Johnny Depp
mut...@yahoo.com
free at my library) because someone on this or ramcf said it would be a
good autumnal movie. I don't know why the person who suggested it as
autumnal considered it autumnal; maybe because it's set in woodlands.
But it's not autumnal.
Johnny Depp annoys the living bejesus out of me. Is he American?
Where was he born and what's his background, and where do Americans
like him and Malkovich develop accents they're not born with?
I have only myself to blame for watching anything written by Stephen
King other than The Shawshank Redemption. Grisham last weekend, King
this weekend. What a depressing fall season it's been for me.
Frank R.A.J. Maloney
news:1131407910.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
[deletion]
> Johnny Depp annoys the living bejesus out of me. Is he American?
> Where was he born and what's his background, and where do Americans
> like him and Malkovich develop accents they're not born with?
[deletion]
A quick trip to the IMDb would have answered your questions and then some.
(Depp was born in Kentucky.) You've probably never heard his natural voice
since he is a character actor as well as a star and since you apparently
haven't cared enough to catch him being interviewed. He is one of the best
actors of his generation and you're going to have come up with more than a
grouse about his "accent" to deny him that.
--
Frank in Seattle
____
Frank Richard Aloysius Jude Maloney
"Millennium hand and shrimp."
Dale Houstman
I like Depp's work a lot, and - although I dislike most of the films
made from King's work (well - I dislike most of his work also), I
thought I'd give this one a chance. Awful! The story is pure hokum, and
not in the least as surprising as it should have been. Of the films made
from King novels worth seeing, it's still "Carrie" and "Dead Zone" with
a marvelous Walken performamce. "Misery" is a lesser film perhaps, but
still a lot of fun with the two leads.
dmh
Magnus, Robot Fighter.
wrote:
Stand By Me
Misery
Carrie
Dead Zone (only for Walken)
Shawshank Redmption
The Green Mile
The Shining
Dale Houstman
Oh, I don't know: the story is handled very well.
> Shawshank Redmption
I know people love this film: I think it's pure sentimental tripe.
> The Green Mile
Horrid...
> The Shining
King didn't like it. I think it's a distinct improvement on the novel.
Aggravating but challenging...
dmh
lensm...@hotmail.com
Why? I liked Green Mile
>
> > The Shining
>
> King didn't like it. I think it's a distinct improvement on the novel.
> Aggravating but challenging...
Again, why? The characters in the film had nothing like the depth of
the characters in the novel. The television movie was a vast improvment
over the film and added the redemption of the father (if I can allude
to that without giving to much away!) which was missing from the novel.
>
> dmh
John Harkness
Except that it was a phenomenally dull, albeit faithful adaptation of
the book. With that guy from Wings? Tried to watch it, really did, got
dulled out.
I'll take the Kubrick, and I'm not even a Kubrick fan!
John Harkness
mut...@yahoo.com
> it's still "Carrie" and "Dead Zone" with
> a marvelous Walken performamce. "Misery" is a lesser film perhaps, but
> still a lot of fun with the two leads.
The troubling thing about King is that he has an ability to evoke
sadness and loneliness and poverty in a way that might have made him a
genius if not for his way of forcing interesting characters into the
most mediocre thriller plot.
Insofar as this is concerned, I find him like Wilkie Collins, who had
the same predilection/handicap. I remember the film Dolores Claiborne
vividly ten years after seeing it because of Kathy Bates'/Dolores
Claiborne's isolation and poverty and misery. (I never saw Misery,
because that film always seemed to me MERE gratuitous emotional
violence. From what you write, my assumption seems wrong.)
Anyway, I can rewatch The Dead Zone over and over again, despite its
cheesy extrasensory "hook" because of how lonely and solitary and
abandoned Walken's character was. You meet characters like this, and
Dolores', and his other classic losers, everyday, and maybe think of
how you resemble them. This is great.
Nevertheless, I find something sick about a guy who writes such
characters with such aptitude only to turn them into X Files-ish circus
freaks. King really should have stopped writing with Shawshank
Redemption, the only film I can think of where he mixed sentimentality
and realism but didn't lead to a downer finale.
And as for Johnny Depp, with apologies to the savants of this group,
I've seen as many of his films as your average moviegoer and (thanks
anyway) can say very confidently that the guy is pretentious and annoys
the bejesus out of me, and has since that 90's-before-its-time piece of
crap 21 Jump Street.
Dale Houstman
Go ahead. It's your time to throw away. It contains another bland
performance by Tom Hanks, and a load of sentimental hooey about
"criminals with hearts of gold" that is hard to swallow. Plus - as
cinema - it just sits there looking as dull as possible.
>
>>>The Shining
>>
>>King didn't like it. I think it's a distinct improvement on the novel.
>>Aggravating but challenging...
>
>
> Again, why? The characters in the film had nothing like the depth of
> the characters in the novel. The television movie was a vast improvment
> over the film and added the redemption of the father (if I can allude
> to that without giving to much away!) which was missing from the novel.
>
This is because you think art is about "deep characters" and
"redemption." The film's skirting and confusion of these issues is what
makes it more interesting as art. King's a hack. Kubrick isn't. I didn't
care to find "depth" in the characters because - as King characters -
they are caricatures to begin with, and their situations are the stuff
of any third-rate writer's imagination. The movie is aggravating in its
attempt to undermine the rather standard ghost story of the novel, and
so is much more challenging as art.
dmh
Dale Houstman
mut...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Dale Houstman wrote:
>
>
>>it's still "Carrie" and "Dead Zone" with
>>a marvelous Walken performamce. "Misery" is a lesser film perhaps, but
>>still a lot of fun with the two leads.
>
>
> The troubling thing about King is that he has an ability to evoke
> sadness and loneliness and poverty in a way that might have made him a
> genius if not for his way of forcing interesting characters into the
> most mediocre thriller plot.
That's true, although evoking "sadness and loneliness and poverty" - as
admirable as this talent can be - isn't really the beginning of the road
to genius.
>
> Insofar as this is concerned, I find him like Wilkie Collins, who had
> the same predilection/handicap. I remember the film Dolores Claiborne
> vividly ten years after seeing it because of Kathy Bates'/Dolores
> Claiborne's isolation and poverty and misery. (I never saw Misery,
> because that film always seemed to me MERE gratuitous emotional
> violence. From what you write, my assumption seems wrong.)
