1. Less Than Shining

Incredibly, upon release, The Shining received quite mixed critical attention. It even got multiple Razzie nominations. So Opinionated Strangers’ sentiment is not unshared. Although since The Shining is now considered a classic, many may view this opinion to be as deranged as Jack Torrance.

2. The Boy Who Bored You Senseless

Harry Potter is one of the biggest film franchises ever and a special part of many childhoods, J.K. Rowling’s horrific transphobia aside. But not everyone could fall under the series’ spell. Jodie’s post proves that.

3. Mars Attacks vs Arrival

Arrival was loved for the interesting way it dealt with the Alien visitation concept. It dealt with language barriers, perceptions of time, and human nature. Nevertheless, according to Vin Hlz Mars Attacks, a critical disappointment, is much better at what it does than Arrival. Sometimes you just want a good old-fashioned alien invasion movie.

4. Oliver Stone’s Unsung Masterpiece?

How can you definitively state Oliver Stone’s best movie when Platoon, Born on the Fourth of July, JFK, and Natural Born Killers are in his filmography? Well, Eric Rowe believes his best movie is actually the underseen Nixon. It’s always nice to see love for an underappreciated film.

5. An Offer Refused

As Family Guy showed, not loving The Godfather is a hard position to hold. And to not like other highly-rated gangster films like both Scarface movies and Casino as well? If nothing else one must admire FKA “Bulletproof Heart” Leo London for being honest. That’s the kind of talk that can leave someone sleeping with the fishes.

6. An Impossibly Underrated Sequel

One mission that mostly proved impossible for the Mission: Impossible series was getting people to praise Mission: Impossible 2. Unanimously considered the series’ low point. Thankfully this goal was finally accomplished thanks to Hasta Lavista Baby.

7. Dragon Wars

There have been several occasions when two movies with strikingly similar themes or plot elements have been released close together. Think Armageddon and Deep Impact. And in this battle, it would be easy to write off Wish Dragon given how high-profile Disney’s dragon animation Raya and the Last Dragon was. But sometimes underdogs can strike a chord with fans. As Wish Dragon did with TheCinematicBandicoot.

8. Defence of the Dead

It’s fair to say from the lacklustre reactions that many general moviegoers were probably expecting something different from what The Dead Don’t Die delivered. But to those familiar with Jim Jarmusch’s work, like Eden Limchawalit-Smith, it provided a unique entry into the zombie subgenre.

9. Not So Quiet on the Sequel Front

Both Quiet Place movies garnered a huge amount of praise from audiences and reviewers. That said ScareCandy Podcast thinks that the second film was much less effective because it felt like a repeat of Part 1. And no matter how good something is repeating the same thing is likely to wear patience thin quickly.

10. Calm Down Raging Bull

Last time we discussed how one Twitter user saw Martin Scorsese as a lesser filmmaker than Brian De Palma. Now we find user Reuben throwing shade at Raging Bull, widely considered one of Scorsese’s best works and the film which earned him his first Oscar nomination for directing. What a left hook sting.

Do you agree or disagree with these hot takes? And what unpopular film opinions do you hold?

Also Read: #FilmTwitter Gives Their #UnpopularOpinion On Movies – Do You Agree?

Your contribution to Big Picture Film Club will allow us to continue to produce content. No matter the amount your contributions are greatly appreciated.

The post Even More #UnpopularOpinions From #FilmTwitter appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

What’s Going On?

Aspiring writer Jack Torrence is given the job of winter caretaker of the Overlook Hotel, a grand and isolated property, in which he, his wife and young son will be completely cut off. It is also revealed that the son, Danny, has The Shining – a supernatural gift that can warn Danny of danger, glimpse the future and see what has happened in the past – allowing Danny to see the various horrific things that have previously happened in The Overlook Hotel. Not long into their stay things begin to get strange and forces seem intent on driving Jack to repeat the horrific things in the hotel’s past.

Behind The Scenes

The film was based on Stephen King’s 1977 horror bestseller of the same name, this only being King’s third book his legendary status had not yet been cemented. Not true of the director Stanley Kubrick at the time seen as one of the best directors in the world and whose reputation has only increased since. Kubrick is famous, or infamous, for overthinking his films – by which I mean years of research, hundreds of takes, layer upon layer of meaning and attention to detail like no other director. The Shining is a classic example of this and it has been endlessly examined and re-examined by critics and fans.

In Front Of The Camera

The Shining has a small cast and is essentially about three characters: married couple Jack and Wendy, and their young son, Danny. Jack is played by Jack Nicholson, Wendy by Shelley Duvall and Danny by Danny Lloyd, who has done little acting before or since. All three give amazing performances. Nicholson gives perhaps a career-best and bear in mind this is a career in which he has won two Oscars (neither for The Shining), his descent into madness and violence is utterly believable and compelling. Duvall arguably has the hardest job – she is an ordinary woman in an extraordinary situation with no supernatural powers or evil forces preying on her to explain her actions. Once things start ramping up she is terrified essentially for the rest of the film – but she never stops trying to defend her son, managing to convey her horror at the events going around her and how her need to protect Danny overrides everything. Lloyd is practically perfect as Danny and his portrayal of the “supernatural child” is almost the textbook example for every film that came after.

