SHERDOG MOVIE CLUB: Let's pick the Week 120 movie!

[europe1]

But, imo, King's best asset is his knack for writing interesting and flawed characters in a way that rings true.

Honestly, when I think King character, I just remember the part in the Tommyknockers where the main protagonist is sitting in his apartment, thinking about all the drugs he had been taking, for 40 pages straight.

That's when I stopped reading King.

Why is that?

Seems like a lot of discussions about nebulous stuff like mood and body-language. And not to mention all the Conspiracy theories, which was even more nebulous to prove/disprove.

 

[MusterX]

Seems like a lot of discussions about nebulous stuff like mood and body-language. And not to mention all the Conspiracy theories, which was even more nebulous to prove/disprove.

Kubrick made some nebulous films though. He's one of the all time greats. Tarkovsky is far more nebulous to me than anything Kubrick ever did.

 

[FrontNakedChoke]

Excited to see what @MusterX has to say about this one

 

[MusterX]

Excited to see what @MusterX has to say about this one

I'm going to discuss the intricacies of Kubrick's visions. That or prove definitively that we did not land on the moon, Hollywood elite are into freaky sex magic, and Kubrick was murdered.

 

[FrontNakedChoke]

prove definitively that we did not land on the moon, Hollywood elite are into freaky sex magic, and Kubrick was murdered.

 

[FrontNakedChoke]

You people just want to watch people naked, don't you?

Perhaps I used mind control via my user name to make their picks for them?

Even voted for another movie I was so confident.

It may or may not be a conspiracy...

Spoiler

 

[Yotsuya]

Honestly, when I think King character, I just remember the part in the Tommyknockers where the main protagonist is sitting in his apartment, thinking about all the drugs he had been taking, for 40 pages straight.

That's when I stopped reading King.

Tommyknockers was the first book by King I got zero kicks from. Then came the unedited version of The Stand. After few hundred pages of that I gave up on King too.

 

[sickc0d3r]

Honestly, when I think King character, I just remember the part in the Tommyknockers where the main protagonist is sitting in his apartment, thinking about all the drugs he had been taking, for 40 pages straight.

That's when I stopped reading King.

Lol, I liked Tommyknockers. Reminds me of the Matrix. I don't remember the 40 page drug meditation, but sounds like something I'd enjoy

Tommyknockers was the first book by King I got zero kicks from. Then came the unedited version of The Stand. After few hundred pages of that I gave up on King too.

The Stand might be the best of all King's books. But hey, it's all a matter of taste I guess. You ever read Swan Song by Robert R. McCammon?

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

Good stuff, i'm a bit surprised eyes wide shut won by such a margin. I picked it because I've seen all the others multiple times but i've only ever seen EWS once and that was a long time ago, I'm looking forward to revisiting this one.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I'll go out on a limb and say this is the best Stephen King movie sountrack. Fwiw.

 

[Yotsuya]

The Stand might be the best of all King's books. But hey, it's all a matter of taste I guess.

I prefer the books I read to have 350 pages of less, so I'm naturally biased against The Stand. I'm sure The Stand is an epic read though.

You ever read Swan Song by Robert R. McCammon?

No.

 

[Coolthulu]

Top 5 Stephen King Movies..............

It - Tim Curry as Pennywise is some potent nightmare fuel. I first saw it on VHS when I was 7. I fucking hated clowns with a passion ever since. Amazingly demented stuff.

Misery - Kathy Bates. Ok. That bitch is fucking crazy.

Stand by Me - A nice, wholesome, classic story about kids smoking, sneaking around the woods looking for corpses, and threatening to shoot people. I love it.

The Shining - Jack Nicholson is one dangerously charismatic motherfucker.

Sleepwalkers - Fucking. Cop. Kebab.

 

[Bullitt68]

First things first, lest I forget, let me list my top five Stephen King films.

1) The Shining - This is a no-brainer.

