A Deeper Look into The Shining: ROOM 237

ROOM 237: -+: 2012: DOC:  What was really behind Kubrick's depiction of King's The Shining?  Was subliminal imagery utilized?  Were elements changed specifically by Kubrick from the novel to make a point?  Was The Shining in many ways the rubric by which most Kubrick's films can be understood?  Room 237 is the documentary that will answer these questions and will leave a few questions unanswered; the formula for an excellent documentary.

I want to be careful here and not give away many of the "Easter Eggs" that the many film historians and critics narrating this documentary detail.  Actually, it would take too long to do so.  I will say however, that I watched The Shining at least 7 times and I only knew about a few of them.  


Unraveling The Shining...ROOM 237

Something that I took away from this documentary is that The Shining is as complicated as the maze that Kubrick inserted  into the film.  I emphasize that word because King hadn't put the maze in the novel.  This is just one of the many elements Kubrick adds to the movie to make a point and to juxtapose his many demons and obsessions.  


Kubrick finding subtexts..

Did you know that Kubrick wanted to make a movie based on the holocaust?  Did you know that he focused on a German made typewriter with an eagle on it to hint at the holocaust?  Just a coincidence?  There are no coincidences in Kubrick land. Apparently, he had a 200 IQ.  YES, 200.  That's smarter than Picasso.  Danny's shirt has the number 42 on it, as do many other elements in the movie.  42 of course referring to the year of the holocaust.  These are only a few "coincidences".

Talking to Tony..the number 42.  After this scene, he sees blood..

Kubrick was obsessed with the Apollo 11 landing and he should have been after directing the breakthrough 2001 A Space Odyssey.  Apparently, he hadn't lost the obsession in The Shining because he constantly refers to it with clues.  I won't give these away but there are many. The one that I have to include, is that the ROOM 237 corresponds to the exact distance of earth to the moon, 237,000 miles.  Did he have something to do with the actual filming?  Was it staged?


APOLLO 11 is a hidden theme in THE SHINING

Possibly the most fascinating breakthrough about this documentary is the mind shattering premise that the movie is "supposed" to be seen forward and backward, like a mirror.  Mirrors, of course, are a huge symbol in this movie, as evidenced by REDRUM which has been lifted in many pop culture elements and even The Simpsons.  In other words, if you watch it backwards while watching it forward, NEW elements arise.



MSTERMND  http://www.mstrmnd.com/log/802  didn't want to be interviewed for this movie, which is unfortunate, because he really nails this part.  It was included in this movie, but wasn't found by any of the narrators.  Luckily, one was humble enough to include his name.  The best way to describe this is that scenes are framed incredibly exact, so that they juxtapose themselves and create sometimes horrific NEW scenes..see below:


          

THESE IMAGES ARE AMAZING AND REAL!

These aren't "coincidences" because there are some that show televisions as mouths, faces that turn into angels, and so on.  My favorite is this one but one of the most disturbing also:


The demon within..perfect juxtaposition

I'm going to stop here, because this review is not supposed to take the focus here.  WATCH this documentary if you are a Kubrick fan, if you love The Shining, or if you just want to rediscover a classic movie.  This is amazing and only shows how much of a genius Kubrick was::::96%

The QUESTion continues...

Shadow Recruit: Lost in the Shadows?

SHADOW RECRUIT: ++: 2013: ACT:  The movies that closed out 2013 didn't end on a high note.  Aside from a few, some were just not innovative enough and very formulaic.  Shadow Recruit, while boasting some exciting action sequences at the end, didn't impress.

Jack Ryan, played by Chris Pine, didn't give you anything new.  It reminded me of Bourne Ultimatum but fell drastically short.  Chris Pine didn't give a polarizing performance and was "just there" during the entire movie.  I had some expectations for this movie after seeing him in the new Star Trek movie, but he should have displayed some more emotion.  He had no expressions and reminded me of a cyborg.

