TODAY I WATCHED (TV-series, Movies, Cinema Playlists) 2013

S.D. wrote:

The Shining: European Theatrical Version (1980, Stanley Kubrick)



The Shining was released first in the US in 1980 with a running time of 2hr 23 minutes. Three months later the film was released in Europe but in the interim Stanley Kubrick went back and edited out 23 minutes of footage reducing the running time to 2 hours even. For all this time people in the US have seen a different cut than the rest of world, these different versions have pretty much remained the same throughout the various home release formats over the years. The most recent US blu-ray release is the 143 minute version while the European blu-ray is 120 minutes.

I've seen the longer US cut countless times in my life and for years never even knew there was a shorter European version. I watched that cut of the film today and while it was interesting to compare I found myself missing many of the scenes that were either removed completely or radically shortened for the European print. Both versions of the film were edited by Kubrick, so in essence they are both "director's cuts" though years later Kubrick said he did prefer the shorter version of the film.

For people that have attention span issues the shorter cut might be the way to go, but I think the film loses some of the epic quality of the longer cut. It also reduces the amount of time before Jack goes totally bonkers (which is a rather fast transformation even in the long version) and gets rid of chunks of his backstory including the alcoholism. It also removes the scene near the end where Wendy walks into the hotel lobby and sees the entire place covered in cobwebs with skeletons sitting in the chairs...a shot I always liked.

A good film regardless, but I think Kubrick had it right for the US release.

I have The Shining on Blu-Ray, and as my friend Matt said, it's so clear looking that despite being a 1980 film, it looks like a movie that was made within the past couple of years.

The blu-ray of The Shining is one of the best film transfers I've ever seen. High quality film stock never really ages, movies from the 50s can look just as good as anything today if the right care is taken in restoration and transfer.

Many 70s and early 80s films look worse because it became commonplace to save money using the Eastmancolor process (which degrades badly) instead of the high end Technicolor process.

Utopia - I'm not a big fan of modern English drama but this is pretty good.

Bones
Bates Motel

WWE Raw

S.D. wrote:

Many 70s and early 80s films look worse because it became commonplace to save money using the Eastmancolor process (which degrades badly) instead of the high end Technicolor process.

I was going to ask about that. I remember you mentioning that before.

WWE Raw
Pawn Stars

S.D. wrote:

SpectreFate wrote:

What are your thoughts on Eyes Wide Shut? Do you think that will be respected one day?

I suppose time will tell, I know it got more favorable write-ups when the uncut blu-ray was released a couple years ago. At some point in the future it will get a theatrical re-release and it will be interesting to see how critics respond. I'm guessing sometime within the next decade we'll find out.

I saw Eyes Wide Shut twice in the theater when it was released and I loved it. The blu-ray release in the Kubrick box set from a couple years ago removed the "digital characters" that were inserted over some of the more explicit sex scenes to get the film an R-Rating. The scenes really weren't that explicit and work so much better in composition without those additions to cover up what was originally the primary focus of those shots.

Back to "The Shining" for a minute, this page from IMDB explains in detail all the scenes that were removed from the European cut.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081505/alternateversions?ref_=tt_ql_12

(interesting to note this page says the Euro cut is 113 minutes but that is inaccurate)

Being from Norway, I have only ever seen the short version of the film, and having no long version to cmpare it with, I have always loved it the way I am used to it. That said, it always bugged the crap out of me that a so much longer version existed. Some friends of mine have owned the US version in different formats over the years, but I have never gotten around to watch it.

Today I made my pal, Fat Freddy, proud, as I watched a movie so bad, it was actually fun! Behold, I present to you; Ator - The Fighting Eagle:



Written and directed by infamous director Joe D'Amato (under his pseudonym, David Hills), famous for gore, porn and both(!!), "Ator - The Fighting Eagle" (1982) tried to cash in on the "Conan" popularity, with this swords and sandal movie. It also spawned a sequel, "Ator 2" or "The Blade Master" (1984). Starring Miles O'Keefe as the sword slinging hero who wants to marry his sister, but ends up fighting amazons, zombies, blind warriors and a giant spider, this movie is so over the top unintentionally funny, it was actually a pleasure to watch! Look out for ridiculous acting, kung fu rhetorics, hot femal companions, a real bear cub side kick and other nonsense. Also starring Laura Gemser (Emanuelle) and other dubious female actors, the is surprisingly little nudity involved here, but every else that makes for a D-movie is intact.

