Change Your Image
![](https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMjQ4MTY5NzU2M15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNDc5NTgwMTI@._V1_SY100_SX100_.jpg)
robdahlgren0506
Reviews
Speech: The Function of Gestures (1949)
Very funny!
hahahahahahaha... No, wait a minute... (wipes tears) hahahahahahaha!
I watched this on the Prelinger archives (available for free download!). It stars Herk Harvey, most famous for creating Carnival of Souls. This movie is actually a fairly effective film outlining the importance of using hand gestures during public speaking.
It contains some hilarious animations (look for the hand coming out of the man's forehead) and the speech is great too ("Some of the people of Africa are tall, others are very short. Some are fat, and some are thin. You might say that Africa is a mixture of people of different sizes and shapes."). This is a highly recommended and funny movie. When the tight speaker finally starts using gestures, he looks drunk!. It's a riot.
The Shining (1980)
Visually stunning, but...
In typical Kubrick fashion, here is a movie that is like flipping through a Time-Life "The Year in Pictures". The imagery is beautiful, but there is no story. And that's a real shame, because the story is wonderful. Don't get me wrong, I do like this movie, but I wish Kubrick had spent as much time developing the characters as he did working out beautiful steadicam shots. It exposes Kubrick for what he was, a photographer. Nothing more, nothing less.
I think Jack Nicholson was great in the movie, but was probably not the best choice for the role since he looked crazy already. Shelly Duvall had the most difficult role, and I thought she did an admirable job.
Kubrick took a great story and turned it into a disconnected, disjointed mess. Anyone who watches this film and thinks they have the slightest idea of whats going on is fooling themselves.
Oh, and this movie is NOT scary.
The Shining (1997)
Worth a look
This movie was redone by King because he didn't like the lack of character development in the first movie. I don't blame him. The 1980 version had some great visual effects, but it exposed Kubrick for what he was; a great photographer. The story is completely lost and it is difficult to understand the characters in the 1980 version.
This version does a much better job of character development, though it still falls short in a few areas. First, the three main characters all gave excellent performances, particularly Steven Weber as Jack Torrance. Unfortunately, the three didn't have much synergy. They fell short of making a believable family unit.
Two performances were just terrible. Melvin Van Peebles as Dick Halloran is totally unbelievable. His face seems to be dead-pan no matter what scene he is delivering. Truly pathetic. His character becomes very unlikable, between the bad performance and the schmaltsy lines King gave him, you just wish he would be killed off like in the 1980 version. Several quotes come to mind. First, when Dick is in the airport waiting for a plane to take him to Colorado to try and save the family he looks at the departure board and says "You better be on time, for that little child's sake, you just better be.". Does that read as badly here as it sounds when he delivers it? Probably not quite, but it is pretty lame. When he arraives at the hotel, he says "Hello you old B*tch. You're just as ugly in Winter as you are in the Summer.". Give me a break.
The second terrible performance was given by Elliot Gould and Mr Ullman. He sounds like someone who is reading his lines for the first time. If I was directing, he would've been fired and replaced.
These negatives aside, the story has not been obliterated here as in the 1980 version, and a great story it is. It would've been nice to get into their heads a little more, but you can see the fact that the family is trapped in the Overlook even before the snow flies. This is Jacks last chance to recover from his alcoholism. He needs to get back on his feet, and if he fails at the Overlook, his future will be bleak. This is not even touched on by the Kubrick version (except in the argument he has with Wendy after Jack checks room 237, "I could really write my own ticket if we went back to Boulder now, couldn't I? Shovilin' out driveways, maybe work in a carwash, would that appeal to you?").
This movie shows that the entire family is being torn apart, and jack is torn in two. On one hand, he loves his son and wants to protect him. On the other, he want to beat him in the head with a roque mallet. Decisions, decisions.
If you love the 1980 version and haven't read the novel, watch this version. It will tie together some of the weird things that didn't make any sense.
Why Study Home Economics? (1955)
This movie is really, really bad.
Why Study Home Economics is a story of two sisters. One wants to take a home economics class in high school and her sister asks her "what can I learn from a home economics class that I can't learn from Mom?". The other reviews on this movie are actually referring to a different movie, 'The Home Economics Story' put out by Iowa State College at Ames. The Home Economics Story is a pretty good movie, I could see girls of the time getting excited about taking Home Economics because of it. Why Study Home Economics, on the other hand, is absolutely terrible. While both movies are scary for their portrayal of gender stereotypes, this movie would never inspire anyone to take home economics.
A Date with Your Family (1950)
These were scary times...
This short does have some redeeming value. Getting the family to sit around the dinner table is a noble gesture. Still, I would rather have the family eating TV dinners on the couch than have to put up with the gender roles portrayed here. I really enjoy these kinds of movies because they give a great insight into the thinking of the time, but I doubt that there were many families who lived up to the ideal set forth in this film. If it appeared that they did, it was because father ruled with an iron fist. I've got two kids myself, and while they aren't always the best behaved, I refuse to rule my house through fear. Too bad they didn't have black neighbors, then we could have really seen how far we've come.
Why Study Industrial Arts? (1956)
Out of context? I think not.
OK, let's get real. Nobody has seen this outside of MST3K because no one else would show it. The earlier comment that this movie may have been taken out of context is ridiculous. The fact is that it is a typical low budget Centron film. However, I don't think most of the people offering reviews are being completely fair. In general, I really like this film. It points out reasons for taking industrial arts classes that I never thought of before. This is the entire point of the film, so I'd have to say mission accomplished. The acting is mediocre, but given the budget these kinds of films had to work with, it's understandable. I think the part of the coach was well cast (he looks like a Basketball coach). My main complaint about the movie is the kid's tool fetish during the opening monologue. I think that was poorly scripted, even taking budget into account. Some MST3K movies are completely unwatchable without Mike, Joe and the bots (Manos hands of fate and The Pod People come to mind). Others stand on their own (Plan 9 from outer space, The head that wouldn't die). To say that Best Brains edited for content is absurd. I'm sure things were chopped down a bit to fit in the allocated space, but I have seen several movies in both versions and have not noticed any significant difference between them.