  
Is Jack Ryan mad, contemplative, or constipated?  You just don't know..

Keira Knightley performed well as his wife and gave the movie some depth.  She didn't have to reinvent the wheel, just give her character some life.  


Kevin Costner also gave an acceptable performance.  I cracked up a few times imagining him act like a buffalo though..TATANKA??TATANKA??
    
Did he say TATANKA??                                 TATANKA???

I just kept rolling my eyes at this movie because it's been done and done better.  I wish there was a buffalo in this movie of some sort.  It would have livened up the mood from this drudgery.  


See?  This is Jack Ryan's only expression in the movie...

The plot is summed up by; a guy gets hurt in armed forces, rehabs, is offered a position to "help the nation", and becomes a spy.  He finds a Russian overlord who plans to bomb a building in the financial district.  Hmmm, would I pay $12.50 to watch this unfold....again?  


Look..he's fighting now.  OR is he helping the guy learn to shoot?  Who knows?

The ending was somewhat exciting, but at that point the viewer has been subjected to so much bland acting that they're probably checking their phone or trying to beat the next level of Candy Crush.  At some point there is an explosion, so that might get your attention for a minute, but that's it.  Then it's over..Sequel?  I don't know..let's check Jack Ryan's expression..66%
     
No expression, no SEQUEL FOR YOU!!            

I think I'll go to horror movies only for awhile again..

Cold Comes the Night: Bryan Cranston Breaks from Bad

COLD COMES THE NIGHT: 2014: +-:THR:  Bryan Cranston from "Breaking Bad" stars in this thriller and has a Russian accent!  Is the movie worth watching?


I had some high hopes for this movie and I'm a fan of his show, but overall it was hard to got hot and steamy over it.  The acting was decent and the story line started to show promise, but then it became predictable and somewhat derivative at the end. 


Alice Eve did a fairly good job with the acting and was on par with Cranston, who as you will imagine acted well.  It was definitely odd seeing him in another role than Breaking Bad.  This movie has to be important to him because it breaks the mold and could prevent him from being type cast.



In most of the movie, Cranston has the cheesy glasses.


The characters have excellent chemistry and their lines flow fairly well.  Above all else, this is one of the redeeming qualities of the movie.  I'm starting to become a fan of Alice Eve.  There isn't really a jarring part of the movie until you get to the ex-boyfriend, who is crass and very obnoxious as a character.  Perhaps that was the intent.



One of the more entertaining parts of the movie. 


I enjoyed the parts where Alice drives Cranston and when they first fight.  Love at first sight.  Actually, Cranston is blind in this movie.  That's the reason for the cheesy sun glasses. 


I also liked the part when the wife and Alice brawl in the house.  Nice use of the bat!  Finally, when Cranston wastes all the hit men in the car I began to laugh.  When it's a knocking, don't come...well you know.



As bad as he wants to be


Overall the movie had some high marks, particularly with the chemistry between the two leads, but was predictable in the end.  There is a twist, but the it's declared in the movie, so it's not really a twist.  A movie to watch if you want to see the Breaking Bad lead in another role:77%

Lone Survivor or Act of Valor?

LONE SURVIVOR: 2013: ++: ACT:  This movie reminded me a lot of Act of Valor due to the fact that it was based on a true story and depicted the Navy Seals in intense action sequences. 

In addition, it gave us a deep and sometimes troubling look at what soldiers endure in the course of modern warfare.  No one will debate that war is atrocious and puts humanity in an intense conflict where morality is compromised.  

Lone Survivor attempts to depict that in a striking fashion through it's action, brutal special effects, and moral conflicts.  One significant conflict was when they encounter villagers and decide not to kill them but let them go.  This sets up the scenes of heavy gun fire.


One of the moral dilemmas the movie addresses. 

The action in this movie was non-stop.  This isn't to say that it was 70% of the movie.  It was almost 90% of the movie.  How do you infuse a plot structure when there is so much action and little dialogue?  At times, this movie leaves you questioning that. 

