My First Amazon Prime Review: 3801 Lancaster: American Tragedy (2015)

I’ve been contemplating changing the name and the focus of this blog so that I can include other streaming options. Currently, besides Netflix, I only subscribe to Amazon Prime. Hulu seems to be more for TV series viewing, and their selection of movies seems to be largely the same as Prime’s. If anyone has Hulu, I’d be interested in hearing if my impression is wrong. But I think two streaming services are good for now.

The pros of Amazon Prime:

  • Free shipping: This has nothing to do with movies of course, but if buy a lot from Amazon anyways, I question why you wouldn’t just sign up for this service. It pays for itself in just a few months in our household.
  • Movies that disappear from Netflix often end up here. They also have the option to buy or rent movies, so if you’ve cut the cord, you might like having that option.

Cons:

  • I have yet to have enough interest in their TV Shows to watch one (although there are some that seem interesting, there aren’t any that I felt compelled to watch right away, like Netflix’s Stranger Things and Making a MurdererThat may change soon, if I ever get some free time.
  • At least on my Blu Ray player, which is how I access the service, the way they organize their categories is sub-standard compared to Netflix, and makes the service seem more limited than it is. Amazon really seems to make sure that you know that you can watch Interstellar  for free, as it shows up in several “recommended” categories. But Obvious Childwhich IS a Prime title, shows up nowhere, not even in the comedy category. You have to search for it specifically by its title, which I did a week ago only because I remember it was on Prime months ago and I never got around to watching it. That’s why if you use Prime, I suggest making use of the Watch List, so that if you see something that interests you, it’s not lost forever if you forget about. But then the watchlist makes it clear that just like Netflix, titles are removed from Prime (such as Under the Skin and A Royal Affairboth of which I wanted to watch but now you have to buy or rent)
  • At the current moment, Amazon Prime has a weak selection of documentaries, which led us to watch the Documentary Short 3801 Lancaster: American Tragedy

3801

Viewers are sure to be engrossed by this documentary detailing the horrific case of one Dr. Gosnell. The documentary does an excellent job of keeping you in suspense during the first half of the film, methodically doling out details to keep you wondering what exactly made this abortion clinic stand out from others. Quite early on, the filmmaker speaks with Dr. Gosnell on the phone, and he explains who he is, and why, despite his Christian beliefs, he believes his actions are defensible based on his interpretation of the bible.

As we learn more about what Dr. Gosnell actually did, we find there is a huge disconnect between what he was accused of and what he felt was permissible as a “Christian” to do when it comes to terminating a pregnancy. The documentary’s huge first failing is to not ask him about these contradictions. SPOILER: It would seem obvious if you manage to talk to him on the phone, you would ask him what medical necessity required him to keep the feet of fetuses/babies in jars. And that’s just the most obvious question they could have asked him.

The other huge problem with this film made me question the motive for this film. The end of the film expands the scope to include gross misconduct at a Planned Parenthood in Delaware. While at first I was willing to go with this direction, it became problematic. They interview several nurses who worked at this Planned Parenthood, who say they are pro-choice. Fine. Perhaps the filmmaker’s point was that refusing to oversee abortion clinics can lead to problems even at a well established and funded facility such as Planned Parenthood, and not just a gross “hole in the wall” abortion clinic such as Gosnell’s. But the actions at this Planned Parenthood, while despicable, do not come close to the actions of the psychotic butcher at 3801 Lancaster. It also creates somewhat of a false equivalency, as if all abortion clinics are just looking to cut corners and do as many abortions as quickly as possible. And then it mentions how Planned Parenthood is fighting legislation that would force them to have the same standards as a hospital in states such as Virginia and Texas, as if the whole organization was trying to shirk their responsibilities as a provider of medical services. Anyone who does a cursory investigation into the Texas legislation will find that there is much more to the legislation than just keeping the clinic sanitary. (I believe there was an informative 60 Minutes piece about this law). The law is so restrictive that you couldn’t possibly operate a clinic outside of a hospital setting (and guess what, you can’t perform abortions at a hospital in Texas). To misrepresent the Texas legislation in this manner makes one question the filmmaker’s intent. If you want to make a pro-life film, that’s fine. Just be honest and upfront about the film you’re making.

If you want a lighter-hearted look at this issue, check out Obvious Childwhich I recommend. Or, if you want to really make the most of your Prime membership, and don’t like anything the least bit controversial, check out Happy Gilmore.