As I said, it's the performances that salvage that film for me, not the
story certainly, which is the common stuff of scary situations. Wilkie
Collins is a nice comparison all in all, especially as he compares to
his contemporary and friend Charles Dickens. The biggest distinction
between them seems to be that Wilkie was actually trying to create
"real" characters with "real" depths, while Dickens' are actually
caricatures, or "types." But what types! Uriah Heap,Miss Haversham, etc.
It is this myth-making power in Dickens which makes him the better
writer. But I'd rather read Collins than King.
>
> Anyway, I can rewatch The Dead Zone over and over again, despite its
> cheesy extrasensory "hook" because of how lonely and solitary and
> abandoned Walken's character was. You meet characters like this, and
> Dolores', and his other classic losers, everyday, and maybe think of
> how you resemble them. This is great.
I liked "Dead Zone" not because I identified with Walken's character so
much as because I enjoy watching a great actor get something to bite into.
>
> Nevertheless, I find something sick about a guy who writes such
> characters with such aptitude only to turn them into X Files-ish circus
> freaks. King really should have stopped writing with Shawshank
> Redemption, the only film I can think of where he mixed sentimentality
> and realism but didn't lead to a downer finale.
I think it's unwatchable. As for King and "X-Files-ish circus freaks" -
the writing on X-Files was often superior to King's handling of similar
themes, and when King was finally given a chance to write a story for
the show (which should have fit his abilities perfectly) what did we
get? An absolutely unsatisfying rehash of a "devil doll" tale, without
any of the humorous nuance of the rest of the series. A big pratfall...
>
> And as for Johnny Depp, with apologies to the savants of this group,
> I've seen as many of his films as your average moviegoer and (thanks
> anyway) can say very confidently that the guy is pretentious and annoys
> the bejesus out of me, and has since that 90's-before-its-time piece of
> crap 21 Jump Street.
>
I know he has this effect on people. I think you're correct in some
ways: he is pretentious. But so was Brando. So was John Barrymore.
Depp's characterizations are often more interesting than the film he
finds himself in. "Pirates of the Caribbean" for instance, an otherwise
bloated and badly written piece of fluff. He is - however - fascinating
to watch.
dmh
Magnus, Robot Fighter
> >
> > Why? I liked Green Mile
>
> Go ahead. It's your time to throw away. It contains another bland
> performance by Tom Hanks, and a load of sentimental hooey about
> "criminals with hearts of gold" that is hard to swallow. Plus - as
> cinema - it just sits there looking as dull as possible.
>
First time I've heard a Christ Figure referred to as a 'criminal with a
heart of gold'.
mut...@yahoo.com
> mut...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > The troubling thing about King is that he has an ability to evoke
> > sadness and loneliness and poverty in a way that might have made him a
> > genius if not for his way of forcing interesting characters into the
> > most mediocre thriller plot.
>
> That's true, although evoking "sadness and loneliness and poverty" - as
> admirable as this talent can be - isn't really the beginning of the road
> to genius.
Interpretations of "genius" are subjective. As a person who tries my
darnedest to follow a spiritual leader, I believe the purpose of
literature is largely didactic. For me the measure of an artist's
greatness is his or her ability to inspire "pity and fear" in a way
that uplifts and encourages rather than depresses and discourages.
As someone whose parents were art students in the thick of Greenwich
Village in the 50's-60's, I made a conscious rejection of
art-for-art's-sake. I don't believe such a beast exists; there's
always a spiritual dialectic.
> But I'd rather read Collins than King.
I find Collins ten times more insightful and original than Dickens and
only regret I didn't discover him until my thirties.
> I liked "Dead Zone" not because I identified with Walken's character so
> much as because I enjoy watching a great actor get something to bite into.
Oh, I identify with the realistic aspects of the character, for the
same reason I identified with the Great Unwasheds in the X Files.
> when King was finally given a chance to write a story for
> the show (which should have fit his abilities perfectly) what did we
> get? An absolutely unsatisfying rehash of a "devil doll" tale, without
> any of the humorous nuance of the rest of the series. A big pratfall...
Gratuitous gore and garbage.
> "Pirates of the Caribbean" for instance, an otherwise
> bloated and badly written piece of fluff. He is - however - fascinating
> to watch.
He should have won the Oscar for that role, which IMO is the only in
which his native pretentiousness doesn't manage to peep through.
David Oberman
>Except that it was a phenomenally dull, albeit faithful adaptation of
>the book. With that guy from Wings? Tried to watch it, really did, got
>dulled out.
Many of the later Kubrick adaptations for television are dull because
they treat King with such hallowed reverence -- "Storm of the Century"
was like a Masterpiece Theatre treatment of Thomas Hardy -- instead of
as just a mass-market scaremeister whose best scenes should be kept in
a tight, muscular TV adaptation & all the other stuff thrown out.
Sean O'Hara
>
> Magnus, Robot Fighter. wrote:
>
>> The Shining
>
>
> King didn't like it. I think it's a distinct improvement on the novel.
> Aggravating but challenging...
>
King's main complaint about the movie is well founded -- in the
novel, Jack Torrance has a temper but he's fundamentally a nice guy
who's trying to hold it in check until the hotel pushes him over the
edge, whereas Nicholson's portrayal is of a guy who's pretty much
bat-fuck from the beginning.
--
Sean O'Hara | http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com
"Quid est veritas?" Belbo asked.
"Us,"I said.
-Umberto Eco
/Foucault's Pendulum/
Sean O'Hara
declared:
> Dale Houstman wrote:
>
>>it's still "Carrie" and "Dead Zone" with
>>a marvelous Walken performamce. "Misery" is a lesser film perhaps, but
>>still a lot of fun with the two leads.
>
> The troubling thing about King is that he has an ability to evoke
> sadness and loneliness and poverty in a way that might have made him a
> genius if not for his way of forcing interesting characters into the
> most mediocre thriller plot.
>
If it weren't for those thriller plots, no one'd be reading him.
His books have just enough literary meat to raise him above John
Grisham and Tom Clancy, but still retain enough pot-boiler suspense
for him to be a massively popular writer. And likely as not, he's
going to remain popular after you, me, Clancy, and Harold Bloom are
worm-food.
--
Sean O'Hara | http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com
Barbara: Perhaps it's frozen.
Doctor: No, impossible... not in this temperature. Besides, it's too
warm.