Act of Valor did a great job giving you both.  It had adequate character building, plot structure, background, and conflict, while still including some excellent and engaging action sequences.  The question is why didn't Lone Survivor do this? 


The characters are developed during respites in the action. 
Is it enough though?

The Seals in Lone Survivor get brutalized.  Not that they don't efficiently terminate their share of the enemy, but this movie demonstrates how precarious the scenarios are for the Seals, who are often the first infiltrators to conduct classified ops deep behind enemy territory.


The Seals often have to jump off cliffs to escape. 

The scenes where they literally jump off the cliffs were hard to watch, but had excellent effects.  Utilizing "rag doll" physics, the viewer really felt like they were seeing bodies collide into unforgiving boulders.  The scenes with the head shots and bullet injuries were very realistic as well.  The sound was unreal in this movie and I was glad to turn it up!

The initial and most significant action sequence lasted over 40 minutes.  I liked the part where the sniper declares he is "The Reaper".   The way the enemies move was depicted very realistically and shows just how out numbered they were in the movie.  This was crystalized when one of the Seals comments how fast they moved in a delirious state.

   
The "Reaper" in action.

Then there is a period where they are being pursued, and then there is another period of action for about 20 minutes.  The plot doesn't start to develop until Mark Walberg meets an Afghani that tries to save him and bring him to his village.


Not all the Afghanis are trying to kill Walberg who plays Marcus.

Some Afghanis believe that a visitor should be protected when they are in their village.  This is referred to Pashtuwali and it's a code that saves Marcus, the main character played by Mark Walberg. 

One of the take home messages was that the communication was faulty in the field as was the confusion with the Apache helicopters which weren't authorized to engage.  When they do engage, one of them with the commander, Eric Bana, is shot down.  Could this be indicting that there were logistical issues that caused this tragedy?

 
There are many communication issues and breakdowns.

I just feel that if there was more character development and plot structure, the action sequences and overall movie would have been more significant.  On the other hand, this movie does hit a critical nerve at the end when it shows the actual soldiers who were lost in battle, so I wasn't disappointed.  Perhaps the movie was trying to depict exactly what happened instead of providing back fill or other dramatic elements::76%



THE REAL HEROES

A Movie for Insomnia: The Secret Life of Walter Mitty

THE SECRET LIFE OF WALTER MITTY: 2013:++:DRM
As the title of this post will indicate, this movie was sleep inducing.  Some parts were funny and I liked that Kristen Wiig was in it, but overall I didn't really know what this movie was trying to be.  Was it a comedy, drama, mystery?  At times it seemed like it was all three, but never really delivering on all cylinders in any one capacity.


Ben Stiller seemed confused with his role.  He portrays a character that wishes he had more excitement in his life and day dreams to fill in the gap.  As evidenced in his eHarmony profile, it's blank.  Adam Scott plays almost the same character he played in Stepbrothers as Derek, i.e. a very annoying, obnoxious dweeb.  The only difference is his beard which makes him look pretty ridiculous.


The parts where Ben and Adam argue are probably the best and provide most of the comedic elements.  Some of the scenes are pretty cool and provide a little action. 

One of the better scenes in the movie where Mitty is daydreaming of course..


I also liked the part where they argue over a stretch Armstrong doll.  How is really going to remember Stretch Armstrong though?  That's a stretch itself.

Yes, that's a Stretch Armstrong doll.


Some of the other scenes I liked were when he is traveling and when he almost gets killed by a volcano.  The ending is probably the best part, because it ends finally.  So if you want to see a movie that isn't ultra violent or has a lot of sex in it, watch this with your kids.  I guess that's a positive:  69%

Anchorman 2: Does it live up to the HYPE?