IMDB Rating for 3801 Lancaster: 5 out of 10

And you thought your Thanksgiving Dinner was bad… The Invitation (2016)

invitation

So you just spent your holiday dodging conversations with family members that are Trump supporters, or maybe you went down that dark road of arguing over whether a fact is a fact or not. Or maybe Adele saved the day for you. In any case, I can’t imagine your dinner being any worse than the dinner party featured in The Invitation (2016).

I know this is not exactly the newest release on Netflix. But the fact that Netflix has this is a major coup. We (my wife and I) couldn’t quite make it to see this in the theater when it was here in February. Like many films that we want to see, it was only in the theater for a week, surely replaced by some garbage like Baby Geniuses 2 or its equivalent. Note to theater owners: people older than 17 have a life and they often have to plan to see a movie. If said movie is gone, these people will not necessarily go see whatever is there.

Anyhow, when this came on Netflix a few months ago, we watched it and were floored by how good it was. It was the best thing we’d seen on Netflix since The Babadook (2014), and it was a similar type of movie, one that director Karyn Kusama describes as “emotional horror” in this excellent and insightful interview.

Fast forward to a few weeks ago. I was answering one of those Craigslist ads looking for people to be on a panel. I had done these before. One time about 2 weeks before it came out, we gave our opinions on about 10 different trailers for Anchorman 2. This was probably going to be for something similar, as it asked me what my favorite film of the year was. Wow, I had a hard time answering that at first, because I thought of things I had seen in the theater. Although I had seen some pretty decent films in the theater ( Midnight Special, for example), there was nothing I was blown away by. Then I remembered seeing The Invitation, and that it was by far the best movie I had seen this year. Despite all the promising looking films coming out before the end of this year, I suspect it will remain my favorite. (Moonlight is great, but not quite complete for me. Haven’t seen many other Oscar contenders yet).

Please read the interview with Emily Gaudette. Although Kusama has done some mediocre films, she really understands and appreciates film as an art. It shows in this film from the first scene, when the protagonist, Will (Logan Marshall-Green), comes across a dying animal in the road on the way to the dinner party. Without telling us anything specific about the plot of the film, it tells us everything we need to know about the emotional landscape of the film. This will be a dark, ugly night where death will have to be confronted.

Will is going to a dinner party hosted by his ex-wife and her new, somewhat odd in an “off” way boyfriend played by Game of Thrones alum Michiel Huisman. Some of their mutual friends are there as well, and it’s clear that it’s been some time since they’ve seen Will. It’s also clear that he and his wife share an emotional trauma. It’s this emotional trauma that grounds the “horror” in the film, and makes it so believable.

I had no problem very early on guessing where this film was going. People have criticized this film for being slow, perhaps for that reason. They may also find it slow because some people equate horror with slasher films and cheap scares like something jump out at you in the dark. If that’s you, The Invitation is probably not for you. But despite my knowing exactly where I thought the film was going (and I ended up being right), I was thoroughly engaged in the film, and cared about what happened to the people whose lives were obviously in danger.

What makes this film brilliant, in my opinion, is that even though you think you know where it’s going, you still are seeing the action somewhat through the viewpoint of Will. And Will is damaged enough so that as the film progresses, you actually start to doubt your conclusions, much like Will does. It’s this tension that keeps you on edge, and makes the ultimate outcome that much more horrifying. It’s the same kind of tension and paranoia that makes Rosemary’s Baby the best horror film ever (in my opinion).

I’ve also heard some complaining about the very, very end, after the action at the dinner party is resolved, and there is an indication of how the events we’ve seen relate to the world outside. I loved this ending, and given the setting of being in the hills above Los Angeles, it makes perfect sense. But of course I can’t discuss that too much without giving it away for people who haven’t seen it.

I highly recommend The Invitation.

Netflix Rating: 5 out of 5

IMDB rating: 10 out of 10

What’s Streaming in November

gilmore-girls-readies-up-for-netflix-4-episodes.png

Here’s a link to what’s coming to Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Hulu in November. I’ve never watched the show, but I’m sure Gilmore Girls is probably the most anticipated of the bunch. There’s been enough coverage of The Crown to be called “buzz” but I can’t get into most things about British royalty. The offerings from Amazon Prime and Hulu as far as movies go seem to be on the stale side. I’m looking forward to Boyhood to being on Netflix, and I’m sure many people would enjoy The Jungle Book (2016) also on Netflix (I just can’t muster any enthusiasm for the film, despite its largely positive reviews. As far as this list from CNN goes, it looks like Netflix is surprisingly the definite winner.