Does It Work?

To put it bluntly – yes, magnificently so. To me, The Shining is the best horror film ever made and one of the best films ever made, it is a genuine masterpiece. The escalating tension over the course of the film as Jack is slowly overcome by madness is incredible. The wildness in Nicholson builds to an absolute fever pitch. The glimpses of Jack trying to battle the darkness overwhelming him are difficult to watch as he can see what he is being driven towards and Kubrick’s horror is as much about the unhealthy dynamic in that family as anything supernatural. Even without the intervention of ghosts, you suspect it would not have been a happy stay (indeed some fans are of the opinion there are no ghosts and it is just the isolation that pushes Jack to madness). Duvall becomes ever more frantic as things unravel around her and the scene where she discovers just what Jack has been writing all this time is phenomenal.

The hotel is hugely important in this film, this vast and grand hotel that is eerily empty. We see Danny riding around the hotel on his tricycle, the camera almost in point of view, giving a very unusual visual perspective. The design of the hotel is glorious – the hotel carpets are genuinely famous and I recently bought a face mask that features the iconic design. Somewhere so big and so empty is inherently spooky, simple things that are in themselves perfectly innocuous because deeply sinister when there is no one who could have them.

The Shining is a perfect film for the Halloween season and is in fact my go-to Halloween film. If nothing else watching this film will clue you in on forty years of references to creepy twins, Red Rum and taking an axe to a door.

Obviously and easily 5 out of 5 stars but that does not really do it justice – a truly unmissable film.

Rating: (5 / 5)

Also Read: The Making of 2001: A Space Odyssey

The post Retro Review: The Shining appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Who Is Malcolm McDowell?

Born Malcolm John Taylor in Leeds, England in 1943, McDowell caught the acting bug in his school years. Later he joined a touring repertory theatre company before moving to London. There he landed work with the Royal Shakespeare Company, several television bit parts, and was meant to make his big-screen debut in Ken Loach’s Poor Cow but his scenes were deleted. Regardless, he received an impressive debut as the lead in Lindsay Anderson’s If…. a year later. Across his career, he has worked with many notable creatives in many different genres; over film, TV, videogames and theatre.

Why Is He Underrated?

McDowell is underrated because despite having a career spanning over five decades, with a vast catalogue of credits, most people only mention A Clockwork Orange when talking about him. And McDowell deserves appreciation for the great work he’s done outside of Kubrick’s masterpiece.

McDowell belongs to the old crowd of British screen actors like Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing, who kept working even if the projects weren’t the best quality. And, like Cushing and Lee, McDowell never sleepwalks through a performance. Often being the lone bright spot in many films he appears in.

McDowell said he doesn’t think of himself as an artist, he just loves acting. In the age of prima donna actors, actors concerned about image over craft and method acting to a fault, it’s refreshing to see someone simply acting because he likes it. And the fact that someone so talented is willing to do so many different types of projects is honestly exciting. You never know what film you’ll get with McDowell, but you know he’ll be great.

Five Great Malcolm McDowell Performances

1. Alex DeLarge – A Clockwork Orange

The story of a psychotic teenage thug who loses his free will after a government experiment, A Clockwork Orange works so well because of McDowell’s performance. Not only does he make the Burgessian dialogue sound natural, but McDowell allows us to alternately feel frightened of and sympathetic for a truly despicable character, thanks to his charm and superb physical performance. There’s a reason this is considered McDowell’s best role.

2. Mick Travis – If…, O Lucky Man! and Britannia Hospital:

The only constant in Lindsay Anderson’s thematic trilogy was everyman Mick Travis. Travis helped audiences navigate Anderson’s surreal worlds. Whether he was a revolutionary, being chewed up, and spat out by arms dealers only to become a film star or being transformed into a Frankenstein’s monster, McDowell made you feel for him every step of the way.

3. Caligula – Caligula

As Caligula, McDowell looks right at home, committing horrendous acts and losing himself in hedonistic abandon with childlike glee. But beneath the tyranny is an affection for those close to him that gives him a layer of depth rather than simply being a madman. McDowell is brilliant at giving even his most monstrous characters in humanity.

4. Dr Samuel Loomis – Rob Zombie’s Halloween Duology:

Love or hate Rob Zombie’s Halloween films, McDowell is the perfect replacement for Donald Pleasence as Dr. Loomis. Through both films, McDowell makes the role his own. Bringing class and gravitas while offering a more emotional and flawed interpretation of the character. Even if the scripts don’t work, McDowell gives the role dignity and dimension.

5. Thomas Pembridge – Mozart in the Jungle

In this series, McDowell plays the New York Symphony Orchestra’s stuffy ex-conductor. Initially antagonistic towards those around him, we soon realise his attitude comes from not accomplishing everything he wanted to in the spotlight. So, he tries to amend himself. McDowell’s perfect comedic timing, curmudgeonly attitude, and ability to weave between comedic and heartfelt make him an enjoyable presence in the Jungle.

