What Films Have You Seen Recently?

[bleakshaun]

Originally Posted by J Harker

The Shining is a brilliant piece of cinema and King was most likely just peeved that Kubrick actually improved on Kings typically longwinded novel which like anything I've ever read by him seems to add in about a hundred and fifty pages of totally unnecassery twoddle just when things get going.
All hail James Herbert.

it was the exact same with Anthony Burgess and A Clockwork Orange

[Justin101]

Stephen King books are a lot shorter these days, and to be fair he's only written a few epics and The Shining certainly isn't one of them. It has a lot of backstory for all of the characters, but that's what King does, he wants you to feel empathy for them. Like Deadite says, IT one of his longest books, you couldn't cut anything out of that.

It's funny because I used to hate King even though I'd only tried to read one book, The Tommyknockers, as a teen. I've come back to his work in the last 2-3 years and I love it. I tried Tommyknockers again and it's just not a good story, it's little wonder I hated it before

[bleakshaun]

Originally Posted by Justin101

Stephen King books are a lot shorter these days, and to be fair he's only written a few epics and The Shining certainly isn't one of them. It has a lot of backstory for all of the characters, but that's what King does, he wants you to feel empathy for them. Like Deadite says, IT one of his longest books, you couldn't cut anything out of that.

It's funny because I used to hate King even though I'd only tried to read one book, The Tommyknockers, as a teen. I've come back to his work in the last 2-3 years and I love it. I tried Tommyknockers again and it's just not a good story, it's little wonder I hated it before

i was actually the reverse of that, used to love reading Kings work, but as I grew up I started just getting bored there's only a handful of his work I'm still happy to read over and over

[Justin101]

Originally Posted by bleakshaun

it was the exact same with Anthony Burgess and A Clockwork Orange

That was more because Kubrick decided the last chapter, Alex's redemption, wasn't needed in his film and Burgess felt like the whole point of the story was skewed by missing out the redemption part.

I love Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange, I really love it a lot, but the book is a 100 times better.

[Susan Foreman]

Originally Posted by Justin101

That was more because Kubrick decided the last chapter, Alex's redemption, wasn't needed in his film and Burgess felt like the whole point of the story was skewed by missing out the redemption part.

Actually, the final chapter was not in the original release of the book. I think it was first published much later in a copy of Rolling Stone magazine

From Wikipedia:

"The book has three parts, each with seven chapters. Burgess has stated that the total of 21 chapters was an intentional nod to the age of 21 being recognised as a milestone in human maturation. The 21st chapter was omitted from the editions published in the United States prior to 1986. In the introduction to the updated American text (these newer editions include the missing 21st chapter), Burgess explains that when he first brought the book to an American publisher, he was told that U.S. audiences would never go for the final chapter, in which Alex sees the error of his ways, decides he has lost all energy for and thrill from violence and resolves to turn his life around (a moment of metanoia).

At the American publisher's insistence, Burgess allowed their editors to cut the redeeming final chapter from the U.S. version, so that the tale would end on a darker note, with Alex succumbing to his violent, reckless nature — an ending which the publisher insisted would be "more realistic" and appealing to a U.S. audience. The film adaptation, directed by Stanley Kubrick, is based on the American edition of the book (which Burgess considered to be "badly flawed"). Kubrick called Chapter 21 "an extra chapter" and claimed that he had not read the original version until he had virtually finished the screenplay, and that he had never given serious consideration to using it. In Kubrick's opinion—as in the opinion of other readers, including the original American editor—the final chapter was unconvincing and inconsistent with the book."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Cloc..._final_chapter

[Justin101]

Only in the American editions though...

[SymbioticFunction]

Originally Posted by MrBarlow

It was the extended version I watched, I will agree with you it was amazing movie and great acting

I hugely prefer the extended cut of Apocalypse Now. Many folks seem to dislike the French plantation scenes but personally, I find that having a fairly civilised sit-down dinner amidst all that chaos just adds to the surreal atmosphere of the film.

[SymbioticFunction]

Originally Posted by Justin101

That was more because Kubrick decided the last chapter, Alex's redemption, wasn't needed in his film and Burgess felt like the whole point of the story was skewed by missing out the redemption part.

I love Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange, I really love it a lot, but the book is a 100 times better.

First time I saw it (after reading the book), I was pretty disappointed. And I really did miss the final chapter - it's a bit annoying that Kubrick didn't know that the non-US version was longer, some further research was obviously needed. A second viewing of the movie, a few years later, significantly helped it's case. I think that I was also pretty shocked by just how low-budget the film adaption was - surprising considering that Kubrick was quite a famous director. Nowadays I happily own the Clockwork Orange blu-ray - haven't watched it for quite a long time so may give it a spin this very afternoon.

[Demoncrat]

Hmmm.
IT certainly could do with trimming. Was bored this last time.
Never seen a film? Then why watch an extended version??
A Clockwork Orange is his best film.
Well Il be off now ....

[Demdike@Cult Labs]

Horror 1963

Emily De Blanchville returns to her ancestral home to find things a little different to when she left. Where is her father? And why is she doomed to become victim to an ancient family curse on her upcoming twenty first birthday?

Horror aka The Blancheville Monster is a classic example of Italian Gothic horror, indeed it's a classic example of Gothic horror full stop. The film is almost like a check list of everything that is great about the genre, yet it is put together so well none of it feels cliched.

We have a cast of characters, the majority of them are just as creepy and suspicious as the old castle is dark. We have beautiful girls in flowing white negligees going for midnight, candlelit moseys through the castle's shadowy corridors. Mysterious howls and shuddering cries from outside in the rain lashed darkness, enhanced by the beautifully haunting score. A nightmarish thing in the attic. That morbid fear of being buried alive. Red herrings galore and a less than convincing final death scene for the villain.

All these scenarios are part of the neatly interwoven tapestry of Horror. Brilliantly directed by Alberto De Martino with a delightful script which is loosely based on Poe's Premature Burial from Sergio Corbucci. The film boasts a fine cast including Gerard Tichy, Ombretta Colli and Helga Line as the mysterious porcelain beauty who purports to be the house keeper. Horror also has some superb set pieces. My favourite being a night time walk where Emily (Colli) is lead out of the castle by a ghostly voice to the nearby family tomb. It's alluringly filmed, highly atmospheric and is an exemplary eerie and stylish sequence showcasing why Gothic horror captures my imagination so much.