 

 

Foxy Knoxy Rox Docs!

160910091838-amanda-knox-doc-netflix-780x439

My apologies for such an awful title for this post. But if you’ve seen Amanda Knox (2016) on Netflix, which a lot of people probably have, it fits right in with all the ludicrous tabloid coverage of her trial. We finally got around to watching this last night. It’s a solid doc that follows the format of The Fog of War (2003), where the principals just tell their story, and there is no narration (just occasionally a question asked offscreen). Actually, it even seems like they might have used the same set for the interviews.

Anyways, as this news story unfolded, I casually followed itbut never really learned about the details until viewing this documentary. I just remembered something not adding up about the supposed story of her being a sex-crazed killer. This film, compared to the epic length Making a Murderer (2015) feels like True Crime Cliff Notes. Yet unlike almost every episode of Dateline, I didn’t have any lingering or unanswered questions, excluding the usual “How could anyone believe that?” or “How could they be so careless?” etc. I felt I understood basically what happened, when it happened, how it happened, etc. You know, the basics of reporting.

The basics of reporting seemed to escape Nick Pisa, the British journalist who comes across as much as a villain (to me) as does the lead prosecutor, Giulano Mignini, whose wild fantasies created this nightmare for Knox and her Italian boyfriend (of just 5 days!) Raffaele Sollecito. Anyone who has watched Making a Murderer or similar true crime/innocent man falsely convicted docs or dramas should expect a villainous lead prosecutor. But really, if you call yourself a “journalist,” and invoke the names of Woodward and Bernstein early on in this film, you should do more than just regurgitate whatever the prosecution feeds you,  and then printing it as the unvarnished truth. Even a non-journalist should have had questions about why Knox would want to kill a roommate she’s lived with for only 2 weeks (I’ve had bad roommates before, but come on), or why a boyfriend of only 5 days would be so willing to murder for her. But Pisa and the media get a pass, because according to Pisa, if he didn’t print it, then someone else would get “the scoop.” But I still don’t understand how printing allegations made by prosecutors means you have to present it as truth. It’s called critical thinking, Pisa. Anyhow, he’s a tool. And for those who think this is a British tabloid problem, news in the US (and probably everywhere) works the same way. Prosecutors call up a reporter, feed them their version of what happened, and it goes to print. “Journalist” has a story without having to leave his desk.

As I was writing this, I’m reading a lot of anti-Knox threads on IMDB. Also, there are complaints about this being one-sided. Well, yeah, it’s called Amanda Knox after all. But also, if half of your movie is spent letting the lead prosecutor explain himself, is it one-sided? I just don’t understand how people think these days. I guess if you watched Making a Murderer (2015) and still thought he was guilty, don’t watch this. Sure, both Steve Avery and Amanda Knox behaved in an odd manner, but that isn’t evidence in and of itself. If you already know everything about this case, this probably won’t break new ground for you (You’ll probably feel like I did with The Beatles: Eight Days A Week). I wish it had explored more about Amanda Knox, both past and present, but I got the sense that despite being interviewed for the film, she values her privacy.

For what it does in just 90 minutes, I give it the following ratings:

Netflix: 4 stars (out of 5)

IMDB: 7 out of 10

Horror Genre Review: ABSENTIA (2011)

Absentia

There’s been a couple of predominant movements in the horror genre over the last decade. The first, starting with the overhyped and underwhelming The Blair Witch Project (1999), attempts to create immediacy and authenticity through handheld cams and “found footage.”  This subgenre picked up some steam with Paranormal Activity (2007), but it appears to be dying out for now.  Perhaps audiences realize that shaky cams and cheap scares don’t make up for a dumb plot and severe problems with the logic of the found footage (See my review of Apollo 18).

The other direction horror has gone concentrates on ideas that will scare you.  The producers of Paranormal Activity (the folks at Blumhouse Productions) have also teamed up to create a good number of these films, including Insidious (2011),  Sinister (2012) ,  Dark Skies (2013), and the recently released Oculus (2014), which is directed by Absentia‘s Mike Flanagan.

