maKes nick a dUll boY. All wok an no poy mocks nic a dul booy. All...

(Anyway...)

If you've been following along with this project, you know I've had an interesting track record with Stanley Kubrick, who seems to have had more movies on this list than any other director not named Hitchcock. Project-wise, the only one I've really liked is A Clockwork Orange. All the others have been between "eh" to "Oh God, Dear God, Kill Me Now." So which end of the spectrum did this one fall under?

Based on the Stephen King novel, The Shining tells us the story of Jack Torrance (Jack Nicholson), a writer who takes up the job as caretaker of a hotel during its off season. Along with him is his meek wife, Wendy (Shelley Duvall), and his son, Danny (Danny Lloyd). Danny learns from the cook, Hallorann (Scatman Crothers), that he has what he called the shining, a psychic ability. And this ability gives him deadly visions of both the hotel's past and its future. Meanwhile, Jack starts going crazy, as the evils of the hotel begin taking over his sanity.

Visually, the movie reminded me very much of A Clockwork Orange. There were numerous colors at work, making it a very visually pleasing film. But juxtaposed against that were purposeful uncomfortable camera angles, tight corridors, and long takes. It was such a fascinating camera style that I didn't often want to take my eyes off the screen, just due to the fact I wanted to know what Kubrick was going to do next with the camera and the colors. The soundtrack worked well hand-in-hand with the visuals to add to the creepy and uncomfortable style.

Of the four primary roles, 2 of them were excellent, and 2 were somewhat questionable. Nicholson was having a ball with the role, and this is probably one of my favorite performances of his. My favorite in the movie, though, had to be Scatman Crothers. First of all, that's one of the coolest names ever. Second, his character was fun and interesting to watch, and I loved when he was on screen. Then there's the boy, who I can't make up my mind if he was good or bad. I look at scenes halfway in where he goes back and forth between himself and Tony and see excellence. But then I look at his reactions to freaky stuff and have to try not to laugh. The faces he makes are ridiculous and unintentionally funny. Finally, we have Shelley Duvall, and I'm left wondering about the character and her casting. For the way the character was written in the film, Duvall was a great choice... despite seeming out of place either way. I just had trouble going along with her character and her in the movie in general, but I'm not sure if that was more her fault of the script.

So speaking of writing, let's start with the wife. From what I've read up on with the differences between the novel and the film (as I haven't read the novel, but heard it's much different), all the things I questioned or had issue with in the movie turned out to be some kind of major change from the book version. Wendy, for instance, is a much stronger female character in the book, but her film version is just meek and never really pulls past that. She becomes protective and fighting for survival at the end, but always stays in a scared defensive rather than moving into a tough offensive. I think the fate of Scatman Crothers' (I do love that name) reminded me a bit too much of a similar character in Misery. I honestly had no major problem with all the weirdness and ambiguity, but there was one thing that bugged me--and again, I've heard it's done better in the novel. Jack's transition to crazy just kind of... happens in the movie. It's not gradual. It's just one minute he's sane and the next he's kinda dropped off the deep end. Don't get me wrong... his evolution of insanity is gradual. He moves from a 1 to a 10 on the crazy scale. But if you were to take that same scale and put sane as 1 and minimally insane as 10, he jumps from like a 4 to a 10 with no middle ground.

I didn't pick up on this while watching, but I read something after-the-fact stating something along the lines of how Jack is talking about violence being OK because it was on TV, early on in the movie... but at the end, after he gets hit in the head, he speaks in almost nothing by TV quotes. I thought that was rather clever and made me like it even more.

There's a lot to love in this movie... so I do. Despite all the negative I've stated, none of it really bothered me too much. I greatly enjoyed the film and do feel that, as of right now, it's edged past A Clockwork Orange into my favorite spot from the man. I don't think it's an absolutely perfect movie, but it's an incredibly well made one and a thoroughly entertaining and creepy one. I think the visual style mixed with the soundtrack is what hooked me the most (similar with Orange). So don't worry all of you who worried about what I'd think of this one. I think it's safe to say I quite enjoyed it.


Royale With Cheese

(P.S. I know this is probably damn near blasphemy, but besides Danny's hairstyle being quite similar to Orange's Alex, it also reminded me way too much of freakin' Bucky Larson. Just look it up... I think that connection is almost the scariest thing about this...)

60/60 Extra: The Killing.

Some of you might have noticed that The Great Train Robbery was supposed to be at this point. However, I could not get my hands on a copy. Therefore, I switched it out for this film, which just so happens to be the fifth addition of a Kubrick film on this list (though the fourth watched for it). And considering how I've felt about most Kubrick on the whole thus far, this was definitely more for completionist purposes. That being said...

The Killing is one of the man's lesser talked about films, made in 1956. It's a noir film about a group of men who plan on pulling off a heist at a horse racetrack. But one of their wives gets word of it and, due to her intense greed and selfishness, really bungles things up. I didn't put the characters or actors here, because I honestly couldn't tell you who was who.

There were one or two things I liked about the movie. The interactions between the dorky man and his wife had some great dialogue, and that woman was just flat-out repulsive as a human being. That made her interesting to watch. The heist itself is OK. I do like how it shows one perspective, then rewinds and shows the other half of it. And the film has a pretty good ending.