-Doctor Who
John Harkness
wrote:
>In the Year of the Cock, the Great and Powerful Dale Houstman declared:
>>
>> Magnus, Robot Fighter. wrote:
>>
>>> The Shining
>>
>>
>> King didn't like it. I think it's a distinct improvement on the novel.
>> Aggravating but challenging...
>>
>
>King's main complaint about the movie is well founded -- in the
>novel, Jack Torrance has a temper but he's fundamentally a nice guy
>who's trying to hold it in check until the hotel pushes him over the
>edge, whereas Nicholson's portrayal is of a guy who's pretty much
>bat-fuck from the beginning.
He's not "fundamentally a nice guy" in the book--he's a dry alcoholic
with a history of abusive behaviour.
John Harkness
Dale Houstman
Don't be coy: the character in the film IS a criminal, and he has 'a
heart of gold." As far as the Roman Empire was concerned, Christ was a
criminal with a heart of gold also. And - besides - having a film with a
Christ figure in it doesn't make the film any better. It tends to make
it worst. Unless that film is "Life of Brian."
dmh
Dale Houstman
mut...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Dale Houstman wrote:
>
>>mut...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>The troubling thing about King is that he has an ability to evoke
>>>sadness and loneliness and poverty in a way that might have made him a
>>>genius if not for his way of forcing interesting characters into the
>>>most mediocre thriller plot.
>>
>>That's true, although evoking "sadness and loneliness and poverty" - as
>>admirable as this talent can be - isn't really the beginning of the road
>>to genius.
>
>
> Interpretations of "genius" are subjective. As a person who tries my
> darnedest to follow a spiritual leader, I believe the purpose of
> literature is largely didactic.
Then you're in for a lifetime of missing the most essential elements of
what literature is.
>For me the measure of an artist's
> greatness is his or her ability to inspire "pity and fear" in a way
> that uplifts and encourages rather than depresses and discourages.
That's maybe one of the worst ideas of what an artist is that I have
ever read.
>
> As someone whose parents were art students in the thick of Greenwich
> Village in the 50's-60's, I made a conscious rejection of
> art-for-art's-sake. I don't believe such a beast exists; there's
> always a spiritual dialectic.
Nope.
dmh
Magnus, Robot Fighter
Sean O'Hara
That's the complexity of his character -- he *is* a good man who
loves his family and doesn't want to hurt them, *and* he's a
recovering alcoholic with a violent, uncontrollable temper. But the
fact that he hates himself for being such an awful husband and
father shows that he is a decent person at heart -- and that's what
Nicholson failed to convey in the film.
--
Sean O'Hara | http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com
Steve: Oh yeah, the Prime Minister, eh? He sure has screwed up
things for Newfoundland. Life just hasn't been the same since he
made sodomy illegal.
-South Park
Sean O'Hara
>
>
>> First time I've heard a Christ Figure referred to as a 'criminal with a
>> heart of gold'.
>>
> Don't be coy: the character in the film IS a criminal, and he has 'a
> heart of gold." As far as the Roman Empire was concerned, Christ was a
> criminal with a heart of gold also. And - besides - having a film with a
> Christ figure in it doesn't make the film any better. It tends to make
> it worst.
Especially when the character's initials are J.C.! How hackneyed can
you get?
> Unless that film is "Life of Brian."
>
It can make The Day the Earth Stood Still a much more interesting
movie, *if* you're of the view that Klatu is a villain.
--
Sean O'Hara | http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com
Blessed is he who expects nothing, for he shall never be disappointed.
-Jonathan Swift
Dale Houstman
Charlton Heston thinks he is Christ: with a gun...
dmh
>
Dale Houstman
Sean O'Hara wrote:
> In the Year of the Cock, the Great and Powerful John Harkness declared:
>
>> On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 14:34:32 -0500, Sean O'Hara <sean...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> King's main complaint about the movie is well founded -- in the
>>> novel, Jack Torrance has a temper but he's fundamentally a nice guy
>>> who's trying to hold it in check until the hotel pushes him over the
>>> edge, whereas Nicholson's portrayal is of a guy who's pretty much
>>> bat-fuck from the beginning.
>>
>>
>> He's not "fundamentally a nice guy" in the book--he's a dry alcoholic
>> with a history of abusive behaviour.
>>
>
> That's the complexity of his character -- he *is* a good man who loves
> his family and doesn't want to hurt them, *and* he's a recovering
> alcoholic with a violent, uncontrollable temper. But the fact that he
> hates himself for being such an awful husband and father shows that he
> is a decent person at heart -- and that's what Nicholson failed to
> convey in the film.
>
Yes, but because that's not what the film is up to.
dmh
Dale Houstman
Sean O'Hara wrote:
> In the Year of the Cock, the Great and Powerful Dale Houstman declared:
>
>>
>> Magnus, Robot Fighter wrote:
>>
>>> First time I've heard a Christ Figure referred to as a 'criminal with a
>>> heart of gold'.
>>>
>> Don't be coy: the character in the film IS a criminal, and he has 'a
>> heart of gold." As far as the Roman Empire was concerned, Christ was a
>> criminal with a heart of gold also. And - besides - having a film with
>> a Christ figure in it doesn't make the film any better. It tends to
>> make it worst.
>
>
> Especially when the character's initials are J.C.! How hackneyed can you
> get?
>
>> Unless that film is "Life of Brian."
>>
>
> It can make The Day the Earth Stood Still a much more interesting movie,
> *if* you're of the view that Klatu is a villain.
>
He isn't is he? I don't need anything extra to make that film more
interesting; I find it immensely successful already.
If Klatu is Christ, who's Gort? Robin the Boy Wonder...
dmh
David Oberman
>His books have just enough literary meat to raise him above John
>Grisham and Tom Clancy, but still retain enough pot-boiler suspense
>for him to be a massively popular writer. And likely as not, he's
>going to remain popular after you, me, Clancy, and Harold Bloom are
>worm-food.
Eh. Maybe, but maybe not. The potboiler writers of yesteryear &
yestercentury tend to virtually all fade into obscurity, while the
more gifted artists are ever after published in paperback Penguin
editions!
John Harkness
wrote:
>In the Year of the Cock, the Great and Powerful mut...@yahoo.com
>declared:
>> Dale Houstman wrote:
>>
>>>it's still "Carrie" and "Dead Zone" with
>>>a marvelous Walken performamce. "Misery" is a lesser film perhaps, but
>>>still a lot of fun with the two leads.