Absentia (2011) only had a budget of $70,000.  I’m not sure who would have seen this movie before it was on Netflix, but I’m glad that Mike Flanagan was rewarded by being given more to work with on Oculus.  But Absentia is more than just an audition tape.  It actually feels like the synthesis of the two movements–the low budget actually doesn’t hinder the look of the film at all; it gives the immediacy and intimacy the found footage films want to create, but it also has a really intriguing and scary idea that drives the film forward.  Yes, the suburban setting with the cookie-cutter apartment screams, “We couldn’t afford a filming permit in Los Angeles!” (Who can?), but it also makes you feel like this could really happen and is really happening.  Plus, that tunnel is one of the scariest tunnels I’ve seen in a movie, right up there with the underpass in Irreversible (2002).

I’ll leave you with the synopsis on IMDb.  There are a lot of horror movies on Netflix you’ve never heard of–this one is worth your time.

IMDb Synopsis:

Tricia’s husband Daniel has been missing for seven years. Her younger sister Callie comes to live with her as the pressure mounts to finally declare him ‘dead in absentia.’ As Tricia sifts through the wreckage and tries to move on with her life, Callie finds herself drawn to an ominous tunnel near the house. As she begins to link it to other mysterious disappearances, it becomes clear that Daniel’s presumed death might be anything but ‘natural.’ The ancient force at work in the tunnel might have set its sights on Callie and Tricia … and Daniel might be suffering a fate far worse than death in its grasp (Written by Mike Flanagan).

Netflix rating: 4 stars

IMDb rating: 7 out of 10

Review of INSTRUCTIONS NOT INCLUDED

Instructions Not Included

Last fall, I was stunned to hear that a movie I had never heard of (and I’ve heard of almost every movie that gets a theatrical release) had become the highest grossing Spanish-language film in the U.S. I remember thinking that I probably wasn’t part of the target audience and/or the marketing team gave up on English speakers wanting to see Instructions Not IncludedI got the impression that it must have been second-rate, kind of like those faith-based movies that have plagued the theaters lately (You know, the ones where people who don’t believe in God are stupidheads), where only the converted need to see them.  Additionally, it was categorized as a “comedy” in something I read.  Being in Spanish, images of all the bad Spanish-language TV I’ve watched, with all the midget and strippers dancing together and all that, came to mind.  So I quickly forgot about the film.

Months later, several people recommended Instructions Not Included to my wife.  At the time and when we got around to watching it, it was only on disc.  Now that it’s on streaming, you should check it out as well.

Instructions Not Included tells the story of Valentin Bravo, Acapulco’s local playboy whose amorous ways meet an end when a former fling named Julie leaves him with a baby girl.  Valentin goes to L.A. to find Julie to give back the baby, Maggie.  When a movie director witnesses Valentin saving Maggie in a spectacular fashion, he hires him as a stuntman.  Unable to locate Julie, Valentin settles down in L.A. with Maggie and becomes an unlikely father figure.

There’s much more to the movie than that (which makes it sound like One Man and a Baby), but if you read my reviews before, I don’t like spoilers, especially when it comes to comedies (To this day, I don’t know if I was underwhelmed by There’s Something About Mary because of the hype or because an obnoxious co-worker of mine decided to tell everyone about the best parts/gags).  This is more of a melodramedy, sweet-natured in the way comedies of the 30s and 40s were.  There’s some sadness to it, some laughs, someone making it “big” in Hollywood, and the cinematography makes everything look so clean (In the Acapulco scenes, the sun seems brighter than anywhere else on the planet).  Eugenio Derbez deserves his role.  He carries the film and hits all the right notes.  Loreto Peralta as his daughter, Maggie is actually very good in her role.  She’s not too cutesy or “precious.”  She’s just a likable kid.

As for the ending, I felt I should have seen it coming.  But it’s the sign of a good film that I was wrapped up in the story and cared enough about the characters I wasn’t trying to figure out what would happen next.  I recommend seeing Instructions Not Included.

IMDb rating: 7 out of 10

Netflix rating: 4 out of 5

Netflix Classic Review: Buñuel’s TRISTANA

Image

Luis Buñuel shares the distinction of having only one title on Netflix Streaming with Alfred Hitchcock (The Lady Vanishes) and Stanley Kubrick (Dr. Strangelove).  Some time ago, Un Chien Andalou (1929), Buñuel’s groundbreaking short featuring a young Salvador Dali, was available, but no longer.  Tristana (1970) is far from his best work, but deserves a viewing from those who enjoy his more celebrated movies such as Belle du Jour (1967) and The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie  (1972).