Even this barely scratches the surface of McDowell’s great roles. But hopefully, this article has encouraged you to check out and appreciate more of McDowell’s work. Be sure to tell me your favourite Malcolm McDowell roles below.

Also Read: The Anatomy of a Christopher Nolan Film

Your contribution to Big Picture Film Club will allow us to continue to produce content. No matter the amount your contributions are greatly appreciated.

The post Underrated Actors: Malcolm McDowell appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

We previously reviewed 2001: A Space Odyssey back in 2019 and offered an opinion on the movie. This time we’ll be taking a closer look at how the movie came to life and what makes it so special.

Path to Glory

The late Stanley Kubrick was an American Film Maker born in 1928. A New Yorker born and raised. A child of Jewish migrants from Austria, Romania and Russia. His father gave him a camera for his 13th birthday, which sparked a keen interest in photography and eventually led to a job as an apprentice photographer at Look magazine. In 1958 Stanley used his savings to create a documentary film Day of the Fight (1951). He continued financing his own films and in 1956 his work caught the attention of Hollywood. Soon Kubrick would be directing the likes of Kirk Douglas in Paths of Glory (1957) and Spartacus (1960).

Kubrick decided to move to England and his first UK release was Lolita (1962). After gaining much critical and commercial success from movies like Dr. Strangelove (1964), Kubrick earned the artistic freedom to work on whatever projects he desired, some of which never materialised.

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) was a collaboration with English sci-fi author Arthur C. Clarke. This was followed by A Clockwork Orange (1971), which rivalled Lolita in controversy. Kubrick went on to release a film adaptation of a Stephen King novel The Shining (1980), Full Metal Jacket (1987) and Eyes Wide Shut (1999). Kubrick passed away before he could complete A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001) so his friend Steven Spielberg helped the movie to cross the finish line. Kubrick discusses much of his early life and films in the documentary The Lost Tapes (1966).

One Small Step for Man One Giant Leap for Mankind

Let’s consider what was happening at the time 2001 was made. The Vietnam War (which claimed the lives of over 3 million people) was being waged and did not end until 1973. The Hippie counterculture had emerged in opposition to the war. The Cuban Missile crisis of 1962. The Equal pay Act of 1963 was signed by the Liberal President John F. Kennedy, who was assassinated in the same year. Jim Crow laws from the late 19th Century were abolished when the Civil Rights Act was penned in 1964. The assassination of Malcolm X in 1965. The Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. The assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. on April 4th 1968. 2001: A Space Odyssey debuted in theatres on April 6th 1968. Neil Armstrong became the first man to set foot on the Moon in 1969.

The Making of a Myth

Arthur C. Clarke is a well known sci-fi writer who Stanley Kubrick partnered with to write the screenplay for 2001. In the documentary 2001 the Making of a Myth (2001), Clarke shared that Kubrick believed there had been no great sci-fi movies made before theirs. Other Sci-Fi movies of the time included Robinson Crusoe on Mars (1964) and Fantastic Voyage (1966). Kubrick must have been aware of those notable Sci-Fi movies but is thought to be directly inspired by the documentary Universe (1960) and a movie shown at the New York World’s Fair – To the Moon and Beyond (1964).

Captain Kubrick assembled a crew to embark on a mission to create what he believed would be the first great Science Fiction Film. Key personnel were brought in to advise and engineer. Space Scientist Fred Ordway was brought in as a scientific consultant. Illustrators Roy Carnon and Richard McKenna created concept drawings, sketches, and paintings of the space technology, in part, influenced by the work of Chesley Bonestell. A 55 foot long model of the Discovery One spacecraft was built. Engineering company Vickers-Armstrongs was hired to construct a centrifuge that would simulate artificial gravity. Design consultants who had worked on films for NASA and the US Air Force were brought in and 4 Special effects Supervisors were appointed: Douglas Trumbull, Con Pederson, Tom Howard and Wally Veevers.

In 1966 filming began at the MGM-British Studios in Borehamwood. The production team developed and used a number of techniques including:

• Slit-scan photography
• Rotating Movie sets
• Front Projection
• Motion Control
• Rotoscoping

Production costs soared to in excess of $10m and went $4.5m over budget. The screens we saw in the spacecraft were made to look like computer graphics but were actually a combination of photography and animation. Actors were attached to wires and filmed from beneath to give the illusion of floating in space. The psychedelic Stargate Sequence was achieved by using a custom-built machine and thousands of high-contrast images. Kubrick opted for creating all the visual effects “in camera” to avoid degradation of picture quality which may occur when using Blue Screen techniques. Kubrick’s demands are what led to the project costs spiralling out of control. But this also resulted in the visual effects of 2001 looking spectacular and ahead of its time. A video essay published by Vulture gives a brilliant overview of the feats of engineering that were required and how the innovative cinematographic techniques were implemented in the Space Odyssey production.