>>
>> The troubling thing about King is that he has an ability to evoke
>> sadness and loneliness and poverty in a way that might have made him a
>> genius if not for his way of forcing interesting characters into the
>> most mediocre thriller plot.
>>
>
>If it weren't for those thriller plots, no one'd be reading him.
>
>His books have just enough literary meat to raise him above John
>Grisham and Tom Clancy, but still retain enough pot-boiler suspense
>for him to be a massively popular writer. And likely as not, he's
>going to remain popular after you, me, Clancy, and Harold Bloom are
>worm-food.
I wonder if you'd have said that about Dickens?
John Harkness
John Harkness
wrote:
>In the Year of the Cock, the Great and Powerful Dale Houstman declared:
>>
>> Magnus, Robot Fighter wrote:
>>
>>> First time I've heard a Christ Figure referred to as a 'criminal with a
>>> heart of gold'.
>>>
>> Don't be coy: the character in the film IS a criminal, and he has 'a
>> heart of gold." As far as the Roman Empire was concerned, Christ was a
>> criminal with a heart of gold also. And - besides - having a film with a
>> Christ figure in it doesn't make the film any better. It tends to make
>> it worst.
>
>Especially when the character's initials are J.C.! How hackneyed can
>you get?
>
>> Unless that film is "Life of Brian."
>>
>
>It can make The Day the Earth Stood Still a much more interesting
>movie, *if* you're of the view that Klatu is a villain.
Just about anything would make The Day The Earth Stood Still a more
interesting film.
John Harkness
mut...@yahoo.com
>
> If it weren't for those thriller plots, no one'd be reading him.
>
> His books have just enough literary meat to raise him above John
> Grisham and Tom Clancy, but still retain enough pot-boiler suspense
> for him to be a massively popular writer. And likely as not, he's
> going to remain popular after you, me, Clancy, and Harold Bloom are
> worm-food.
You raise the seminal question about popular literature. Is it the
thriller plots ALONE that made him the success he is? If it is, then
wouldn't Joe ThrillerWriter be as popular and rich and famous as
Stephen King? Most thriller writers aren't household names.
Joe ThrillerWriter may not create characters as pathetic as King's,
pathos that MAY be what makes them so appealing to (apparently) a great
number of people. In this case, very much like George Lucas in the
field of science fiction, he rises above the level of Joe
ThrillerWriter and has to be considered an artist if for no other
reason than that he (apparently) moves such great numbers of readers.
The only thing I find even mildly appealing about his canon is his
protagonists' misunderstood loneliness. However, since misunderstood
and lonely protagonists mitigate an atmosphere of suspense, I only
watch a King film if I'm in the mood to be depressed. Depression is
(for me) the hallmark of his body of work, so I can't consider him an
artist.
Sawfish
>In the Year of the Cock, the Great and Powerful John Harkness declared:
>> On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 14:34:32 -0500, Sean O'Hara <sean...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>King's main complaint about the movie is well founded -- in the
>>>novel, Jack Torrance has a temper but he's fundamentally a nice guy
>>>who's trying to hold it in check until the hotel pushes him over the
>>>edge, whereas Nicholson's portrayal is of a guy who's pretty much
>>>bat-fuck from the beginning.
>>
>> He's not "fundamentally a nice guy" in the book--he's a dry alcoholic
>> with a history of abusive behaviour.
>>
>That's the complexity of his character -- he *is* a good man who
>loves his family and doesn't want to hurt them, *and* he's a
>recovering alcoholic with a violent, uncontrollable temper. But the
>fact that he hates himself for being such an awful husband and
>father shows that he is a decent person at heart -- and that's what
>Nicholson failed to convey in the film.
But in the film, you can immeduiately see that Nicholson's character is
much less stable, and in coming to the hotel, you are slapped upside the
head that, contrary to their intent, goig up there for the winter is a bad
idea, a very bad idea. This sets up a sense of tension and foreboding and
Kubrick plays off of this for the remainder of the first half of the film.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. But give a man a boat,
a case of beer, and a few sticks of dynamite..." -- Sawfish
Sean O'Hara
You mean like James Fennimore Cooper, Rafael Sabatini, Alexander
Dumas, Jules Verne, Robert Louis Stevenson, Bram Stoker, Mary
Shelly, C.S. Forester, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Emily Bronte, H.G.
Wells, Daniel Dafoe, Victor Hugo, Raymond Chandler, Dashiel Hammett,
and Charles Dickens?
--
Sean O'Hara | http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com
Doctor: First things first, but not necessarily in that order
-Doctor Who
David Oberman
>> Eh. Maybe, but maybe not. The potboiler writers of yesteryear &
>> yestercentury tend to virtually all fade into obscurity, while the
>> more gifted artists are ever after published in paperback Penguin
>> editions!
>
>You mean like James Fennimore Cooper, Rafael Sabatini, Alexander
>Dumas, Jules Verne, Robert Louis Stevenson, Bram Stoker, Mary
>Shelly, C.S. Forester, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Emily Bronte, H.G.
>Wells, Daniel Dafoe, Victor Hugo, Raymond Chandler, Dashiel Hammett,
>and Charles Dickens?
Nobody ever plays fair with my point. Those are gifted writers -- some
slightly more so than King & others vastly more so (how anyone can
compare the writer of "Bleak House" to the writer of "Children of the
Corn" is beyond me). And if several of them wrote what were considered
potboilers in their day, posterity & reappraisal have raised their
work, & very few of them are still considered potboiler writers today.
Time does a pretty good job of finally winnowing out the chaff: Henry
Adams survives, not Thomas Nelson Page; as does Walt Whitman, not
Henry Howard Brownell.
Dale Houstman
To each thir own: to me it looks great, has a nice story, several good
performances, and a fantastic sound track. It couldn't be better IMHO.
dmh
Magnus, Robot Fighter
Sean O'Hara wrote:
> In the Year of the Cock, the Great and Powerful Dale Houstman declared:
> >
> > Magnus, Robot Fighter wrote:
> >
> >> First time I've heard a Christ Figure referred to as a 'criminal with a
> >> heart of gold'.
> >>
> > Don't be coy: the character in the film IS a criminal, and he has 'a
> > heart of gold." As far as the Roman Empire was concerned, Christ was a
> > criminal with a heart of gold also. And - besides - having a film with a
> > Christ figure in it doesn't make the film any better. It tends to make
> > it worst.