Unlike the more famous Buñuel selections I mentioned, Tristana is a relatively straightforward melodrama that features very little of Buñuel’s surrealistic tendencies (Surrealistic Tendencies sounds like the name of a bad ’80s punk band).  Fernando Rey plays Don Lope, the guardian of the much younger Tristana, played by DeNeuve.  Also being a lecherousold man, he soon wants to be more than her guardian.  They become lovers as well, but Lope maintains his philosophy that, as a free man (free of religion), he is still free to love others.  Soon that belief is challenged when Tristana meets someone else she loves as well.  Lope is not a hypocrite and allows her to leave.  However, their love still lingers, and Tristana’s subsequent illness brings them back together after a number of years.  Watch the movie to find out who she chooses.

Tristana struck me as being simultaneously ahead of its time, yet also feeling dated.  Rey as the main character gives a convincing performance as a forward-thinking atheist/socialist (Given that this was made during the Franco regime, this was truly a daring philosophy for any character to espouse).  Yet, at the same time, he often talks of women as if they are nothing more than sex objects and lower than men.  I would like to give Buñuel the benefit of the doubt and say that this contrast between being enlightened and being Neanderthal was intentional, but the film is 45 years old now, so I can’t be sure.  Tristana does become a complete person to him towards the end of the film, through challenging his beliefs and standing up for herself.  But the misogynistic overtones of some of the earlier conversations, coupled with the disturbing age difference between the two, don’t quite redeem Don Lope in my eyes.

As for Catherine DeNeuve, she like in Belle du Jour, plays an “ice queen” with an ever increasing amount of willpower.  The character is well-written but remains enigmatic throughout the film.  She remains an object of men’s desire, a beautiful woman whom men can project their fantasies upon, even as she asserts herself as an adult.  One thing I didn’t like about her is that she uses her illness as a way to test which suitor really loves her.  In my opinion, this undermined the idea of her becoming an independent person, and came off more like a schoolgirl pitting two schoolboys against each other to win her affections.  As for DeNeuve’s acting, it is really hard to judge, as her part was dubbed over in Spanish.  I realize that many movies of this time, especially Spaghetti westerns, had actors speak in their native tongue, and then had another actor dubbed in the language of the movie later.  But for Tristana, it detracted from DeNeuve’s performance.

Tristana shouldn’t be considered a classic by any means, but it held my interest.  While not pushing many boundaries, it still is an intelligent and thoughtful piece of film from a treasured director.  I’m not sure if viewing this would convince Netflix to stream more of his films.  But do yourself a favor, and if you watch this, put his other films in your queue.

My Netflix rating: 3 out of 5

My IMDB rating: 7 out of 10

Working on my best 100 movies on Netflix

Working on my best 100 movies on Netflix

With the time it takes to write posts, my ambitions to post a top 100 list on movies on Netflix, and review some of the titles, would be difficult in the WordPress format. This is due to the fact by the time I post and write something, it may no longer be on Netflix instant. This happened when I thought about doing it at the end of last month. Sure enough, one of my top 10 choices, Some Like It Hot, left at the end of April.

I will get to this project, but in the meantime, I’ve made a quick list at Listal of the top movies currently on Netflix. I haven’t had time to order them, or actually narrow it down to 100 (it’s at 102). But it’s far quicker to edit this list than to post and re-post the list here. Listal is a fun site, you should check it out.

Coincidentally, Rosemary’s Baby (1968) probably would be my #1 choice at this time. I look forward to the day when I have nothing but free time to go back and watch all these movies to compare and confirm my rankings. But until then, it’s still fun to make lists. Please post a comment if you feel there are titles I’m overlooking, or ones that I’ve overrated and should reevaluate.

rosemary

 

Review of Room 237: Random People Driven Mad by Kubrick’s “The Shining”

Image

 

From the people who brought you the homeless guy on the corner rambling on about how the contrails of planes are a government conspiracy, comes Room 237, a “documentary” about the hidden meanings that lurk beneath the surface of Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining. Various theories about the meaning of the film are discussed by anonymous people as we look at various scenes from Kubrick’s underrated and misunderstood horror film. Unfortunately I think this documentary will mean the film will be more misunderstood, but there are some interesting discussions from those participants who have not suffered some sort of brain damage from years of drug abuse (roughly half).

