WHAT FILMS HAVE YOU SEEN LATELY?

[jdb1]

ChiO, I forgot to mention yesterday that I was home on Monday afternoon, when Encore Mysteries ran The Killing. My daughter had come home between classes and watched it with me. It was the first time she'd seen it.

She liked Sterling Hayden, who she recognized from Johnny Guitar, but she especially wanted to know who that 'hippie dude' was -- 'he's great,' she said, 'even if he did shoot a horse.' She meant Lord Timothy Carey.

Ah, another acolyte joins the brethren.

[ChiO]

'he's great,' she said, 'even if he did shoot a horse.' She meant Lord Timothy Carey.

Take a bow, Judith. Obviously the result of good parenting.

[charliechaplinfan]

I left this review on the Japanese film thread in the People in Film category.

Another foray into the world of Japanese film today.

Firstly, one I rented Princess Raccoon, made in 2005 the last movie Suzuki has directed. It's very theatrical in style, the dialogue is spoken and sung, and the story is an Japanese fairytale. It's quite girly.

Secondly, Along with my daughter I watched Princess Mononoke. Grave of the Fireflies was more up my street but this captured my daughter's interest. The story is so multilayered I really had to watch it carefully and explain bits of it too her. I'm sure we'll watch it again soon o get more out of it.

[Synnove]

I saw The Shining last weekend. When it comes to horror I tend to favour F. W. Murnau, old Universal films and Tim Burton, films that have a pleasingly spooky style but aren't really that frightening to me. The Shining wasn't shocking and it wasn't that gory either, except for in a few brief shots. It's more like the kind of slow creeping horror that gets under your skin. Some parts of it have aged, but I thought it was a good film because it succeeded in what it wanted to do. It was quite disturbing.

[ChiO]

Last night I revisited a noir-gothic-melodrama-musical-screwball comedy: LURED (Douglas Sirk, 1947), starring George Sanders, Lucille Ball, Charles Coburn and Cedric Hardwicke, also with Boris Karloff, George Zucco and Alan Napier. The first question it raises is whether it is a film in search of a genre, or intentionally a cross-genre movie. Since it is a Sirk movie, I lean toward the later. Young beautiful women disappear after answering personal ads, and the murderer teases the police with Baudelaire-style poetry. Ball is the bait to catch him. There are moments that are reminiscent of M, but the wisecracking Ball and insane Karloff add other dimensions. The detail and breadth of the frame is pure Sirk and the cinematography by William Daniels (THE NAKED CITY, WINCHESTER '73, A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE) is outstanding. Not a great film noir and not quite up to the Sirk to come, but well worth renting.

[jdb1]

I saw The Shining last weekend. When it comes to horror I tend to favour F. W. Murnau, old Universal films and Tim Burton, films that have a pleasingly spooky style but aren't really that frightening to me. The Shining wasn't shocking and it wasn't that gory either, except for in a few brief shots. It's more like the kind of slow creeping horror that gets under your skin. Some parts of it have aged, but I thought it was a good film because it succeeded in what it wanted to do. It was quite disturbing.

I didn't like The Shining the first time I saw it, but it has grown on me. I now look this Kubrick film as a sort of Earthside version of his 2001, and I understand better the slow pacing and the alternately sweeping and then claustrophobic mise-en-scene. My only quibble is with Shelly Duvall's performance: I think she lays the passiveness on a little too thick in the beginning. That whiny woman would drive me crazy, too.

[MikeBSG]

"Lured" is okay. (I like "Scandal in Paris" much better.) However, I really loved Karloff's bit in "Lured," the way he seemed silly one moment and then utterly chilling the next. A small part for him, but very effective.

[mrsl]

Synnove and Judith:

The Shining, like so many of Stephen King's books put to film are incredibly close to the original book. I know for a while, possibly still today, Mr. King had final approval over all movie scripts because of how they completely changed the story of the second or third of his book/movies. They can drop entire chapters of the book and still not lose the story. That is a tribute to how he writes. If he wasn't so into horror, he would be an awesome mystery writer probably causing you to lock the doors and windows and light all the lights as when you read one of his horror books at night.

