Q: Sometimes it takes a film-making master like Kubrick to bring that extra little something, that unique, untractable and elusive ingredient that transforms a great movie or a great script into a masterpiece, one for the ages.

It's not just that Stephen King's story has enough meat and potatoes making it difficult for even the most workmanlike of directors to miss. Heck, even King himself didn't fare so bad. It's how Kubrick perceives King's universe, how he transforms the page into screen time, that renders THE SHINING both a visual feast and a compacted masterclass in directing.

Kubrick's miss-en-scene is, as usually, terrific. The movie progresses with a brisk, sharp, lively pace, even though it's neither fast nor heavily edited and it clocks at no less than 160 minutes. The camera prowls through the lavish corridors of the Overlook Hotel like it is some kind of mystic labyrinth rife for exploration, linear tracking shots exposing the impeccably decorated interiors in all their grandeur. There's a symmetry and geometrical approach in how Kubrick perceives space that reminds me very much of how Japanese directors worked in the sixties. As if what is depicted is inconsequential to how all the different elements are balanced inside the frame.

Certain images definitely stand out. The first shot of Jack's typewriter, accompanied off screen from the thumps of a ball, like drums of doom coming from some other floor or produced by the typewriter itself as though it is an instrument of doom all by itself, later on proving to be nothing short of just that. A red river flowing through the hotel's elevators in slow motion. Jack hitting the door with the axe, the camera moving along with him, tracking the action as it happens instead of remaining static, as though it's the camera piercing through the door and not the axe. The ultra fast zoom in the kid's face thrusting us inside his head before we see the two dead girls from his POV. And of course, the bathroom scene.

Much has been said of Jack Nicholson's obtrusive overacting. His mad is not entirely successful, because, well, he's Jack Nicholson. The guy looks half-mad anyway. Playing mad turns him into an exaggerated caricature of himself. Shelley Duvall on the other hand is one of the most inspired casting choices Kubrick ever had. Coming from a streak of fantastic performances for Robert Altman in the seventies (3 WOMEN, THIEVES LIKE US, NASHVILLE), she brings to her character the right amounts of fragility and emotional distress. A terrific and very underrated actress.
A: positive
Q: To say this film stinks would be insulting to skunks. As the other commenter says, this movie is insulting to anyone over the mental age of 7 (it is especially, incredibly insulting to gays). It is awful - and not in a "so bad it's funny" sort of way either - it's just plain awful. No, I have to say it: IT STINKS! (sorry skunks).

From the opening credits to the end titles there is hardly more than 10 seconds of this movie worth opening your eyes for. The "plot" is incoherent, the characterization non-existent, the acting is of the over the top mugging "look at me I'm being funny!" school and so it goes on. The set pieces are clumsily set up (if at all) and are badly executed, it's just awful on every front - apart from the music maybe, I don't remember thinking the music stinks (apart from the songs).

To be fair to the makers, they lay their cards on the table pretty quickly: the opening credits include the title "Also starring Ertha Kitt as the voice of Betty the meteor" (since as the meteor in question turns out never never say anything but make an occasional purring noise they may well have lifted Ms. Kitt's contribution from one of her records) and the second line of the movie runs something like: "...and scientists have discovered new facts about the rings around Uranus." Uranus - "Your Anus" geddit? geddit? huh? huh?? Your Anus? The humour really is that cheap.

It says strange things about the "comedies" of that period in that it was perfectly permissable for the hero to deliberately shoot people dead in the street but not say "sh*t" out loud.

I paid fifty pence (about $1.00) for this movie in a sale. I feel ripped off.
A: negative
Q: It is fitting on a musical Sunday to get your heart a pumping, and no one can do that better than Little Richard. The man could sing the drawers off the ladies and defined rock and roll.

Look to Leon to provide a definitive characterization, as he has done so with David Ruffin in The Temptations and Jackie Wilson in Mr. Rock 'n' Roll: The Alan Freed Story.

This was a fascinating biopic as we saw Little Richard struggle with his father, with his church and with himself over just who he was. He won the battle and there is no one else that has his voice or his style.
A: positive
Q: "Don't Drink the Water" is an unbelievably bad film. It's based on a 1966 Broadway play by Woody Allen. It stars Jackie Gleason, the comic genius behind "The Honeymooners". The director, Howard Morris, has appeared in several Mel Brooks comedies (Life Stinks, High Anxiety, Silent Movie)and has made a mark in animation (characters he has voiced include Gopher from "Pooh", Jughead (Archie)and Beetle Bailey) What went wrong?

I think the problem is that the premise is played out too seriously to work effectively. Allen's original play was tongue-in-cheek, which is why it worked on Broadway and in Allen's 1994 remake. The screenplay by R.S. Allen and Harvey Bullock beats the premise to death and makes too many changes from the original play. Making Gleason's wife an airhead in this version when she was a headstrong woman in the original is just one example of why this doesn't work.

The acting isn't much better. Gleason does the best he can with the material, but he can't save this. Gleason was a comic genius , but also a fine actor as he demonstrated in "The Hustler" and "Soldier in the Rain". His abrasive personality could have worked here, but the lousy script doesn't even give him a chance. Too bad. Estelle Parsons' airhead wife will drive you nuts after 20 minutes. See how soon it'll take for YOU to want to strangle her. That is also a shame because she is also a fine actress, having turned in two exceptional performances in "Bonnie and Clyde" and "Rachel, Rachel" None of the other actors do particularly well either.

Woody Allen hated this film so much that he remade the film in 1994 with himself and Julie Kavner (Marge Simpson) in the leads. They manage to hit all the right notes and the film itself is a comic masterpiece. It's finally on video after a long battle over rights. Do go out and find that version. All the 1969 original is good for is clearing out unwanted guests who overstay their welcome.

1/2* out of 4 stars
A: negative