IN: Review: The alternate title of Ecstasy, is Symphony of Love; a title which appropriately describes the mood and feel of the film. Ecstasy is an early talkie, and could have very well been a classic film, if released during the silent film era. This film is a visual treat, and is deliberately paced so the viewer can savour its sensuous lyric quality, which is presented in an artistic low-key fashion. The director's style is distinctly European. The subject matter and approach to sexuality was far more sophisticated, than what was being produced in Hollywood, at that time. Consider the censorship code in the US, during the 30's, that pretty much sums it up. Hedy Lamarr, one of the great beauties of all time, was a perfect choice for this 'Symphony of Love.'
What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: Stage adaptations often have a major fault. They often come out looking like a film camera was simply placed on the stage (Such as "Night Mother"). Sidney Lumet's direction keeps the film alive, which is especially difficult since the picture offered him no real challenge. Still, it's nice to look at for what it is. The chemistry between Michael Caine and Christopher Reeve is quite brilliant. The dynamics of their relationship are surprising. Caine is fantastic as always, and Reeve gets one of his few chances to really act.

I confess that I've never seen Ira Levin's play, but I hear that Jay Presson Allen's adaptation is faithful. The script is incredibly convoluted, and keeps you guessing. "Deathtrap" is an enormously entertaining film, and is recommended for nearly all fans of stage and screen.

7.4 out of 10
What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: At times, this overtakes The Thing as my favourite horror film. While Carpenter's film is the more efficient and more entertaining flick, Kubrick's is more artistic, more thought-provoking, and probably scarier. It's one of the few films where I can look past its flaws and truly and wholly love it. I try not to compare it to the book which I've only read once, a number of years ago, and which scared me to death because the two don't have a lot in common, besides the story and characters obviously. It's almost as if Kubrick was banking on people's love of the novel in order to make his film more frightening. And it that way, it's certainly one of the most interesting book adaptations ever made, as well as one of the greatest horror films.

What makes the film so terrifying is not the jump scares, not the blood and gore, not the various ghosts that pop up from time to time. It's the destruction of Jack Torrence. Some people have complained about the casting of Nicholson in this role, saying that it's too obvious that he's going to go crazy in the film, given his past roles and his appearance. I disagree. We know he's going to go crazy since most of us have read the book and Jack's appearance only furthers this notion. But it's the way he acts at the beginning that makes us truly scared. He's calm, quiet, patient. He engages in inane small talk with the hotel managers and even with his own family. And with a wife and son as irritating as his, it's a small wonder that he manages to do so. But once he gets to the Overlook, he changes. He becomes irritable, angry, on edge. The scene that always shocks me is when Wendy interrupts him typing, and he utterly loses it, telling her to "leave him the f*** alone". This is the first f-bomb dropped in the film, and it's a shock to the system. From then on, all bets are off.

Another thing I love is the multiple interpretations present in the film. We're never really sure if what we're seeing is actually happening. Many critics have noted that whenever Jack talks to a ghost, there's a mirror present, showing that he may as well be talking to himself. But what of the other characters? Wendy never sees anything until the film's climax, until she is given a tour of the hotel's many ghostly inhabitants, but she is well aware that something is wrong, while Danny connects with the place almost immediately. His psychic powers are not in question how else would Hallorann know to come to the hotel? but does he ever see any of the ghosts that his parents witness? It's easy to claim that Jack merely loses it, being trapped in a hotel with his family, and Wendy later does as well seeing your husband attempt to kill you with an axe will do that but what of Danny? It appears that his body is taken over by Tony, but how do we know for sure? None of these characters are reliable witnesses. Hallorann probably would be, and he warns of the dangers in 237, but he's killed as soon as he arrives at the Overlook (a scare Kubrick achieves by playing on the assumptions of fans of the novel). And that final shot. Has there ever been a more enigmatic ending in cinema? Has Jack really been there before? Or was his body merely 'absorbed' into the hotel? When talking about the acting in this film, any discussion begins and ends with Jack Nicholson. Shelley Duvall gives one of the most annoying performances in cinematic history probably on purpose, to give Jack's character more of a reason to snap and Danny Lloyd is no better, but Jack is a powerhouse. Part method, part improvisation, he's simultaneously terrifying and appealing. For better or for worse, he's the character with whom we identify with, not the annoying kid or nagging wife. We all want to have a hotel to ourselves for a season, be able to do whatever we want. Who cares if it's haunted? Of course, the technical aspects are terrific. Kubrick's long takes, strange angles, and bizarre imagery all contribute to the horror. The use of colour, mirrors, long hallways, and every other motif only heightens this. And don't even get me started on that score. I don't know if the film would be half as scary without that haunting, electronic tune. Its strangeness perfectly reflects the hotel, the mood, and the entire film itself.

I know King doesn't like this film, but King's input on cinema is nothing to brag about. As great of a novel writer he may be, his screenplays are terrible, and his attempt at directing is better left unnoticed. This is not a very faithful book adaptation, but it doesn't need to be, and it really shouldn't. Part of the horror of the film is that the viewer doesn't have the book to fall back on; there's no reassuring source material. Kubrick masterfully alters the narrative to terrify the audience even more. If only for that, this is one of the most innovative films in any genre. And it's got everything else on top of that.
What is this review like?
OUT:
positive