To the Moon and Beyond

2001: A Space Odyssey is a sci-fi movie that tells a story of mankind, our relationship with progress, technology and the idea that there may be extra-terrestrial life. The movie builds on Darwin’s theory of evolution and asks us to question what the next stage of human evolution could be. Kubrick gave 2001 a curious ending that is open for debate. You can watch an expert panel give their take on what the movie means to them here. Does the ending suggest there will be another stage of human evolution? One that enables humans to travel through space without the use of technology? In a rare interview more than a decade after the film was made, the reclusive Director gives us his own take on the ending of the movie.

Whatever your thoughts are on what the ending means and what the movie represents as a whole, it is a fantastic look into the future told with masterful visual storytelling. A movie that gave us a glimpse of Video Calling at a time when that technology was not available. A movie that modelled the future with photorealistic realism but contained no computer graphics to achieve that goal. A movie that has inspired filmmakers and viewers alike. A movie that will be remembered as one of the greatest movies of all time.

Also Read: The Best Sci-Fi Films of the Decade

The post The Making of 2001: A Space Odyssey appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

And so we return once again to Stanley Kubrick. As I stated in my Eyes Wide Shut review Kubrick was one of the most highly regarded film directors of the 20^th Century and much of his work displayed the real potential of what can be done with cinema. And nothing epitomizes the qualities of his work better than 2001: A Space Odyssey.   

Released in 1968, 2001 initially polarised critics and moviegoers alike. But in the years since it has been reassessed. And is now heralded as one of the greatest and most influential science fiction movies ever made. But does it really deserve that title? Well, today I head on the ultimate trip as I dive into 2001 and see what all the fuss is about.

Synopsis

2001 begins at “the dawn of man”. We see tribes of apes that will become humans fighting over resources in the wilds of the earth. Suddenly a large black monolith appears. Inspiring one of the tribes to use the bones of a tapir as tools to kill their fellow apes. We then jump to a time when we have used tools to make space travel possible and have conquered the moon. Another monolith is soon discovered, emitting a signal originating from Jupiter. So a team of astronauts go to investigate. Accompanying the team is the worlds most advanced computer system, HAL 9000. But does the artificial intelligence have other motives? What is the purpose of these monoliths? And what lies in wait beyond Jupiter?

What did I like?

As I said earlier there is no movie that gives a better introduction to Stanley Kubrick as a director than 2001. Because it demonstrates what his films do best.

Firstly, this film pushed the envelope in terms of what was possible with visual effects. The amount of sheer effort that went into creating the visuals in this film is unbelievable. Despite being over 50 years old the space sequences in this film still manage to blow modern productions out of the water. Everything looks and feels real, because of the lack of digital enhancement. The spaceships look authentic and the zero gravity sequences have weight to them because of the lingering shots and expert behind the scenes craftsmanship on display. Many newcomers and even old fans can still marvel for hours at how the filmmakers managed to achieve these feats without CGI. But importantly they also feel like part of the narrative, never intruding on the story.  

His films also asked complex questions, such as are we really the masters of our domain or is something else guiding us? Will technology eventually grow beyond us? Is conflict part of our very nature? Kubrick was not afraid to tackle big subjects. But the great thing about 2001 is that it invites different interpretations because of the little details packed into every frame of production, which some may notice and others won’t. Thus it provides a rewarding experience for multiple watches and everyone who sees it will come out with something different.

And, most importantly, Kubrick’s films were uniquely cinematic in their storytelling. The cinematography looks stunning and is packed with unique stylistic choices that make the film more engaging. The dialogue is also used carefully. The first and last 20 minutes of the film has no dialogue. But the audience is never confused because the information is always clearly conveyed through visuals. But even with less dialogue focus, the actors all shine. Whether fighting to get inside a spaceship or pretending to be apes, all the performances feel natural and well-integrated. The highlight being Douglas Rain as the voice of HAL. Who despite his monotone delivery evokes genuine menace and sympathy for his character. Lastly the films classical score is beautiful. When juxtaposed against savageness of the past and the wonders of the future, it gives the feeling of a true epic, spanning all of human existence and is very emotionally engaging.

So if the film is this good, what could possibly drag it down?

What did I not like?

First and foremost, if you are looking for an easy movie, that explains everything, with a simple plot structure and well-developed characters this is not the movie for you. The movie is more about themes and the bigger picture than it is about a character’s journey. It can, therefore, be frustrating to some viewers when the plot keeps jumping forward in time. With only thematic links and minimal dialogue to explain it; and no character to anchor the experience for the audience.

But it’s not just the lack of clear exposition and traditional presentation that may turn people off. The film has a slow and deliberate pace to it. Often lingering on the mechanics of how things work in this world. And while that does link in with the theme of technology getting ever grander and was very impressive for 1968, it does sometimes feel that the movie is stalling for time. And with a runtime of nearly 2 and a half hours that can be incredibly frustrating.