However, this movie really annoyed me for multiple reasons. The acting is truly, to the core, some of that "old time" acting that I really don't care for. And those are the ones who attempted to act. Some were flat-out stale. Others were so bizarre I wasn't sure what to make of them. The dorky guy in particular was boggling. I'm surprised he didn't cry out "Garbage Day!" at the end. And then you have the voice-over narration. Oh my God, that was painful. I don't think any of it was necessary, and it makes you feel dumber for apparently needing every little thing explained to you. Not to mention the voice-over itself makes the tone of the film more cheesy than anything.

But on the whole, I wasn't impressed. The annoyances overshadowed the rest of it for me. I wouldn't say it's a terrible film--it's just really not my cup of tea (besides the heist aspect, which is totally my cup of tea). I just didn't like how this film was put together. It just seems that I have a strange relationship with Kubrick. I only care for the first half of Full Metal Jacket (which is fantastic). I did actually really like A Clockwork Orange. I didn't care for Dr. Strangelove, and we all know my feelings on 2001 by now. I pray The Shining is one I love. But as for this one... put it in the latter half of that list. It's not my least favorite; I just wish it could have been better.


Feed Me, Seymour!

60/60 Review #32: A Clockwork Orange.

So, Dylan suggested I read the book before I watched the movie in this particular case. I had looked at the book quite a while back and noticed the language used and the difficulty therein. I was slightly hesitant, but figured why not? Because the movie was coming up quickly on the list, I didn't have time to go out and get the book and then read it, so instead, I downloaded the audiobook right to my Kindle and listened to it. At first, the language was quite difficult to get past and I literally had no idea what was going on for the first 2-3 chapters. But after a while, I got used to it and--as long as I was paying close attention (and there were times I was not, sadly)--I could follow it well.

Now, I knew going into the movie that Kubrick based it on the American release, which did not include the controversial 21st chapter, which gave us not only a mostly happy ending, but one that wraps up the themes and entire point of the novel. Instead, he went with the darker, more open ending that ends with chapter 20, leaving out any character growth or the overarching theme. Granted, there was the theme of "choice is what makes one human," but it's not really explored in the film as it is in the book. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

For those unawares, A Clockwork Orange tells the story of Alex (Malcolm McDowell), a young boy who runs a gang in a dystopian future of ultraviolence from teens that rule the night. But after he's caught and sent to jail, he's volunteered to join an experimental treatment that will ultimately cure him--though it's a controversial matter, as it seems to take away his choice to be good or bad and, thus, takes away his humanity.

Let's get the book comparisons out of the way first. First and most obvious is the fact that we have guys around 30 playing 14-year-olds. Though that's not really bothersome, as the acting (particularly by Malcolm McDowell) is done quite well. The movie also uses the nadsat language much less frequently than the book (where it's almost entirely in it). The biggest difference I noticed, especially early on, is that the tone is a bit different. Mostly thanks to Alex's constant narration, the book is saturated with dark humor. The film has it, too, but it's done differently--it's a more visual style than a verbal style. And that's a rather obvious change considering the medium. I just found it a much different type of dark humor than the book had. And the movie is not nearly as disturbing as the book, where some truly messed up stuff happens and/or is described.

Otherwise, I've already mentioned the cutting of the final chapter. And there were the little changes or cuts here and there that will happen with any adaptation (the smallest though strangest of which, in this case, was the alteration of his prison number from 6655321 to 655321, when they just pronounce it 6-double 5-3-2-1, giving it the same amount of syllables as if just saying the original number). They also cut out practically every reference to the title itself--A Clockwork Orange. In the novel, it's a book being written by one of the characters that Alex stumbles across early on. After that point, he ponders the title at different junctures throughout the novel, which ties it in with one of the primary themes. But that's all missing from the film.

There's also the minor complaints that I totally didn't picture certain things as they were portrayed in the film that always happens in book-to-film adaptations. But this leads into something that's not quite an adaptation/personal issue. The story is supposed to be this dystopian future, but it still looks totally 70s.

The visual style on the whole, though, was pretty fascinating. The camera angles made everything feel uncomfortable and dreamlike. There were either very close, tight shots from lower angles or very wide shots with large, empty rooms and spaces. It was a strange feeling throughout the film. But I'm sure it was all deliberate, adding to the absurdity and craziness of the story and characters.

The musical selections were pretty obvious, going with Beethoven and classical music. It's a huge part of the book, so using it throughout the film was almost a no-brainer. It set the tone of a lot of scenes, adding a lot of emotion as only classical music can do.

This is my 4th Kubrick film, 3rd for this project, and so far it's the one I've liked the most in its entirety (though I still have one to go for the List). The first half of Full Metal Jacket is excellent, though its second half about falls apart and doesn't live up to the first half. I appreciated but didn't care for Dr. Strangelove. And we all know my feelings on 2001: A Space Odyssey. He's definitely an interesting visual director--I just can't say I'm a huge fan of his films as a whole. But pulling it back to this one, perhaps it's because I did read the book beforehand, or maybe not... just like the book, it took me the first few "chapters" of stuff to get used to it (in this case the visual style, whereas the book it was the language)... but after that, I got into it pretty well. As they say, the book is better, but it's still a well made movie. Real horrorshow.


A Keanu 'Whoa'

(P.S. This is probably the most mainstream of the films this month, and it's known for being quite messed up. However, this was probably the tamest film so far, next to Freaks.)