2) The Running Man - Not typical King, but it qualifies. And Arnold rules. So it gets the silver.

3) The Dead Zone - Criminally underrated film. No joke, the second Donald Trump started sniffing around the Presidency, my first thought was Martin Sheen in this film. Also: "The ice is gonna break!"

4) IT - Technically a miniseries, but too classic for that to stop me putting it on my list.

5) The Night Flier - Shame on you all. Not a single one of you mentioned this film. If it's because you haven't seen it, then I can forgive you provided you go out and watch it, but if it's because you have seen it but didn't think it was worthy of your list, then I can't forgive you and you deserve to get bit.

Spoiler

Also, on the book front: Dean Koontz > Stephen King.

DAMN! The vote was a slam dunk in an unexpected direction! Boom goes the dynamite.

Yeah I wasn't expecting that but I'm down.

Any outcome was cool with me.

I think the one winning could lead to some very intriguing discussion

I was stoked for this one to win. Since I've joined, the movie that I've wanted to discuss for the week has won every week. And the reason that I voted for Eyes Wide Shut this week is exactly what you said, jei. I think that, of all the films, it'll yield the most intriguing discussion. Relationships, trust, fidelity, jealousy, and, of course, sex. This shit hits everyone right where they live, so everyone will have an opinion on what Kubrick's dealing with and how he's dealing with it.

This is probably the one Kubrick film that I will find the most difficult to talk about too.

Seems like a lot of discussions about nebulous stuff like mood and body-language.

Don't worry, europe. These last two weeks, I've come in and piggybacked on other people's posts, including yours. Next round, I'll have enough to say about Eyes Wide Shut that, if you're at a loss for things to say, you'll have plenty of my shit to wade through and comment on

And not to mention all the Conspiracy theories.

Kubrick shit can get so nutty (like the Room 237 shit) that I try my best to ignore all of that stuff, but I usually know the gist of it. However, I have no clue what you're talking about with Eyes Wide Shut. I wasn't even aware that it'd spawned conspiracy theories...

I'm going to discuss the intricacies of Kubrick's visions. That or prove definitively that we did not land on the moon, Hollywood elite are into freaky sex magic, and Kubrick was murdered.

...though I imagine I'll learn soon enough

Kubrick made some nebulous films though. He's one of the all time greats. Tarkovsky is far more nebulous to me than anything Kubrick ever did.

I'm hoping that the way you moved from "nebulous" to "great" does not imply that you thinking Tarkovsky is more nebulous than Kubrick means that you also think that Tarkovsky is greater than Kubrick. Because those, sir, would be fighting words.

 

[moreorless87]

I'm hoping that the way you moved from "nebulous" to "great" does not imply that you thinking Tarkovsky is more nebulous than Kubrick means that you also think that Tarkovsky is greater than Kubrick. Because those, sir, would be fighting words.

Honestly watching watched all his Soviet films now I'm starting to lean towards this being the case(although Kubrick has more variety its true) although both would be near the very top of my favourite directors. I tend to think though that Tarkovsky is actually much less similar to Kubrick than he is Ridley Scott or rather Scott is much more similar to Tarkovsky, Kubrick's from from Strangelove onwards are always full of dark comedy and more indirect points(such as the link to brutal colonialism in the Overlook hotel) where as Tarkovsky/Scott tend towards being straight and more open even if they are often subtle.

 

[Bullitt68]

I'm starting to lean towards this being the case

Solaris is the only GOAT film on Tarkovsky's resume (the film that he made specifically to one-up Kubrick's 2001, which, obviously, he failed to do by a significant margin) while Andrei Rublev and Mirror are steaming turds (the former is the only film subsequent to my going to film school and becoming an "official" movie nerd that I've ever fallen asleep during). Kubrick, on the other hand, made a fucking career of GOATs. His only "blemish" is his debut, Fear and Desire, and it's actually not half bad (to give Tarkovsky his due, Ivan's Childhood is one of the best debuts ever, up there with Citizen Kane from Welles and The Maltese Falcon from Huston).