Finally, just like Eyes Wide Shut, Kubrick employs a colder directing style that will keep some viewers from engaging with the film. Because he is more fascinated with the mechanics of technology than on the human story much of the characters seem, unengaging. Not that the actors do a bad job. The characters just seem more focused on business and basic survival, which can be emotionally uninvolving for a film audience. Not helped by Kubrick again focusing more on wider shots and a cold colour pallet. Keeping us as viewers at a distance and can keep us from becoming involved with the action.

Verdict

It is easy to see that 2001 will not be to everyone’s liking. The non-traditional narrative, lack of exposition for key plot points, the tendency to linger on minor details for a long time and cold, uninviting presentation may understandably turn a lot of people off.

But if you are looking for a unique cinematic experience that encourages debate and analysis with some of the best special effects ever put on screen and has such a polished level of craftsmanship in terms of cinematography, acting, soundtrack and editing, that even those who hate it can not help but admire it in some way, then do yourself a favour and go on the space odyssey. It’s a journey you won’t soon forget.

Verdict: (4.5 / 5)

2001: A Space Odyssey is available for free on BBC iPlayer until Monday 27th May 2019.

Also Read: Retro Review: Eyes Wide Shut

The post Retro Review: 2001: A Space Odyssey appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Stephen King – a name synonymous with frightening fiction. Though primarily known for writing horror, he’s had an incredible impact on popular culture since he released his first novel in 1974. He is a regular fixture of the New York Times Best Seller list and has influenced generations of creatives in many different mediums. And one medium that certainly has a fascination with King is film.

Stephen King movie adaptations are currently experiencing a resurgence. With IT parts 1 and 2, Pet Sematary (2019), The Dark Tower, Geralds Game and 1922 proving that King’s name can still attract new talent and audiences. But this is no new thing. Film adaptations of King’s work have been a fixture of release schedules ever since the late 1970s.

So today I am going to look at what I consider to be the five best film adaptations of King’s work. But because there’s over four decades worth of material to choose from, to make things more interesting I will be picking only one film per decade. So let’s see which Stephen King adaptations manage to float above the rest.

1970s – Carrie (1976)

Although there aren’t many 70s Stephen King movies to choose from, Brian De Palma’s adaptation of King’s first novel is still a true classic. And deserves mention on any best adaptations list.

Carrie tells the tragic story of Carrie White (Sissy Spacek). A shy, introverted girl who is bullied at school and lives under the control of her religiously fanatic mother (Piper Laurie). One day, however, Carrie learns that she has telekinetic abilities. As she begins to discover more about herself her sympathetic classmate (Amy Irving) gets her a date for the school prom. But some of the girls want revenge on her for putting them in detention. Leading to a prom that no one will ever forget.

Carrie is iconic. The prom scene is permanently etched into our culture. But many often forget how good the rest of the movie is. All the performances are incredible. Sissy Spacek is, of course, the standout. She is incredibly sympathetic and easy to relate to as Carrie. But there are so many subtleties to the rest of the performances that make everyone feel real and not like caricatures, which many lesser quality King works often fail to do. Then there’s De Palma’s direction that wrings incredible suspense from every situation and makes everything flow so naturally. Topped off with beautiful visuals and a mesmeric score, you have a movie that set the bar high for all king adaptations to come.

1980s – The Shining (1980)

The 80s is where selecting a single film becomes difficult. Many 80s King adaptations including Stand By Me, Christine and Pet Sematary are remembered fondly. So some may disagree with this selection. Especially given King’s open dislike of this particular adaptation. But for the best 80s Stephen King movie, the honour has to go to The Shining.

The Torrance family are looking after the Overlook hotel for the winter. They have all the food they can eat, space for young Danny (Danny Lloyd) to play and a lot of time for Jack (Jack Nicholson) to work on writing his novel. But as isolation sets in ghostly apparitions start appearing, affecting Jack’s sanity. Eventually, Jack breaks down and decides to “correct” his family, chasing them through the hotel with an axe. With the winter snows closing the place off, can Danny and his mother Wendy (Shelley Duvall) escape?

Like Carrie, I can say nothing about the Shining that hasn’t already been said. King purists will protest its deviations from the source material but for me, it does what good adaptations are supposed to do. Take what works about the source material and add a new distinct voice to it. And you can’t get more distinct than Stanley Kubrick. The film is a marvel of atmosphere. The lingering camera, some of the most disturbing images ever captured on film, the unnerving score, the cold lonely location and performances that feel just a little too real. It all goes together to create a haunting portrait of madness and generational guilt that lingers in your mind long after the credits have rolled.

1990s – The Shawshank Redemption

Again the 90s had several films that could have filled this spot. Including Green Mile, Misery or the IT mini-series. But I would be lying if I didn’t put The Shawshank Redemption in this spot on the list.

Red (Morgan Freeman) is a prisoner at Shawshank penitentiary. He’s spent a long time inside. But despite his placid nature, he’s never made parole. He seems to be ready to just run out the clock in Shawshank. But when he meets Andy Dufresne (Tim Robbins), he begins to rediscover what it means to feel human again. Only Andy doesn’t intend to stay inside. With the corrupt system poised against them will the two men ever be able to find a way to escape the harsh reality of Shawshank?