At one point I really loved his books but right around Misery, they started getting a little too rugged for me, and I stopped. Movie reviews pretty much kept me away from books like Thinner, but that isn't meant to take away from his talent. IMHO nobody can grab you like Mr. King does, and keep hold until the last page.

Anne

[bryce]

With all due respect, the book isn't any damn thing like the movie. Characterizations were completely altered, as was the tone. Complete plot points were dropped or significantly altered. In addition, most of the film's most iconic scenes are unique to the film itself. Furthermore, casting was completely different than King wished and he publicly - and quite severely I might add - slammed the adaptation on every front.

I disagree that the film has aged. Audiences have simply become more jaded, more cynical, more unwilling to participate in the film spectacle. Every generation wants to show up the previous - that of their parents, to be honest - by professing their bravery in the face of horror. Whereas once Boris Karloff was enough to send kids running to their parents bedroom, now not even the best special effects team in the world could inspire even covered eyes! This is the status quo and has been since the dawn of time - it's a symptom of false machismo and complete lack of imagination.

Growing up is so bloody overrated. Alien put me into a near-catatonic state for weeks after I first saw it. I hardly wanted to leave my bed, let alone walk down dark hallways or, well, anywhere! I still have problems watching it - or any other scary movie - today. Maybe I'm too willing to participate in the charade that horror cinema requires. The point is that I'm easily spooked - even today I'll look over my shoulder or think twice about walking into a dark room if I've just spent an evening getting my fix of aliens, Freddy Kruger, Dracula or Gangy (name that show!) - and couldn't be happier being scared witless.

[charliechaplinfan]

My husband likes The Shining, I get really frightened at modern horror films, against my better judgement I watched it. It has atomosphere and it spooks the heck out of me. I'd rather watch a blank screen for 2 hours I'm that bad.

As for Candyman, OMG I would never look in the mirror and say his name three times.

[knitwit45]

Alison, I am SO in agreement. I'll make the popcorn, come on out and we'll watch little bunny rabbits frolic thru the grass.....ANYTHING is better than scary movies....

[MichiganJ]

Bryce wrote:

Alien put me into a near-catatonic state for weeks after I first saw it. I hardly wanted to leave my bed, let alone walk down dark hallways or, well, anywhere!

For me it was Beneath the Planet of the Apes--the mutants taking off their “faces” gave me nightmares for weeks! I still relish the feeling.

ccf/knitwit45 wrote:

I'd rather watch a blank screen for 2 hours...
ANYTHING is better than scary movies...

"Boo"

[movieman1957]

As a kid the TV show "The Outer Limits" would scare me. Just the opening was enough to creep me out.

I did watch a full episode once and it had a ghost and it kept me away from scary movies. I've seen the classic horror films but you couldn't get to me to watch the newer stuff.

My daughter will watch the Marx Brothers one night and then she is off the see the latest installment of "Saw." I still love her.

[Synnove]

I disagree that the film has aged. Audiences have simply become more jaded, more cynical, more unwilling to participate in the film spectacle. Every generation wants to show up the previous - that of their parents, to be honest - by professing their bravery in the face of horror. Whereas once Boris Karloff was enough to send kids running to their parents bedroom, now not even the best special effects team in the world could inspire even covered eyes! This is the status quo and has been since the dawn of time - it's a symptom of false machismo and complete lack of imagination.

I didn't say what I thought had aged about it though. Actually, like I said in my post, I thought the film was very disturbing. For me, the most effective kind of horror is the kind that gets under your skin and that you think about for weeks afterward. That's the kind of horror that's timeless, like in Nosferatu - or The Shining. I tend to avoid horror movies though, the reason being that I get easily spooked too.

I saw Charlie Wilson's War, a movie about a playboy congressman who becomes engaged in the war in Afghanistan in the 70's and 80's. He ends up managing to provide the Afghans with weapons, making sure that they eventually win the war. According to the people involved, this story is apparently quite true. The movie is also pretty funny, although with a bitter sting.

[ChiO]

Chris said:

My daughter will watch the Marx Brothers one night and then she is off the see the latest installment of "Saw."

I know that we share April 29, 1984, as a wedding anniversary (What're you going to do for No. 25? The pressure's on!), but do we also share the same daughter?