Gravity

A phenomenal accomplishment in filmmaking supported by an excellent cast, a strong script and bombastic soundtrack. In sum: the theater experience of the year. See it.

I've been on hiatus for a while, which has been disappointing because I love writing these things. I'm planning to overhaul my blog once I'm free from Uni commitments, but in the meantime... I've been watching lots of stuff! I'll do my best to pump out a few mini-reviews in the coming days as my essay deadlines loom and I need to start digesting all this information into something academically presentable, but in the meantime... Here's Gravity.

With all the buzz around this film I just couldn't resist dashing out to the theater last week to see it. It's almost like a perfect conclusion to my sort-of series about the Hollywood system: When big-budget movies go right. I don't really have much more to say about that, except that it does happen! There are creative people working in the industry - not every film that achieves blockbuster status is cookie cutter. Gravity is a totally unique film to experience.

Mud

A beautiful looking, fantastically written, acted and paced, all-round excellent film. Mud is a shining example of the upside to the bigger-is-better culture of Hollywood,

In my last post I spent a good deal of time dwelling on the problems with Hollywood's obsession with bigger and yet bigger pictures, built for the mass market. To be clear; I enjoyed my time in the cinema watching Man of Steel, and a good many other blockbusters of its ilk. Some of them are abominations though. I don't review them often, because I don't often bother to see them.

But here I want to focus on one of the upshots of modern Hollywood, and especially one that has come about with the recent proliferation of affordable digital film-making equipment. Mud is a relatively low-budget film - $10 million is pittance compared to $200 million superhero films - but it has all the professional production quality and artistic finesse of the best of those films.

Mud is directed by Jeff Nichols (who also directed Take Shelter, which I love). It's about two boys who live in the Arkansas delta - Ellis and Neckbone, born and raised on the river. Exploring the swampland, the boys stumble across an old boat suspended in a tree, and even stranger, a grown man living in it. The man's name is Mud. He has crosses in his footprints, and a snake tattooed upon his arm. The only things he values are his shirt, his gun, and the girl he's waiting for; Juniper. As they befriend Mud and begin to uncover his past, the boys are also being boys; living and learning as they throw themselves headlong at life.

Vertigo

Hitchcock's classic thriller/romance about a man with a fear of heights has recently been labelled 'the greatest film ever made'. Vertigo is everything Hitchcock did best; a rollercoaster ride of suspense and surprise, an absolutely engrossing film.

The nice thing about Hitchcock's masterpiece is that, despite its incredible plot twists, it's a hard movie to spoil. I could tell you what one or two of the revelations are, but they wouldn't make sense without a fair bit of context first. I'll give you some context, but I won't spoil the film here.

James Stewart (one of my favourite actors ever) plays John "Scottie" Ferguson, a detective who retires after an incident in which, while on a chase, a police officer falls to his death trying to save Scottie from hanging off a building. The doctors diagnose Scottie with acrophobia; a fear of heights (often confused with the dizzy sensation known as vertigo). He encounters an old school friend, who asks him to follow his wife Madeline, concerned for her welfare. It seems Madeline believes that she is possessed by someone from the past; a mysterious figure named Carlotta.

Skyfall

Despite lagging a little behind in action movie trends, the newest Bond pulls them off flawlessly, delivering a fantastic spectacle, and reigniting the franchise's potential.

Like my little blog that lags behind schedule, and reviews films after they've been in theatres for a month, James Bond returns with all the action movie tropes you've seen in other films over the past few years, complete with the motorcycle chase from The Bourne Legacy. That's not to say the Brit's are lacking in originality; Bourne didn't hijack a caterpillar on a flatbed, and use it to rip a hole in a train carriage in order for him to board. Bourne just kind of ended.

There's a lot in Skyfall that riffs off recent action films. There's also a lot that riffs off the rich history of the character in the past 50 years. For Christmas I received the Bond 50 collection, and as I work my way through them I'll be posting reviews for each. So while I had to look up a few of the references in this film, I expect over time I will grow to appreciate it more.

And please hear me: I really, really enjoyed this movie.

Paris, Texas

The pace is slow going at first, but the drama is dynamite.An ultimately uplifting story of a man's quest to restore his broken family.

Oh, it says heartbreaker on that poster. There's a few ways you could read it, I guess.

You can also get it in formats other than videocassette nowadays.