ANCHORMAN 2: 2014:++: COMEDY:  So what’s new for Ron Burgandy in Anchorman 2?  Does he still play the jazz flute and have Baxter at his side?  How is his relationship with Veronica and do they have children?  Is Brick still mentally challenged and will he ever find romance?  Does Champ still have an odd attraction to Ron and insist on hugging him constantly?  Find out in this post.

No one will argue that this movie had huge expectations due to the success of its predecessor.  The first movie was well known for all of the quotable lines and hilarious scenes.  The thing is that these scenes BECAME quotable due to the time in which people watched and watched the movie.  In my opinion, a movie doesn’t become quotable until it’s watched many times, at least 3-4.  This way the lines are memorized. 

Anchorman 2 received some derogatory reviews on The Wrap as well as Time Out and some thought that it wasn’t as funny as the first one.  This often happens to sequels that are really hyped up and have big expectations.  So does it live up to the first one?

The plot keeps you into the movie and the characters.  The sequel does a good job in shifting gears enough to keep the sequel fresh, but not too much so that it changes the formula completely.  The part in the beginning where Ron’s bloopers are displayed was very funny and effectively gets you ready for the movie.  I also liked the part where he tries to hang himself and when he goes to Champ's restaurant.  Instead of chicken, they cook up bats, or "chicken of the caves".

         

In Champ's restaurant..Is this chicken?  Well, sort of!

It should be noted that the Brick parts were really funny.  He was one of my favorite characters from the first movie and they really nailed it in this one.  Suffice to say that your first viewing of Brick is at his own funeral.  He gets married to Kristen Wiig, who happens to be as mentally challenged as he is.  Self described as a “person-people”, she doesn’t know how to answer the phone.  Their first date is at a soda machine!     
         
Brick at his own funeral.  "I can remember the last time I saw him.."

The first date!  How romantic..

Ron’s new boss is a welcome addition to the movie and spices things up.  Not only is she a knock-out, but she provides some good plot elements.  When he first gets introduced to her and refers to her as an “African and American” it was hilarious.  She yells and Brick hides behind the couch.  Great stuff.  Another funny part is when she and Veronica meet.  CAT FIGHT!

This might not end well, but Ron enjoys it!

So does the movie have new additions to some of the funniest parts of the first?  Yes it does.  The part where Brian Fontana shows us his cologne collection in the first movie is trumped by his awesome collection of rubbers.  I like the one that's made of "Mongoose Hair", so it "doesn't work".  Also, is there a fight?  YES there is and it has so many cameos it will make your head spin.  I won't spoil that because it's one of the best part!  It's awesome!
John C Riley, Kanye, and Vince Vaughn make appearances ok, I had to say it.  The part where Ron get's a shark is hilarious and when he goes blind?  Well, I won't spoil it.  So to sum up, this is a great sequel that WILL have many quotable lines.  Give it some time to become a classic:::88%

The Street Fight: The Wolf of Wall Street VS Wall Street

            VS            

THE WOLF OF WALL STREET: 2013 ++: DRAMA:  I was anticipating the arrival of this movie for some time.  Not only is it a subject matter that I find interesting, but it’s directed by all-time great, Martin Scorsese.  Many movies have been devoted to Wall Street and the life of a stock broker.  I've reviewed a couple and already compared them (See the Boiler Room vs Wall Street post).  I indicated that Wall Street was the clear winner in that comparison, although at times it was close.  Overall, Wall Street was just the better movie.  How does the Wolf of Wall Street compare to Oliver Stone’s masterpiece? 


From the beginning of The Wolf of Wall Street, it's obvious that Scorsese is keeping his Oscar winning formula intact as demonstrated in Casio and Goodfellas.  The beginning starts some point in the future with the narrator and main character summing up his life, and then reverts into the past with a long flashback treatment.  Leonardo DiCaprio even sounds like Ray Liotta from Goodfellas.  His tone, cadence, and accent, were very similar.   I don’t know if this was a coincidence or intentional but it makes the movie feel very “Scorsese-esque” which is of course, a good thing!