The Shawshank Redemption is not only a testament to King’s adeptness at writing in genres other than horror, but it’s also one of the most beloved movies of all time. It has held the number 1 position on IMDb’s top 250 films since 2008 and it’s not hard to see why. It’s a film that takes the audience on an emotional rollercoaster ride. The story of escaping the prisons we make for ourselves is one that we can all relate to. All the actors are also fantastic. Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman give career-best performances and manage to make you empathize with criminals of dubious moral fibre, Which is no small task. And when combined with Frank Darabont’s confident direction and incredible character interplay, the result is a genuine classic, that will enchant many generations to come.  

2000s – The Mist

This is both Frank Darabont’s second appearance on this list and yet another no brainer for the time period. After Darabont’s success adapting Green Mile and Shawshank he proved himself yet again as possibly the best director to put King on the screen with The Mist.

The Mist concerns a family in a small Maine town. One day the town is engulfed by thic fog. Which wouldn’t normally be a problem but inside the fog are otherworldly creatures intent on killing all in their path. The family hold up in a supermarket with most of the town and what follows is a two-hour meditation on the nature of humanity in crisis.

The main reason why the Mist is so effective is because it keeps it simple. For most of the movie, we are trapped inside the supermarket with our main characters. And as the film progresses we slowly learn more about them and the situation. This intrigue coupled with the tension brought by the agendas of the other captives and the monsters outside helps keep the audience on the edge of their seat as the movie heads towards an ending that will play on your mind for a long time.

2010s – IT (2017)

As the 2000’s went on King film adaptations began to decrease. His stories became more the domain of TV shows. But in 2017 King came back in a big way with two Netflix original movies (Geralds Game & 1922) and two theatrical releases (IT & The Dark Tower). And of those releases, IT was definitely the most significant.

It concerns a group of friends called the losers club. Over the course of one summer, we follow Bill, Eddie, Richie, Ben, Stan, Mike and Bev as they form lasting friendships with one another and battle the dark forces that hide in their home town of Derry. All of which are linked to a child-snatching spectre. Which mostly manifests in the form of Pennywise the dancing clown (Bill Skarsgard).

IT accomplished a lot. Not only did it prove that a remake can in many ways improve on its predecessor. But it also proved to be a very fun movie in its own right. With fantastic performances from the child cast, inventive ideas and cinematography and an incredibly creepy turn from Bill Skarsgard as Pennywise who managed to equal the iconic nature of Tim Curry’s performance from the 1990 mini-series. IT also managed to tap into the nostalgic magic that made properties like Stranger Things popular. And acted as both an affectionate tribute to and critique of people’s nostalgic memories for the 1980s; because of IT we can look forward to many more adaptations of King’s work on the big screen.

Conclusion

So ends our list of the top 5 Stephen King movie adaptations. As I said many times throughout this list, it was incredibly hard to narrow down my choices when there are so many good movies based on Stephen King’s books. So please let me know your opinions.

Do you agree with my choices? What are some of your favourite King films that I missed? Sometimes, other opinions are better.

Also Read: Netflix Horror Movie Written Entirely Using Artificial Intelligence

Your contribution to Big Picture Film Club will allow us to continue to produce content. No matter the amount your contributions are greatly appreciated.

The post Top 5 Stephen King Movies Adaptations appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Many critics were left disappointed when the film came out. Which is understandable. When the film was released Kubrick hadn’t made a film in 12 years. And with his great track record, many were probably expecting a masterpiece. With such high expectations, it’s understandable why the film didn’t fare well upon initial viewing. But with the film celebrating it’s 20^th Anniversary this year, today we will be looking back to see if Eyes Wide Shut deserves its reputation as Stanley Kubrick’s worst film.

The Story

Bill (Tom Cruise) and Alice Harford (Nicole Kidman) are a well-regarded New York City couple. Bill has a good job as a doctor, the couple has a child together and is very active in high society. But after a series of intimate flirtations with other people at a Christmas party, they begin to have doubts about how secure their relationship is.

After Alice admits to having sexual fantasies about another man, Bill embarks on an odyssey around New York to find out more about himself. His curiosity leads him to several encounters that will test his commitment to his relationship. Eventually causing him to cross paths with a secret society who don’t take kindly to strangers.

What did I like?

If you are a fan of cinema Eyes Wide Shut delivers something truly unique. It uses its basis as an erotic thriller to ask some interesting questions about relationships. What does marriage mean to people? Is it possible to truly know someone? And does true love really exist? And these interesting thematic points are accompanied and conveyed through great performances and a confident script.

Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman’s performances are some of both actor’s best work. They have fantastic chemistry, which makes the films questions about relationships more impactful because theirs feels so genuine. They were of course dating at the time. Tom Cruise being Hollywood’s go to charming leads makes Bill easy to like. But he’s equally effective when the film shifts and shows him in more vulnerable or compromising positions. And he makes each character shift work by wholly committing to the emotion required from the role. And Kidman shows her strong dramatic capabilities and how committed she can be. She’s willing to commit to nudity and brings dramatic weight to her simplest actions. The scene where she and Cruise discuss their relationship is incredibly powerful, because of her performance. And all the supporting performers although given limited screen time, manage to make their characters feel like fully rounded people.

The script is also one of Kubrick’s best. It creates a seamless world that blends both the real and surreal perfectly. The dialogue between the characters all feels natural. It doesn’t seem pretentious or forced. It feels like these are characters voicing their opinions, and aren’t just actors reciting dialogue. Even the exposition, although there can sometimes be a lot, fits what the characters are going through. And it allows room for interpretation, with so much being left unexplained for the audience to interpret. While also being a complete narrative. With all of the major characters arcs completed in a natural way.

And the cinematography is some of the best of Kubrick’s career. Cinematographer Larry Smith makes every scene look like a painting come to life. The colourful lighting and smooth tracking shots make the film a joy to look at. And he creates a palpable atmosphere through adding a haziness to many of the shots. Making the film feel like a dream. Which makes the more surreal frightening parts of the film all the more plausible.

But there are still elements that may bother viewers especially those unfamiliar with Kubrick’s work.

What did I not like?

Firstly, the slow pace that favours character interaction, mood and visual metaphors over an efficient, traditional narrative can make the film a chore for people simply wanting to watch a story unfold rather than trying to decode what the movie means. Many will also be dissatisfied with the directions the story takes. The payoffs to many of the story’s arcs happen off-screen and are explained away in dialogue or favour intimate images over big spectacle, which can make some audience members feel cheated.

The direction doesn’t help. Kubrick’s films often lack intimacy. Favouring wider shots over close-ups and cold/washed out colours, which keeps the audience at a distance and inspires a depressing feeling. Coupled with the actors slower, more methodical delivery, this can make the film seem stagey and un-real. Which may keep you from becoming engaged with the drama.

Alternately there are times when some might feel that the movie is patronizing them. Some scenes literally vomit dialogue about what has occurred. Which is necessary for the characters but not for the audience. The pool scene being the worst offender.

Finally, it is easy to see some take against the portrayal of women in the film. Many may feel the film paints all women as being obsessed with sex and are portrayed in an enticing way for the male viewer. Which is not an inaccurate conclusion. Though it is worth pointing out that the film does hold Bill’s character accountable for his chauvinist views. And many of the films male characters are controlling, manipulative and driven by self-interest (though they have significantly less nude scenes).

Verdict  

Twenty years after it’s release, it’s easy to see why some audiences took against Eyes Wide Shut. Because it favours atmosphere over tight narrative structure. Goes in directions that many may not expect. While also offering up a possibly unflattering view of women and to those unfamiliar with Kubrick’s style it can seem alienating and hard to read.

However to those looking for something different or are familiar with the directors work the film delivers a one of a kind experience. It asks big philosophical questions in a way that allows the audience to think and come up with their own conclusions while still functioning as complete narrative. The characters are memorable and interesting. All of the actors commit themselves in ways that are very admirable and play to and against their strengths. And the film is a feast for the eyes with a vibrant colour scheme that attracts and repels at the same time.

It’s a hard nut to crack. But once you have, it is a rewarding experience and a worthy swan song for one of cinemas greatest voices.

Verdict: (4.5 / 5)

The post Retro Review: Eyes Wide Shut appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

The Oxford Dictionary definition of a “cult classic” is; a film which has “enduring appeal to a relatively small audience” and exists outside of “mainstream” cinema. Cult films consist of an eclectic collection; there is no set genre which these wonders stem from.

During Hollywood’s formative years, there was not a great deal of opportunity for films to reach cult status with the quick turnover of productions. However, this began to change with the introduction of Midnight Movie screenings. These often featured films which were considered too shocking for mainstream audiences. “Freaks”, the 1932 MGM production, was one such controversial feature of the midnight screening.

However, the status of the cult film gained momentum with the development of distribution. Whereas before, low-budget, non-confirmative films had to rely on midnight screenings to reach viewers, home cinema allowed potential cult movies to reach a wider target audience. Television channels began to provide their own form of the “midnight movie”, showing films that didn’t cost a lot. (This is actually where I remember catching my first glimpse of The Rocky Horror Picture Show – a cult classic which is firmly cemented as one of my favourites!)

This access to films only increased with the creation of VHS. Now fans could pass on the treasures they had discovered to other, like-minded potential fans. If a movie had been banned then this only added fuel to the cult film fire. Stanley Kubrick’s adaptation of A Clockwork Orange gained such notoriety when it was withdrawn, meaning that any rare copies of the film added a particular magic for the cult following it amassed.