 

Whether or not you like this film will probably depend on whether or not you agree with the statement made by one of the anonymous film “critics” towards the end of the film:

 

“One can always argue that Kubrick only had some, or none of these (theories proposed in Room 237) in mind, but we all know that from post-modern film criticism that author intent is only part of the story of any work of art, and those meanings are there regardless of whether the creator of the work was conscious of them.”

 

We don’t all know that, in my opinion. The first problem with this statement is that it comes after about eight different mutually exclusive theories about the film’s true meaning are presented. They can’t all be right, or equally valid. Secondly, this statement seems to say that stretching to find meaning and clues in scenes says as much as what the film is about as the script does. Certainly in a Kubrick film there are subtexts and careful attention to detail, but Kubrick chose to make a film about a man losing his grip on reality. That’s what the film is about, you don’t have to create a new story as if the film is a painting that leaves itself open to interpretation.

 

To play the devil’s advocate with this theory, if you say any film is a work of art (which is a stretch but you could make that argument, because with this theory anything you say is valid), then I could say McG is an artist and Charlie’s Angels is a work of art. Rather than being a story about ditzy girl detectives, I could say that McG is commenting on the historic struggle of women to earn the right to vote. But we all know that McG is an idiot who made the only mediocre/bad Terminator movie. Saying that such a meaning is there regardless of whether McG was conscious of it is ridiculous, and not in any way true just because someone says it is.

 

Now I know this might burst some bubbles here, especially for those who believe everything they read on the internet. But if you can listen to the theories without getting angry, it’s actually a fun film to watch. If they don’t make you angry, some of the observations these people make will make you laugh. But they will also point out details the casual viewer might miss. One guy sees phallic symbols everywhere (although this may have been Kubrick’s idea of a joke). In the midst of some overbaked theories about latent homosexuality, the same guy points out that Jack is reading a Playgirl in the lobby, something I would have never caught. So while you may not buy their theories, most every person will point out something that you may have overlooked before.

But of course, noticing these details is one thing. Claiming they are hidden clues is another. It’s all good to point out that the Indian imagery and a German typewriter in the lobby; building upon that to say the film is really about genocide might be too much (outside evidence points to Kubrick reading about both the Holocaust and American Indians during the making of The Shining, so I was at least convinced it informed some of his choices as to what props to use in the film). Other details noticed are just silly (such as someone superimposing the film playing backwards on top of the film playing forward and commenting on how the images line up), or seem to excuse continuity errors. But I enjoyed hearing their theories as to why these were intentional and not mistakes.

 

The centerpiece of the film is straight conspiracy theory. One guy claims that The Shining was really about Kubrick’s role in faking the Apollo 11 moon landing, and the relationship between Jack and his wife mirrors Kubrick telling his wife and how it affected their relationship. Even amidst this lunacy, there is a detail that lends just the slightest amount of credence to this interpretation (as is the case with any good conspiracy theory). Just look at this kid’s sweater, for god’s sake:

Image

As crazy as this theory might be, I mean, c’mon! What is up with that sweater? If it was a mass produced t-shirt, I would think nothing of it. But this looks like Kubrick’s grandma knitted it herself, so there had to be a reason that it was an Apollo 11 sweater and not a Starsky and Hutch shirt or something. I have my own theory on this, but I was unable to find evidence for this on the internet. Again I think Kubrick was “taking the piss” out of conspiracy theorists, yanking their chain a bit. But in order for me to be correct, the conspiracy theory would have had to have to been out there before The Shining came out. I was not able to find out the origin of these rumors, or when they started. If someone knows, let me know. It seems like they might have originated with this movie, but I’m not sure.

 

Every theory presented in the film is entertaining, but the best discussions revolve around the use of space in the film. The rides the kid takes on his big wheel go from showing us the lay of the land (of the hotel) the first time through,  to taking a sharp turn into the physically impossible during the last ride. These rides mirror the mental state of Jack, and there are details that Kubrick surely meant to be part of the film. The passion of the anonymous critics comes through in the maps they construct to show how certain aspects of what we see in the hotel are not possible, and what that might reveal about Jack’s character, and his relationship to his wife and son. There is also an interesting observation made about the rug pattern you see in the movie poster for Room 237. 

 

Although I certainly didn’t buy most of it, Room 237 was for the most part intriguing, definitely entertaining, and at times considerate of Kubrick and his design for this film. Would I watch this again? Probably not, but it did make me want to watch The Shining again to come up with my own wacky theories.

 

My IMDB rating: 7 out of 10

 

My Netflix rating: 3 out of 5