This movie had the “Scorsese buzz” in which the scenes meld together with the clever use of music in the background.  The first 40 minutes of the movie had music all throughout.  It's almost subliminal because it is softly playing in the background and you can hardly hear it.  It makes the scenes more memorable and even helps build the characters’ personalities.  Jonah Hill’s character Donnie Azoff is a good example.  Incidentally, he reminds me of the pharmacist Mort in "Family Guy"! 

The music  personifies his character because it’s somewhat annoying and brash.  One of my favorite scenes and one of the scenes in the preview is when he asks Jordan what he does for a living.  The music is playing in this scene and doesn’t stop until they are eating dinner later in another scene. 

  = 
What do you do for a living?  Is he the pharmacist in Family Guy?

This omittance of music helps give other parts significance as demonstrated when Jordan proposes to his second wife.  The music dies down and the silence really makes you tune into the scene.  Again, it’s almost subliminal but Scorsese uses it often, as seen in Goodfellas. 


Leonardo DiCaprio and Jonah Hill both put on excellent performances and break away from their previous roles.  As mentioned, for some reason, Leonardo sounded a lot like Ray Liotta.  At times, his voice changed so dramatically, that I had a hard time believing it was him.  This is especially true in the scenes where he is heavily intoxicated like in the airplane.  He was actually coached on how to act “high” by the original Jordan Belfort to great effect. 

What kind of dancing is this?  Blame it on the "substances"..

The cursing was often times gratuitous, especially with some of the female roles.  Not that females in movies shouldn’t curse, but Jordan’s wife, played by Margot Robbie, literally curses in every line that she has after they get married.  Scorsese will probably defend this by saying that it’s how people from that area talk, but it was just overkill.  Wall Street had cursing, but not to this extent.  At that point, it just creates caricatures instead of characters.

She's charming now, but later she overdoses on F Bombs

No doubt my favorite parts are when he is trying to drive his Lamborghini Countach completely wasted, when he's fighting with Donnie on the floor because they are both wasted, when he tells off the FBI agents, when he gives his various speeches, especially the one at the end, and of course, when he gets arrested while doing an infomercial.

Don't take too many too quickly..

Watching Leonardo dancing in the wedding is also hilarious.  I never thought I would see the actor from Inception dancing like Chris Brown.  Who knows, maybe they had the same dance coach.  Oh, and he was also high at that point.  Listen, Wall Street had drugs in it.  How can you have a Wall Street movie without it?  But at times this was over kill.  At one point, every character in the movie is doing lines. 

However, there were some extremely memorable scenes, which is something that Wall Street lacked at times except for the infamous “greed is good” speech.  Scorsese knows how to make a scene bounce off the screen.  I loved the scene in the country club and when he watches the Popeye show on TV, while doing drugs.  I also liked when they were strapping money to one of the accomplices to get it to Switzerland.

So what Wolf had were some amazing scenes, great characters, cameos ( Rob Riner and Matthew Mcconaughey), great music, and an excellent delivery.  At times it was brash, but in essence that personifies Jordan Belfort to a tee.

 

Wall Street is untouchable and dealt with the bigger issues on Wall Street such as insider trading, hostile take overs, and the ultimate price of greed.  I can’t say that Wolf was better because it just wasn’t.  It was close.  They both had some similarities, as in the last scene where the FBI comes in.  Wall Street just delivered the plot better and had more real conflict that climaxed extremely well.  Scorsese movies often end on an odd or sour note.  Perhaps it’s that he takes you on such a roller coaster ride that at the end the momentum just has to die.  Perhaps it symbolizes the peaking on substances as portrayed in Wolf.  After the climax, you have nothing to look forward to but a harsh crash .  Wall Street wins.  Soon I will compare it to Glenn Gary Glenn Ross.   Wolf of Wall Street::::89%

The End of Jordan Belfort's Wall Street days..