Much like A Clockwork Orange, the success of the cult classic seems to lie in it having some sort of controversy attached to it. As previously mentioned, these films often appeal to a small, niche audience and tend to challenge the typical conventions instilled by Hollywood. Many productions have reached the dizzying heights of cult status due to their focus on extreme, and often taboo, subject matters. The aforementioned Clockwork Orange had such graphic depictions of violent acts that it was withdrawn in the UK for  27 years after comparisons were made in high profile crimes.

Another way that a film can become a cult classic is by being so bad that it’s good. Tommy Wiseau’s 2003 film The Room is one such offering- it has been described by critics as one of the worst films ever created.” As a result, it has gained a massive cult following. So much so, that another film was created just last year, The Disaster Artist, to celebrate just how bad it is!

But what of those hugely successful films which have followings around the world? The Star Wars and Harry Potter franchises have gargantuan fan bases and have stemmed a multitude of sub-cultures such as festivals, conventions and even theme parks. Do these productions warrant the title of cult classic? Or do they fall short somehow? And if so, why?

Perhaps it is because these films have become so commercialised that they cannot be given the title of cult classics. Those films deserving of the title do so because of the microcosm that is their fan base; that “have you heard of this film?” moment. Whether you have watched the big blockbusters or not, you’ve definitely heard of them which is not always the case with those movies that are deemed cult films.

Some critics argue that the term has lost its value with it now being attached to any production which seems to break away from convention or challenge the mainstream. But the real cult classics will stand the test of time; that’s what makes them a classic after all.

The post The Ingredients Of A Cult Classic appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Big Picture Film Club took a trip to one of the most talked about art exhibitions this summer: Daydreaming With Stanley Kubrick, held at London’s Somerset House. The exhibition featured a variety of paintings, installations, videos, and sculptures inspired by the late cinematic genius Stanley Kubrick. Much like Quentin Tarantino, George Lucas & Ridley Scott after him, Stanley Kubrick’s impressive body of work has given him a cult-like following, particularly after his death in 1999.

Curator, James Lavelle, has done an excellent job in putting together this mix-media exhibition. The 45 works on display flow effortlessly together and make for a seamless and captivating experience. While there were many great pieces of work on display, in no particular order here are some of our favourites from the exhibition:

1) Life, by Dexter Navy

This piece was distinct, in that it references current social commentary of civil unrest, as opposed to directly taking from Kubrick’s films. However, the intricate use of colour in this piece was inspired by the work of Kubrick.

2) Various Works, by Philip Castle

Airbrush artist, Castle, who designed the original poster’s for Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange & Full Metal Jacket, gave the iconic posters a contemporary redesign, and showcasing a never used alternative design for Full Metal Jacket.

3) Camera A, Scene 136, Take 1, by Thomas Bangalter

Bangalter, one half of electronic duo Daft Punk, exemplifies what Kubric’s work is about with his simple, yet powerful video piece. The slow-mo clip features a person walking calmly through a pitch darkness engulfed in flames – the fire providing the only source of light, illuminating the ground below.

4) In Consolus – Full of Hope and Full of Fear, by James Lavelle & John Isaacs ft Azzi Glasser

Immediately the senses are treated to an overload of sight, sound and smell. The clearly recognisable, Lolita inspired giant teddy bears gives a sense of fun and playfulness whilst the darkness of the room and the juxtaposed neon love sign hints at sinister undertones. Empty pantry boxes reference The Shining, 2001: A Space Odyssey inspired scent from perfume designer Glasser fills the room, whilst the soundtrack comes courtesy of: Detroit techno pioneer Carl Craig, Italian dance ensemble Planet Funk – Domenico “GG” Canu and Marco Barani, spoken word artist and designer Michele Lamy, and UNKLE collaborator Elliott Power.

6) Das Problem der Befahrung des Weltraums, by Norbet Shoerner

Norbet created a 360° virtual reality recreation of the Discovery One space. Breath taking in its redesign, fans of 2001: A Space Odyssey will feel as if they have been dropped right into the movie. Definitely one of the key highlights of the exhibition!

7) History Painting, by Marc Quinn

Quinn draws from media reportage of social unrest, amplifying the sense of violence and unease with the contrasting use of colour.

8) The Shining Carpet, by Adam Broomberg and Oliver Chanarin

Immediately recognisable, no Kubrick exhibition would be complete without the iconic print carpet from the Overlook Hotel. The print continues to inspire artists of all mediums.

9) Clockwork Britain, by Paul Insect

Famous for his street art, Insect alludes to violence and the alienated youth in A Clockwork Orange by fusing 60s pop art and contemporary street art with the use of bold colours and the Union Jack motif.

10) Metanoia, by Polly Morgan

Morgan explicitly exhibits the implicit sexual imagery we see from Alex and his Droogs in A Clockwork Orange. The downward pointing triangle is traditionally referred to as the chalice, symbolising the flow of water, the grace of heaven, and the womb – an ancient symbol of female divinity. Seeing this stuffed uncomfortably with a serpent, provokes very real feelings of disturbance just as when we watched those awful scenes in the film itself.

The post Daydreaming With Stanley Kubrick appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.