Add this to your watchlist, Keith, I know you'll love it!

Penguins vs Canadiens game

The Intouchables

Star Trek - TNG (Season 3 last episode and Season 4 1st episode)

"Resistance is futile."

Parks and Recreation, Season 4.
Arrested Development, Season 1.

Revolution

Metal Mardi Gras VHS

(complete with Glen Rogers guitar solo as member of Hero)

Everything Or Nothing (James Bond documentary)
Dr. No

S.D. wrote:

Everything Or Nothing (James Bond documentary)
Dr. No

Cool doc - what did you think?

thejokeriv wrote:

S.D. wrote:

Everything Or Nothing (James Bond documentary)
Dr. No

Cool doc - what did you think?

It was well done, I wish they could have spent a little more time on the individual movies but the previously completed docs on the DVDs contained most of that material.

I loved seeing Brosnan's reactions to how silly the later films he worked on got.

It was also cool watching Dr. No right afterward. I'm of the opinion now that the best Bonds were Connery and Daniel Craig...with everyone else a few notches down from them.

S.D. wrote:

thejokeriv wrote:

S.D. wrote:

Everything Or Nothing (James Bond documentary)
Dr. No

Cool doc - what did you think?

It was well done, I wish they could have spent a little more time on the individual movies but the previously completed docs on the DVDs contained most of that material.

I loved seeing Brosnan's reactions to how silly the later films he worked on got.

It was also cool watching Dr. No right afterward. I'm of the opinion now that the best Bonds were Connery and Daniel Craig...with everyone else a few notches down from them.

Connery is by far the best Bond (IMHO), after Skyfall, Craig is solidly my # 2 Bond

S.D. wrote:

It was also cool watching Dr. No right afterward. I'm of the opinion now that the best Bonds were Connery and Daniel Craig...with everyone else a few notches down from them.

I share that opinion too.

The recent Ultimate Bond DVD series gave me interest in the franchise once again.

I am curious though, since the Craig trilogy of prequels put everything full circle to the begining of the Bond saga. New "M" and Miss Moneypenny leaving the field for a desk job......are they done ? Or is there gonna be modern reboots of the Connery films and subsequent actors ? That could be a train wreck or it could be done well

I don't think they would ever repeat the same stories again, I predict the next two films will be all-new stories just like they have been doing all along.

If you watch Dr. No all of the characters were already in place. During the initial conversation between Bond and M. it is mentioned that at some point Bond was shot and spent six months in the hospital, so that film was never setup to be his "first adventure". You could have numerous films take place prior to that story.

What they could do is film some more of the actual Ian Fleming stories under different titles, because alot of the Bond movies have nothing in common with the books themselves, they just used the titles.

S.D. wrote:

I don't think they would ever repeat the same stories again, I predict the next two films will be all-new stories just like they have been doing all along.

If you watch Dr. No all of the characters were already in place. During the initial conversation between Bond and M. it is mentioned that at some point Bond was shot and spent six months in the hospital, so that film was never setup to be his "first adventure". You could have numerous films take place prior to that story.

What they could do is film some more of the actual Ian Fleming stories under different titles, because alot of the Bond movies have nothing in common with the books themselves, they just used the titles.

Very true, they could. Personally, the only one they could get away with remaking is On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Good flick, better than the reputation. Would have been considered a top 3 Bond flick had Connery been in it

Here is an interesting list that shows the order the Ian Fleming novels and short stories were released and also gives you a basic plot breakdown to see how different the films are from the movies in many cases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_James_Bond_novels_and_short_stories

There are a few Fleming short story titles that haven't been used yet for films.

Risico
The Hildebrand Rarity
The Property Of A Lady
007 In New York

Of course none of those really jump out as "movie titles".

Just watched......

007-You Only Live Twice

It's a Bond day, I just finished watching From Russia With Love.