Who let this IRA motherfucker in my bar?!?!
Printable View
I still need to see Barry Lyndon. Kubrick is the man. I just watched 2001 for the first time a few years ago and it blew me away. I also rewatched The Shining a little while back and then watched the "Shining theory" documentary Room 237. That's an interesting experience.
Poor Jared from Subway. He started, and ended his career trying to get into smaller pants.
The whole documentary is about theories surrounding the movie. Specifically they bring in four people (I think it's four) and all they do is talk over clips of the movie about what they feel this means and that means etc. That probably sounds boring but it's really not.
Some of the theories sound like crackpot shit but others will actually make you think. The moon landing guy is fascinating.
Well with Room 237, I don't think the director even wants you to take most of the theories seriously, he just wants you to be dumbfounded by the fact that there are even people out there who think like that. But like I said, some of them ARE pretty interesting and thought-provoking.
I actually have been meaning to go back and watch The Shining and Room 237 back to back.
Also, that's an interesting note about directors and what "feels" right to them. I'm reading a book right now called "Looking at Movies," which is about formal criticism of film. The authors always stress how the directors are constantly making decisions about elements in their films that are supposed to mean something -- the angle of a shot, the proliferation of a color, the speed of the editing, etc. It has really made me wonder how much of what we see on the screen really is THAT deliberate and how much is not.
I've seen enough "behind the scenes" interviews where directors have just been like "oh, that? That means nothing, I just thought it looked cool." I'm sure plenty of things are very deliberate, but take things like the elevator filled with blood in the Shining, for instance. I don't personally feel that it "means" much of anything, so much as it seemed like a great shot for the overall feel of the movie and the progression of Jack's psychosis. Or a lot of the imagery in Tim Burton's films. Much of that is just superfluous, even for ambiance and the atmosphere of things, but that's his thing, and it works for him.
I feel like a lot of directors get caught up in these kinds of theories because so many well known directors love to draw on motif, and inject themes all throughout a film, as if to somehow keep it grounded, or on track. Kind of like authors, to be honest. They can't always tell you what a particular passage or line means. It just felt right, so they kept it in there, and trying to endlessly interpret every bit and piece is a sort of fruitless exercise in redundancy. Some people just need to take things for what they are in the most literal sense, but many times you get these psuedo-intellectuals who have to find the deeper meaning in everything. Sometimes a hole in the ground is just a hole in the ground, you know?.
Good thoughts, Ludo. I'm sure you're right that many things are just done instinctively, because they feel right, rather than because the director is trying to convey any specific meaning. I do think that there's a real danger of reading too far into a movie and going beyond anything that the director intended, and I think most of the participants in Room 237 do exactly that.
If you get a chance to give it a look, check it out and report back.
Where can I watch that doc? Find me a link, place and I'll watch it tonight
Not sure if these are the real thing but I found:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlE6wZ1ZkFw
www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlLmW2d3R60
^^^Thanks, but I think I found it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-lOiPMwDW4
Concerning the lunar landing theory from Room 237:
I'll say this shit, I was not convinced by his argument, but I still found it fascinating. Inf act, his segment was the most interesting of the whole film for me and I did think there were a few things that made me stroke my chin and go "hmm." I wish I could get into specifics but it's been too long since I saw the doc.
The Last Dragon 30th Anniversary Blu-Ray was released today.
That's right, no bullshit. The Last Dragon. 30th Anniversary Blu-Ray.
Who's the master?
http://movieweb.com/last-dragon-30th...u-ray-preview/Quote:
The Last Dragon is ready to Glow again, brighter than ever, as the 30th Anniversary Blu-ray hits store shelves this Tuesday. To celebrate such a momentous occasion, we have an advanced sneak peek at one of the special features. In this clip, we get to hear screenwriter Louis Venosta and director Michael Schultz talk about the film's origins. And we even learn how Bruce Leroy got his iconic name!
It was the 10th anniversary of Bruce Lee's death and Warner Bros. had re-released Enter the Dragon back into theaters. Screenwriter Louis Venosta had gone to see the movie, and describes the experience as looking exactly like the opening moments of The Last Dragon. There were all these kids of every color and nationality. They were all dressed up in costume and jumping around. The writer took one look at the madness and knew there was a story there. The director, Michael Schultz, agreed with this idea. He wanted to see something that had never been brought to the big screen. Young, beautiful black people set against a heroic element and a lot of humor. Both instantly felt this was a movie that needed to get made. One where the black guy was actually the hero.
The cult classic The Last Dragon is celebrating it's 30th Anniversary with a fully remastered Blu-ray arriving this summer. To usher in this exciting release, we also premiered an exclusive first look at the trailer for Berry Gordy's greatest cinematic achievement. The set comes with all-new bonus materials. And there is a newly-created retrospective looking back at the making of the movie. We also have a sneak peek at the new cover art from acclaimed Mondo gallery artist Gary Pullin.