>
> Especially when the character's initials are J.C.! How hackneyed can
> you get?
>
And heals and was innocent but put to death anyway....etc...
Never said it made the story better. And he's only a criminal if you
define criminal as one convicted and not one having commited a crime.
He was innocent 'member?
Jim S.
> Magnus, Robot Fighter wrote:
> >>>Why? I liked Green Mile
> >>
> >>Go ahead. It's your time to throw away. It contains another bland
> >>performance by Tom Hanks, and a load of sentimental hooey about
> >>"criminals with hearts of gold" that is hard to swallow. Plus - as
> >>cinema - it just sits there looking as dull as possible.
> >>
> >
> >
> > First time I've heard a Christ Figure referred to as a 'criminal with a
> > heart of gold'.
> >
>
> Don't be coy: the character in the film IS a criminal,
No, he's not. He was not the person who murdered the little girls. He was
wrongly convicted. How could you have missed that?!
--
Jim S.
Magnus, Robot Fighter.
Children of the Corn (I'm guessing you're talking about the short
story) is fine.
King's a good writer, sometimes great (Dead Zone, some of his short
stories, a couple of Bachman books, Different Seasons)...actually the
best thing he's ever written is the nonfiction Danse Macabre.
Dale Houstman
"Criminal" is a legal term. He was convicted (erroneously enough) but is
still a criminal. All this Christ stuff (which I knew about anyway) only
makes me hate the film more, if that is possible.
dmh
Dale Houstman
I didn't honcho: "criminal" is a legal term. He was convicted of the
crime: he's a criminal. although not as criminal as Stephen King, Tom
Hanks, and the director.
dmh
Magnus, Robot Fighter
And the Green Mile is? Metaphoriclly?
Dale Houstman
Don't know exactly what you're asking... If you're suggesting the rather
obvious idea that the Green Mile is the 14 stations of the cross, I can
only say how banal that is as an "idea" (on the part of the film's
creators and of king himself). It's just an unworkable piece of hokum...
dmh
dmh
>
The Space Boss
mute...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I don't know why I do the things I do, but I got Secret Window (for
> free at my library) because someone on this or ramcf said it would be a
> good autumnal movie. I don't know why the person who suggested it as
> autumnal considered it autumnal; maybe because it's set in woodlands.
> But it's not autumnal.
>
> Johnny Depp annoys the living bejesus out of me. Is he American?
> Where was he born and what's his background, and where do Americans
> like him and Malkovich develop accents they're not born with?
I can't stand him. I don't know what the fuss is all about. Maybe I
just don't like the characters he plays.
mut...@yahoo.com
> mut...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >For me the measure of an artist's
> > greatness is his or her ability to inspire "pity and fear" in a way
> > that uplifts and encourages rather than depresses and discourages.
>
> That's maybe one of the worst ideas of what an artist is that I have
> ever read.
Well, I enclosed "pity and fear" in quotation marks because at least
part of my view comes from a heavy-hitter in the world of Deep
Thoughts.
> > As someone whose parents were art students in the thick of Greenwich
> > Village in the 50's-60's, I made a conscious rejection of
> > art-for-art's-sake. I don't believe such a beast exists; there's
> > always a spiritual dialectic.
>
> Nope.
Yep. :)
lensm...@hotmail.com
John Harkness wrote:> >> Magnus, Robot Fighter. wrote:
> >> > On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 20:10:13 -0600, Dale Houstman <dm...@skypoint.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>mut...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>I don't know why I do the things I do, but I got Secret Window (for
> >> >>>free at my library) because someone on this or ramcf said it would be a
> >> >>>good autumnal movie. I don't know why the person who suggested it as
> >> >>>autumnal considered it autumnal; maybe because it's set in woodlands.
> >> >>>But it's not autumnal.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Johnny Depp annoys the living bejesus out of me. Is he American?
> >> >>>Where was he born and what's his background, and where do Americans
> >> >>>like him and Malkovich develop accents they're not born with?
> >> >>>
> >> >>>King other than The Shawshank Redemption. Grisham last weekend, King
> >> >>>this weekend. What a depressing fall season it's been for me.
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >>I like Depp's work a lot, and - although I dislike most of the films
> >> >>made from King's work (well - I dislike most of his work also), I
> >> >>thought I'd give this one a chance. Awful! The story is pure hokum, and
> >> >>not in the least as surprising as it should have been. Of the films made
> >> >
> >> >>from King novels worth seeing, it's still "Carrie" and "Dead Zone" with
> >> >
> >> >>a marvelous Walken performamce. "Misery" is a lesser film perhaps, but
> >> >>still a lot of fun with the two leads.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Stand By Me
> >> > Misery
> >> > Carrie
> >> > Dead Zone (only for Walken)
> >>
> >> Oh, I don't know: the story is handled very well.
> >>
> >> > Shawshank Redmption
> >>
> >> I know people love this film: I think it's pure sentimental tripe.
> >>
> >> > The Green Mile
> >>
> >> Horrid...
> >
> >Why? I liked Green Mile
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> King didn't like it. I think it's a distinct improvement on the novel.
> >> Aggravating but challenging...
> >
> >Again, why? The characters in the film had nothing like the depth of
> >the characters in the novel. The television movie was a vast improvment
> >over the film and added the redemption of the father (if I can allude
> >to that without giving to much away!) which was missing from the novel.
> >>
> >> dmh
>
> Except that it was a phenomenally dull, albeit faithful adaptation of
> the book. With that guy from Wings? Tried to watch it, really did, got
> dulled out.
>
> I'll take the Kubrick, and I'm not even a Kubrick fan!
>
> John Harkness
Wasn't dulled by it at all. If anything, Kubrick's version bored me.
But I guess that's why there's horse races!
lensm...@hotmail.com
> performance by Tom Hanks, and a load of sentimental hooey about
> "criminals with hearts of gold" that is hard to swallow. Plus - as
> cinema - it just sits there looking as dull as possible.
>
> >
> >>
> >>King didn't like it. I think it's a distinct improvement on the novel.
> >>Aggravating but challenging...
> >
> >
> > Again, why? The characters in the film had nothing like the depth of
> > the characters in the novel. The television movie was a vast improvment
> > over the film and added the redemption of the father (if I can allude
> > to that without giving to much away!) which was missing from the novel.