I've said this before, but if Tarkovsky had been born 50 years earlier and had worked in the silent era, he would've been a much better filmmaker. In the era of the talkies, however, his movies are full of cringey fortune cookie poetry-speak. Except that Tarkovsky ain't no fucking poet.

the link to brutal colonialism in the Overlook hotel

WTF does that have to do with anything? This isn't one of those goofy Room 237 interpretations, is it?

 

[europe1]

I was stoked for this one to win. Since I've joined, the movie that I've wanted to discuss for the week has won every week. And the reason that I voted for Eyes Wide Shut this week is exactly what you said, jei. I think that, of all the films, it'll yield the most intriguing discussion. Relationships, trust, fidelity, jealousy, and, of course, sex. This shit hits everyone right where they live, so everyone will have an opinion on what Kubrick's dealing with and how he's dealing with it.

It's interesting how relatively bad its reputation is. I think it's another undisputable masterpiece.

However, I have no clue what you're talking about with Eyes Wide Shut. I wasn't even aware that it'd spawned conspiracy theories...

Mostly about the sex-cult in the movie being a way of calling out supposed real-life similar cults. I forgot the details. I assume that the usual politicians are included.

Honestly watching watched all his Soviet films now I'm starting to lean towards this being the case(although Kubrick has more variety its true)

Even though Stalker is in my Top 3 of all time, not even I would ever pick Tarakovsky ahead of the Kube.

His only "blemish" is his debut, Fear and Desire, and it's actually not half bad

Yeah, and you can clearly see that he was reaching for something greater with the parallelism between the American and German soldiers.

I've said this before, but if Tarkovsky had been born 50 years earlier and had worked in the silent era, he would've been a much better filmmaker. In the era of the talkies, however, his movies are full of cringey fortune cookie poetry-speak. Except that Tarkovsky ain't no fucking poet.

lol man -- could you imagine Tarkovsky dialogue in title cards?

WTF does that have to do with anything? This isn't one of those goofy Room 237 interpretations, is it?

Yeah, it was in that documentary. I prefer to call it the "Indian theory" though. Honestly, of all the theories about that movie, the colonialism theory is the one I give the most credence to.

The basic jist of it...

In King's novel, there are no references to Native Americans.
However, in Kubrick's films, there are plenty of references to Native Americans.

* Hotel built on Indian burial site (they had to be fought off so the Hotel could be built)
* The hotel is liberally decorated with Indian art
* Wendy has a classical Indian hairstyle (double-braided)
* Chanting in the beginning music
* Plus additional ones I don't remember

Remember that moment where Jack Torrence is angrily hurling a tennis-ball against the wall? What's on the wall? Indian art.

So, Kubrick must have included all that Indian get-up for a reason. The idea is that the Hotel represents America. All that blood pouring out of the elevators? The blood of American's initial inhabitants.

 

[moreorless87]

Solaris is the only GOAT film on Tarkovsky's resume (the film that he made specifically to one-up Kubrick's 2001, which, obviously, he failed to do by a significant margin) while Andrei Rublev and Mirror are steaming turds (the former is the only film subsequent to my going to film school and becoming an "official" movie nerd that I've ever fallen asleep during). Kubrick, on the other hand, made a fucking career of GOATs. His only "blemish" is his debut, Fear and Desire, and it's actually not half bad (to give Tarkovsky his due, Ivan's Childhood is one of the best debuts ever, up there with Citizen Kane from Welles and The Maltese Falcon from Huston).

I've said this before, but if Tarkovsky had been born 50 years earlier and had worked in the silent era, he would've been a much better filmmaker. In the era of the talkies, however, his movies are full of cringey fortune cookie poetry-speak. Except that Tarkovsky ain't no fucking poet.

