Popeye (1980)

Director: Robert Altman? It’s always a little mystifying that something like this could have happened. But then again, Coppola directed Jack (1996). Shit’s been weird all over, for far longer than most people have ever bothered to remember.

Cast: Robin Williams, Shelley Duvall, Paul L. Smith, Paul Dooley

Have I Seen It Before?: Never. Until it popped up on Netflix with a runtime and everything, I couldn’t be 100% sure that the movie wasn’t some sort of extended practical joke on the world. I’ve read plenty about the troubled making of the film, but even then I thought it was at least slightly possible that they just decided everyone would be better off not finishing the film at all.

Did I like it?: One cannot deny that Shelley Duvall is perfectly cast. One can really only point to Patrick Stewart’s run as Professor Charles Xavier for a more perfect fusion of established screen presence and iconic role.

The rest of the film is… Well, it’s not nearly as bad as its reputation has sometimes made it out to be.

Still, it’s not a great film, or even a good one. It’s flaws are not in the casting, to be sure (even Williams, who seems unusual casting for the role lives up to it with the help of prosthetics), or even the mere idea that no one ever needed a film based on any cartoon.

It’s more the spirit and energy with which this is all presented. Is it possible for someone to produce a musical by accident? Every song and accompanying dance number is mumbled in the moment as if there was no plan for what effect the filmmakers might have wanted. Given that the aforementioned troubled history indicates the films existence is an attempt for Paramount to compensate for losing the rights of the eventual Annie (1982) to Columbia. At least Annie was based on a Broadway show of some renown, while this appeared to come about as an afterthought, and it shows.

The Shining (1980)

Director: Stanley Kubrick

Cast: Jack Nicholson, Shelley Duvall, Danny Lloyd, Scatman Crothers

Have I Seen it Before: I’ve always been the watcher of this movie…

Did I Like It: What’s not to like? Yes, Mr. King, we’ve already heard from you.

Before making films, Stanley Kubrick was one of the premiere still photographers in the world. As a filmmaker, he never seemed particularly interested in being a dramatist, and stayed firmly entrenched in his roots. Thus, as a director he ends up being more of an impressionist, if one can be such and still make studio pictures. Thus, the film is a Rorschach test, providing any watcher with exactly what they want to see (see Room 237 (2012)). And thus, it’s only partially an adaptation of the original King novel.

Kubrick, though fills his movie with general dread for as long as he can, and then erupts the film King throughout his work has been very interested in mythology, perhaps at the expense of actual horror. Kubrick just wants us to feel the horror, and for my money, he mostly succeeds, while at the same time giving us far more (although perhaps not as much as some others would have us believe) to chew on.

Much has been made of King’s displeasure with the book, and beyond the reality that Kubrick’s movie is not a faithful adaptation, I just don’t see it. He has—at times—complained about how he believed Jack Torrance as played by Jack Nicholson appears to be a madman from the first frame, making his transformation to axe-wielding maniac more of a tragedy. Aside from a simmering hostility that Nicholson seems to have as part and parcel of his film persona, I just don’t quite see it. 

King’s book is a fine book, but not his best. Whereas with the film—with the sheer depth of analysis that can be made about the movie is staggering—is a far more memorable experience.