> >
>
> "redemption." The film's skirting and confusion of these issues is what
> makes it more interesting as art. King's a hack. Kubrick isn't. I didn't
> care to find "depth" in the characters because - as King characters -
> they are caricatures to begin with, and their situations are the stuff
> of any third-rate writer's imagination. The movie is aggravating in its
> attempt to undermine the rather standard ghost story of the novel, and
> so is much more challenging as art.
>
> dmh
Fair assessment. I like King's work. I haven't seen too much of
Kubrick's, but what I have seen hasn't impressed me from a "story
telling" point of view. The man was certainly a genius, but one best
taken in certainly small doses!
lensm...@hotmail.com
I'm trying to remember who the "criminal with the heart of gold" was.
Certainly wasn't Coffey, or the blonde guy. The Indian character was
treated sympatheticlly, but certainly wasn't portrayed as having a
"heart of gold."
lensm...@hotmail.com
Magnus, Robot Fighter wrote:
> > >
> > > Why? I liked Green Mile
> >
> > Go ahead. It's your time to throw away. It contains another bland
> > performance by Tom Hanks, and a load of sentimental hooey about
> > "criminals with hearts of gold" that is hard to swallow. Plus - as
> > cinema - it just sits there looking as dull as possible.
> >
>
> heart of gold'.
Especially since Coffey is certainly not a "criminal." A prisoner, yes,
but not a criminal in any sense of the word!
Magnus, Robot Fighter
No. It's life. A 'Green Mile'.
"We all have to walk a Green Mile before we're done. But Lord help me,
it's long."
lensm...@hotmail.com
John Harkness wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 14:34:32 -0500, Sean O'Hara <sean...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In the Year of the Cock, the Great and Powerful Dale Houstman declared:
> >>
> >>
> >>> The Shining
> >>
> >>
> >> King didn't like it. I think it's a distinct improvement on the novel.
> >> Aggravating but challenging...
> >>
> >
> >novel, Jack Torrance has a temper but he's fundamentally a nice guy
> >who's trying to hold it in check until the hotel pushes him over the
> >edge, whereas Nicholson's portrayal is of a guy who's pretty much
> >bat-fuck from the beginning.
>
> He's not "fundamentally a nice guy" in the book--he's a dry alcoholic
> with a history of abusive behaviour.
>
Who regrets what he's done in the past and is trying to get himself
cleaned up. He's hardly a "paragon," but he's trying to be better.
lensm...@hotmail.com
Dale Houstman wrote:
> Magnus, Robot Fighter wrote:
> >>
> >>Go ahead. It's your time to throw away. It contains another bland
> >>performance by Tom Hanks, and a load of sentimental hooey about
> >>"criminals with hearts of gold" that is hard to swallow. Plus - as
> >>cinema - it just sits there looking as dull as possible.
> >>
> >
> >
> > heart of gold'.
> >
>
> Don't be coy: the character in the film IS a criminal, and he has 'a
> heart of gold." As far as the Roman Empire was concerned, Christ was a
> criminal with a heart of gold also. And - besides - having a film with a
> Christ figure in it doesn't make the film any better. It tends to make
>
> dmh
s
p
o
i
l
e
r
Why is he a "criminal?" He's arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced
to be executed for a crime he didn't commit! Where is his criminal
behavior?
lensm...@hotmail.com
That's really splitting hairs! A criminal is a person who commits
criminal acts, not some poor schulb who got grabbed and convicted based
on bad legal procedures!
Dale Houstman
Heh. Don't misunderstand me: I don't really like the idea of "art for
art's sake" either (although on one seems to protest the idea of
"business for business' sake, or "money for money's sake"), but I do
reject the use of the word "spiritual" as it applies here. One can
define the word so widely that it means little or nothing, but the fact
is it implies divine nature, and I can tell you for a fact that there
are plenty of artists who simply do not believe in "spiritual" values as
an essential component of their lives or their work. If one simply
substitutes the word "imaginative" for "spiritual" I would concur,
because no one really does "art for art's sake" but for the sake of
engaging in an imaginative dialectic.
dmh
>
David Oberman
>because no one really does "art for art's sake"
Well, I do.
mut...@yahoo.com
>
> One can
> define the word so widely that it means little or nothing, but the fact
> is it implies divine nature, and I can tell you for a fact that there
> are plenty of artists who simply do not believe in "spiritual" values as
> an essential component of their lives or their work.
Without being fey or troll-like, I'd respond that it doesn't matter if
artists don't believe their work has spiritual values. I'm not arguing
about matters of taste here--e.g., someone like the kid brother in My
Name is Earl who thinks Smokey and the Bandit is the best film ever
made. I never saw Smokey, but either its subject matter, its treatment
of minority and/or female characters who appeared in it, and its
resolution were respectful of the human community or they weren't.
If you compare, say, Jude the Obscure with House of Sand and Fog, you
have two tragedies. The miseries and carnage in the first are
gratuitous and absolutely without purpose; those in House of Sand and
Fog are inevitable, heartbreaking, and instructive.
Two tragedies, one essentially wicked, one essentially, well, tragic.
> If one simply
> substitutes the word "imaginative" for "spiritual" I would concur,
> because no one really does "art for art's sake" but for the sake of
> engaging in an imaginative dialectic.
It's rather Panglossian :) to think that something as labyrinthine as
the human imagination is a tabula rasa that produces mere (and
therefore "pure") forms and substance. The human imagination doesn't
exist in the best of all possible worlds, and therefore, its products
tend either toward the glorification of the human spirit or toward its
degradation.
If fundamentalists take this fact to extremes, you come up with Left
Behind and the Rapture cottage industry films as the only you'll
appreciate. There are degrees of separation from fanaticism even among
true believers. As C.S. Lewis is famous for saying, when the Rapture
finally does occur, it's likely there'll be an awful lot of surprises
and that even porn with joie de vivre will for example get its maker
into heaven before the geniuses and knights associated with the tales
of Hannibal Lecter.
Dale Houstman
I wouldn't argue with you about it. I'd just say that one doesn't really
produce art "merely" to produce art, but because it either satisfies
some need in them, expresses some otherwise inchoate emotion or idea,
etc. I never really understood the phrase (as a perjorative) anyway.
What would be wrong if art were produced just for art's sake? It seems
worth doing.
dmh
Dale Houstman
mut...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Dale Houstman wrote:
>
>>One can
>>define the word so widely that it means little or nothing, but the fact
>>is it implies divine nature, and I can tell you for a fact that there
>>are plenty of artists who simply do not believe in "spiritual" values as
>>an essential component of their lives or their work.