I would argue that Solaris is really more a repost to 2001 than it is an attempt to "one up" it. Rather than the obtuse impersonal mystery of Kubricks film you have something with much stronger personal drama and arguably the reverse message in terms of space exploration. I mean technically Kubrick definitely comes ontop as its probably the film were you see the budget limations of Tarkovsky's work most obviously that said I think it terms of actual influence you could argue he came out ontop, films like Starwars and Alien were following his lead of "romatic clutter" more than they were 2001's cold minimalism.

Personally I would say that his two strongest soviet films though are Stalker and Andrei Rublev, the latter especially supprised me is how conventional a lot of it was, I mean yes the plot is often disconnected but I think its a pretty easy to grasp character study that creates. Both are also I think strong contenders for the best looking film ever made and I do personally find his eye more interesting than Kubrick's in terms of complexity and variety of composition even if he doesn't bring as much that's totally new to the table technically.

Mirror did come across a little as a bit of a dry run for Stalker without as solid a narrative but still I think it works very well in creating a sense of history and character. Generally I would say that a lot of the appeal of his work isn't so much in any kind of indepth analysis as simply the tone that's established, I mean I don't need to know the details of his life to get the sense this is relating to it and Russian history. Although equally I spose that is part of the appeal of Kubrick which sets him apart from a lot of alternatives.

I do find is more poetic waxing is generally well written(although the Stalker himself is deliberately shown as not overly eloquent in keeping with his character) but I think moreso than that there IMHO an underrating of the quality of performance in his films, Banionis, Grinko and especially Solonitsyn I think all give very effective subtle performances with a lot of prense to them that helps sustain films that don't have the drive that Ivan's Childhood does in plot. In that respect again he actually feels like he's more inline with the way cinema went than Kubrick who always loved larger than life James Cagney like performances from the likes of Jack and McDowell. You could say of course that makes Kubrick rather more unique I spose.

 

[moreorless87]

Yeah, it was in that documentary. I prefer to call it the "Indian theory" though. Honestly, of all the theories about that movie, the colonialism theory is the one I give the most credence to.

The basic jist of it...

In King's novel, there are no references to Native Americans.
However, in Kubrick's films, there are plenty of references to Native Americans.

* Hotel built on Indian burial site (they had to be fought off so the Hotel could be built)
* The hotel is liberally decorated with Indian art
* Wendy has a classical Indian hairstyle (double-braided)
* Chanting in the beginning music
* Plus additional ones I don't remember

Remember that moment where Jack Torrence is angrily hurling a tennis-ball against the wall? What's on the wall? Indian art.

So, Kubrick must have included all that Indian get-up for a reason. The idea is that the Hotel represents America. All that blood pouring out of the elevators? The blood of American's initial inhabitants.

Indeed I don't see it being some questionable theory based on tiny details, its built from an openly stated plot element. The ghostly flashbacks to 1921 as well I'd say seem like a representation of that robber baron era pre drepression built on the fruits of colonialism plus of course Jacks own murderous actions showing the violent legacy in society today.

I mean you can't generalise too much but I would say that if Tarkovsky whilst he's obviously artful in style is actually more direct, his films are very open about their themes. Kubrick on the other hand deliberately takes what are quite simplistic stories and looks to give them depth more via subtext.

It does I think mean Kubrick is easier to get into when your younger, more a director you can watch the same films for years gradually taking different things from where as Tarkovsky is much more all or nothing IMHO.

 

[BisexualMMA]

Top-5 movies to capture the essence of Stephen King:
Dreamcatcher
Misery
Stand by Me
Pet Sematary
Carrie

Dreamcatcher??

WTF?

 

[MusterX]

I'm hoping that the way you moved from "nebulous" to "great" does not imply that you thinking Tarkovsky is more nebulous than Kubrick means that you also think that Tarkovsky is greater than Kubrick. Because those, sir, would be fighting words.

No, I do not think that. Kubrick is an all time great, Top 3 all time probably and some people rank him at #1 for directors. It would take all night to go over his resume.