Berry Gordy's The Last Dragon returns for it's 30th Anniversary, debuting for the first time ever on Blu-ray August 25 from Sony Pictures Home Entertainment. The cult classic has been fully remastered in high definition for Blu-ray and features exciting all-new dynamic packaging art, as well as the featurette "Return of the Dragon," a newly-created retrospective look at the making of the film, featuring new interviews with the cast and crew, including Taimak, Berry Gordy and more! Additional bonus features include commentary by director Michael Schultz and the original theatrical trailer.
http://www.sonypictures.com/movies/t...s/onesheet.jpg
Just watched it and my opinion is it was horrible. Like 2/10 bad.
Camera man and reporter get shot live on the air. Both confirmed dead. This is FUCKED UP.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAH6SACn9lE
Hmm. These are some interesting reactions. Y'all may be surprised to learn that the film has gotten many more positive reactions than negative ones, with a 93% on RT and an 80 on Metacritic.
RT: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/room_237_2012/
Metacritic: http://www.metacritic.com/movie/room-237
I think it's important to understand what this film is and what it's trying to be. Both of you seem to be caught up on the plausibility of the theories, but the film isn't about that at all. It's an exploration of the strong reactions that people have had to The Shining and the sorts of interpretations--no matter how outlandish--that people have developed about the movie.
The director, Rodney Ascher, has himself said that he doesn't really buy into most of the theories that are presented. In his own words:
andQuote:
My personal take on it is, for one, I don’t think its nearly as visionary as any one of these folks have found. I just see it as sort of a story about juggling the responsibilities of your career and family and as cautionary tale of what may happen if you make the wrong choice. And even maybe looking at the ghosts as these figures that represent fortune or prestige or things that you might be chasing at the expense of paying proper attention to your family.
So the film is not about persuading you to believe in anything that's presented. It's about the personalities and psychological inner workings of certain segments of the Kubrick fandom.Quote:
For me, it was, how passionate are they for this idea? How articulate are they and are they able to make me see this film through their eyes? Initially, I didn’t know if this would be a full-length film, or 40 minutes, or where it was going to go. Where it seemed to be a more satisfying kind of experience was, they started to get more personal and talk about The Shining was kind of affecting their lives.
As for me personally, I think that some of the theories are more plausible than others. Some I think are obviously wrong, like the dick tray and the Minotaur. Some I think are possibly correct, like the Native American theory, the interpretation about Danny being sexually abused, and the bit about the overturned red VW Bug. And then we have Apollo 11, which I don't believe is the right interpretation, but which I found to be the most fascinating theory in the whole film.
Perhaps a friend of mine summed it up best in an e-mail exchange we had after we had both watched it:
Quote:
This film is interesting in multiple ways. However, it may be true that you sort of need to be a fan of the film and/or an observer of how serious the Kubrick groupies are, to fully appreciate the film.
Since the film affected me greatly, and impressed me, this documentary was right down my alley.
This film does a good job of highlighting what are the more legitimate theories of possible Kubrick Easter eggs within the film, he also gives the nutjobs enough rope to hang themselves. In other words, the filmmaker realizes that much of this is hogwash, but found it entertaining. (My opinion, obviously.)
I should also note that prior to watching this film, I've watched several hours of YouTube stuff about The Shining, several months ago.
The casual viewer clicking around on Netflix probably wouldn't get the appeal.
Regarding Kubrick, we must admit that he is truly an artist, if his work inspires this kind of attention.
^^^^It was just bad. Just seemed like a big waste of time to me. Trying to get me to see something that wasn't there.
Pretty much my thoughts:
"
In a March 27, 2013 article in The New York Times, Leon Vitali, who served as personal assistant to Kubrick on the film, stated "There are ideas espoused in the movie that I know to be total balderdash"; for example, the documentary's theory concerning a poster of a minotaur is in fact referencing a poster of a skier and the film's usage of a German typewriter, interpreted to be symbolic of the Holocaust, was chosen by Kubrick for pragmatic reasons. He concluded that "[Kubrick] didn’t tell an audience what to think or how to think and if everyone came out thinking something differently that was fine with him. That said, I’m certain that he wouldn’t have wanted to listen to about 70, or maybe 80 percent [of Room 237]... Because it’s pure gibberish."[18]
In an October 2014 interview with Rolling Stone, Stephen King said that he had seen the film and that he "watched about half of it and got impatient with and turned it off" as he felt the filmmakers were "reaching for things that weren't there".[19]"
Well again, as I mentioned, it's not about the theories, it's about the theorists. Since we're quoting Wiki:
To me, it was fascinating.Quote:
Owen Gleiberman of Entertainment Weekly gave the movie an "A", writing: "Room 237 makes perfect sense of The Shining because, even more than The Shining itself, it places you right inside the logic of how an insane person thinks."
I dunno. The anchor was probably stunned. Also, someone grabbed this screencap:
https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net...17&oe=56814646
Think the guy that wrote the book and someone who actually worked on the movie trumps the opinion of an Entertainment Weekly reporter.
If any of it had made sense, it might have been good. Saying Brian O Connor and Dom were gay lovers would have been more believable that the stuff that movie made up