>
>
> Without being fey or troll-like, I'd respond that it doesn't matter if
> artists don't believe their work has spiritual values. I'm not arguing
> about matters of taste here--e.g., someone like the kid brother in My
> Name is Earl who thinks Smokey and the Bandit is the best film ever
> made. I never saw Smokey, but either its subject matter, its treatment
> of minority and/or female characters who appeared in it, and its
> resolution were respectful of the human community or they weren't.
>
> If you compare, say, Jude the Obscure with House of Sand and Fog, you
> have two tragedies. The miseries and carnage in the first are
> gratuitous and absolutely without purpose; those in House of Sand and
> Fog are inevitable, heartbreaking, and instructive.
> Two tragedies, one essentially wicked, one essentially, well, tragic.
I've read Hardy and seen that movie: the movie (especially the end) is
fairly gratuitous: the sudden outburst of violences at the end destroys
(for me) what had been a very interesting chracter study. Hardy - on the
other hand - is always intriguing, especially in his understanding of
capricious "fate." This is how ideas of "spirituality" can mislead one's
critical faculties. The world isn't "spiritual" as much as it is just
"there."
>
>
>>If one simply
>>substitutes the word "imaginative" for "spiritual" I would concur,
>>because no one really does "art for art's sake" but for the sake of
>>engaging in an imaginative dialectic.
>
>
> It's rather Panglossian :)
It's always nice to reference Voltaire...
>to think that something as labyrinthine as
> the human imagination is a tabula rasa that produces mere (and
> therefore "pure") forms and substance.
Who's talking "purity"? Art isn't "pure" (whatever that could mean), and
neither is the human imagination, which - after all - has created ALL
the gods and monsters of religion over the generations of mankind. And I
have no idea why you bring in "tabula rasa" since I certainly do not
equate imagination with a blank slate. After all, it has the resources
to make up from whole cloth the various forms of "human spirit."
> The human imagination doesn't
> exist in the best of all possible worlds, and therefore, its products
> tend either toward the glorification of the human spirit or toward its
> degradation.
You say so. There is no "human spirit" as far as I'm concerned. And it
is precisely the "labyrinthic" quality of the human imagination that
makes art possible and infinitely evolving.
>
> If fundamentalists take this fact to extremes, you come up with Left
> Behind and the Rapture cottage industry films as the only you'll
> appreciate. There are degrees of separation from fanaticism even among
> true believers. As C.S. Lewis is famous for saying, when the Rapture
> finally does occur, it's likely there'll be an awful lot of surprises
> and that even porn with joie de vivre will for example get its maker
> into heaven before the geniuses and knights associated with the tales
> of Hannibal Lecter.
I love the fake precision and hair-splitting that goes into religious
"thought" all the medieival "how many angels can dance onthe head of a
pin" mental energy wasted on imaginary creations of the human mind. It's
diverting no doubt. We can also discuss "the Tao of Pooh" or why Godot
never showed up...
dmh
John Harkness
wrote:
>
>
>David Oberman wrote:
>> Dale Houstman <dm...@skypoint.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>because no one really does "art for art's sake"
>>
>>
>> Well, I do.
>
>I wouldn't argue with you about it. I'd just say that one doesn't really
>produce art "merely" to produce art, but because it either satisfies
>some need in them, expresses some otherwise inchoate emotion or idea,
>etc.
Don't forget "to get paid."
Just ask Michelangelo, Raffael, Mozart or Beethoven. Or the supremely
spritual Bach, whose letters are mostly of they "I need more money"
variety.
John Harkness
Dale Houstman
Money has its incentive power no doubt, but the truth is the vast
majority of artists continue creating their art despite an almost total
lack of financial recompense. Dr. Samule Johnson once famously said that
a man would be a fool to write for any other reason but money, yet for
the majority of his career he produced work for little or no pay. As did
Van Gogh. And the thousands upon thousands of other srtists who have
never achieved famous name status. Needing money and doing art FOR money
are not the same thing.
dmh
mut...@yahoo.com
> I've read Hardy and seen that movie: the movie (especially the end) is
> fairly gratuitous: the sudden outburst of violences at the end destroys
> (for me) what had been a very interesting chracter study. Hardy - on the
> other hand - is always intriguing, especially in his understanding of
> capricious "fate."
It's a common misconception that this dude understood capricious fate.
He jury-rigged melodrama so that the worst possible outcome *always*
occurred. This is as sophomoric as a Barbara Cartland romance. I'm
afraid anyone who strikes dour Byronic poses automatically qualifies as
a Deep Thinker with most of the reading/filmgoing public. It's not
true.
> Who's talking "purity"? Art isn't "pure" (whatever that could mean), and
> neither is the human imagination, which - after all - has created ALL
> the gods and monsters of religion over the generations of mankind. And I
> have no idea why you bring in "tabula rasa" since I certainly do not
> equate imagination with a blank slate. After all, it has the resources
> to make up from whole cloth the various forms of "human spirit."
I just saw The Quiet American, and to quote a germane insight by a
Vietnamese character in that film: "At some point, Mr. Fowler, one must
choose sides if one is to remain human." Either you're being
disingenuous or you don't realize that you're contradicting yourself.
You *are* arguing that art is "pure" when you say art can exist for
art's sake.
All I'm saying is that in EVERY major human undertaking such as the
creation of a work of art--novel, film, play, painting, etc.--there is
an agenda. Every single one.
I'm beginning to feel bad, though, because the agenda underlying my
responses/your responses has been polite and respectful, and I
appreciate that.
> I love the fake precision and hair-splitting that goes into religious
> "thought" all the medieival "how many angels can dance onthe head of a
> pin" mental energy wasted on imaginary creations of the human mind. It's
> diverting no doubt. We can also discuss "the Tao of Pooh" or why Godot
> never showed up...
It's not a waste of mental energy. If more people took imaginative
integrity seriously, and (to bring Alexander Pope into the equation),
if less people followed Fashion in their decision as to what does and
does not constitute "Art," there'd actually be much more real Art to go
around.
David Oberman
>It's not a waste of mental energy. If more people took imaginative
>integrity seriously, and (to bring Alexander Pope into the equation),
>if less people followed Fashion in their decision as to what does and
>does not constitute "Art," there'd actually be much more real Art to go
>around.
What in the fuck are you two talking about?
mut...@yahoo.com
>
> What in the fuck are you two talking about?
Deep Thoughts. :)
Dale Houstman
mut...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Dale Houstman wrote:
>
>
>>I've read Hardy and seen that movie: the movie (especially the end) is
>>fairly gratuitous: the sudden outburst of violences at the end destroys
>>(for me) what had been a very interesting chracter study. Hardy - on the
>>other hand - is always intriguing, especially in his understanding of
>>capricious "fate."
>
>
> It's a common misconception that this dude understood capricious fate.
> He jury-rigged melodrama so that the worst possible outcome *always*
> occurred. This is as sophomoric as a Barbara Cartland romance. I'm
> afraid anyone who strikes dour Byronic poses automatically qualifies as
> a Deep Thinker with most of the reading/filmgoing public. It's not
> true.
I've read a lot of Hardy, and disagree. so be it.
>
>
>>Who's talking "purity"? Art isn't "pure" (whatever that could mean), and
>>neither is the human imagination, which - after all - has created ALL
>>the gods and monsters of religion over the generations of mankind. And I
>>have no idea why you bring in "tabula rasa" since I certainly do not
>>equate imagination with a blank slate. After all, it has the resources
>>to make up from whole cloth the various forms of "human spirit."
>
>
> I just saw The Quiet American, and to quote a germane insight by a
> Vietnamese character in that film: "At some point, Mr. Fowler, one must
> choose sides if one is to remain human." Either you're being
> disingenuous or you don't realize that you're contradicting yourself.
> You *are* arguing that art is "pure" when you say art can exist for
> art's sake.
No, I'm not, any more than I would be arguing that profit is "pure" when
I say profit can exist for profit's sake. The entire notion of "purity"
is yours: it doesn't "signify" to me, so I don't really feel I have to
argue the point. And - if you read closer - you'll see that I'm NOT in
fact arguing for ther concept of "art for art's sake" (I only said that
the idea didn't offend me), but "art for imagination's sake." You can
substitute "spirituality" there if it makes you feel comfortable. I
couldn't care less on that point. The human imagination is always
organizing itself into one system or another; spirituality is one.
>
> All I'm saying is that in EVERY major human undertaking such as the
> creation of a work of art--novel, film, play, painting, etc.--there is
> an agenda. Every single one.
Saying art ALWAYS has a "spiritual dichotomy" is NOT the same as saying
there is always an agenda. It is an indentification of the nature of
that agenda. One which I don't agree with. Obviously, anyone setting out
to create something might be termed to have an "agenda" (the switch of
lingo from religiosity to business is jarring), although that agenda
might well be as vague as "let's see what happens." I ought to know;
I've been an artists most of my life, and this "agenda" is a common one
with myself, and not a few of my friends. If one can term such
aleatory/chance attitudes as an "agenda" no argument. But it still ain't
"spiritual."
>
> I'm beginning to feel bad, though, because the agenda underlying my
> responses/your responses has been polite and respectful, and I
> appreciate that.
>
>
>>I love the fake precision and hair-splitting that goes into religious
>>"thought" all the medieival "how many angels can dance onthe head of a
>>pin" mental energy wasted on imaginary creations of the human mind. It's
>>diverting no doubt. We can also discuss "the Tao of Pooh" or why Godot
>>never showed up...
>
>
> It's not a waste of mental energy. If more people took imaginative
> integrity seriously, and (to bring Alexander Pope into the equation),
> if less people followed Fashion in their decision as to what does and
> does not constitute "Art," there'd actually be much more real Art to go
> around.
>
I said I "loved it" and I meant it. "Mental waste" is something I know a
lot about too!
dmh
dmh
mut...@yahoo.com
> > creation of a work of art--novel, film, play, painting, etc.--there is
> > an agenda. Every single one.
>
> Saying art ALWAYS has a "spiritual dichotomy" is NOT the same as saying
> there is always an agenda. It is an indentification of the nature of
> that agenda. One which I don't agree with. Obviously, anyone setting out
> to create something might be termed to have an "agenda" (the switch of
> lingo from religiosity to business is jarring), although that agenda
> might well be as vague as "let's see what happens." I ought to know;
> I've been an artists most of my life, and this "agenda" is a common one
> with myself, and not a few of my friends. If one can term such
> aleatory/chance attitudes as an "agenda" no argument. But it still ain't
> "spiritual."
Yeah, but Dale, since you admit that "the switch of lingo from
religiosity to business is jarring"--well, WHY is it jarring? Is
religiosity always purty, and business always grubby and quotidian and
semi-embarrassing?
I detect a compartmentalization on your part of admirable human
pursuits and necessary evils. If I'm correct, then it's possible you
regard the life of the imagination as somehow sacrosanct and magically
preserved from corruption. My Calvin-esque way of thinking is more
dour and makes me more cynical than you perhaps are; and I will hold
with my opinion that there are spiritual agendas to every film ever
created (as well as to every novel and play and epic poem ever written
or passed on from court homer to court homer).
Well, "lat be," as Chaucer would say :).
Bill Vermillion
Dale Houstman <dm...@skypoint.com> wrote:
>
>
>mut...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> I don't know why I do the things I do, but I got Secret Window (for
>> free at my library) because someone on this or ramcf said it would be a
>> good autumnal movie. I don't know why the person who suggested it as
>> autumnal considered it autumnal; maybe because it's set in woodlands.
>> But it's not autumnal.
>> Johnny Depp annoys the living bejesus out of me. Is he American?
>> Where was he born and what's his background, and where do Americans
>> like him and Malkovich develop accents they're not born with?
>> I have only myself to blame for watching anything written by Stephen
>> King other than The Shawshank Redemption. Grisham last weekend, King
>> this weekend. What a depressing fall season it's been for me.
>I like Depp's work a lot, and - although I dislike most of the
>films made from King's work (well - I dislike most of his work
>also), I thought I'd give this one a chance. Awful! The story is
>pure hokum, and not in the least as surprising as it should have
>been. Of the films made from King novels worth seeing, it's still
>"Carrie" and "Dead Zone" with a marvelous Walken performamce.
>"Misery" is a lesser film perhaps, but still a lot of fun with
>the two leads.
There have been a lot of films made from King's work.
My favorties are The Shining, Misery, and Hearts in Atlantis.
IMDB shows 98 films with King's credits.
Bill
--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com