Enough stalling, here's what this movie is about: a man is wandering through the desert in Texas, and runs out of water. When he makes it to a salon he manages to swallow a mouthful of ice before collapsing.

The mans name is Travis, we learn when Walt, his brother, comes to pick him up. Travis has been missing for four years, and has an 8 year old son now in the care of Walt and his wife Anne. Travis has amnesia, but slowly begins to remember his life before he went missing (though exactly where he went and what he did remains a mystery). He begins to develop a fresh relationship with his son, Hunter, a bright kid with an adorable charisma about him. Hunter's plans are equal parts childish and silly, and mature and useful. He functions as a kind of therapy for Travis, drawing him back to sanity after his bizarre long absence. Slowly, Travis becomes more and more fatherly to his own son.

Eventually, Travis decides that he needs to search out his wife, Jane. Walt and Anne still don't know what happened between Travis and Jane, or why the pair both went missing separately. I don't want to spoil the second half of the movie, because it's brilliant. Although the first half can drag at times, it builds to a powerful sequence in Houston, Texas, and a thouroughly satisfying conclusion.

The title; Paris, Texas, is a running 'joke' of the film. Inverted commas, because for Travis it's much more serious than a joke. His mother was from a town called Paris in the state of Texas, and his father would always hesitate before the word Texas; allowing them temporarily to believe his wife was French. It speaks to a broader motif of the film; of imagery, facades and deception. Walt's business is billboard construction, his wife is actually French, and the most apparently perfect character in the film. The town itself is never visited, only shown in a photograph... of an empty block.

It's a deeply layered film, its message delivered in the subtleties of the film making. It's beautifully shot, with characters who are well acted, but more noticeably well fleshed out. Every person in the film seems to act entirely within reason, and you can fully comprehend exactly why they act the way they do. None of this Hollywood villain crap; just real people, with real issues.

Alright, there are some pretty crazy issues, but they all seem to be in the past. What I took away from the film is the impression of a man who has made mistakes, and is trying to bring his family back together. To do so he must break the facades - or run away from them if necessary. His love for his son is evident in the lengths he goes to deliver him a good life; I found their relationship sweet and invigorating to watch (despite some sad moments).

Paris, Texas takes its time, but delivers with some extraordinary answers to its plaguing mysteries. There's a lot you could take away from it, but by the end of it, I was happy.



Seen Paris, Texas? Want to? Won't?
Leave a comment, start a discussion :)

Once Upon A Time In Anatolia

Revelations come slowly, and lack the dramatic punch that you might expect of them, but this film flaunts the stunning beauty of the Turkish countryside, as well as some fine acting and filmmaking.

A police chief, a prosecutor, a doctor, a driver and a suspect are driving through the countryside in the middle of the night. They stop, look around, ask the suspect to identify landmarks, argue about routes and the lay of the land. It becomes clear that they are looking for a dead body. The suspect has killed him, and buried him somewhere, but he can't remember because he had been drinking, and his brother was asleep.

What you see above is among the first shots of the film; before we are introduced to any characters, we see their convoy pull over, and people get out and talk. We hear their conversation from afar, but the camera doesn't budge; the entire scene plays out in one still shot, and we are left to ponder what we've heard, its relevance unclear until later on.

You should be able to tell from this image: this movie looks beautiful. Much of its time is spent driving through the country at night; director Nuri Bilge Ceylan photographs it with such vivid colouring and careful framing, it evokes a fairtytale-like quality that matches its title.

It is an interesting blend though; the film is mostly very realistic, actions play out in real time, and trivial issues concern characters as much as grander ones. Occasionally  the film breaks its strict reality to play out a surreal sequence. Two men have a conversation without moving their lips; one man sees a ghost; a woman appears like an angel to all the men... These sequences flow seamlessly from the main thrust of the film, and give a richer sense of the characters while also adding to the air of mystery that pervades most of the movie. I have no doubt that a second viewing would be very rewarding, given the context of each character in these dreamy sequences.

This is a film that rewards patience. It plays out slowly, with generous screen time devoted to moments void of dialogue; the scenery, the sounds and the atmosphere allowed to sink in. If you like action movies, or fast-paced thrillers, perhaps this one isn't for you. If you like a good drama, or crime yarn though, you may get a lot out of it. For a long time nothing happens but driving, and talking. But as the plot advances, the stage is set for some great revelations that take place in the third act.

And here is my major gripe with this film - although perhaps it was just not to my taste: these third-act revelations are groundbreaking, and cast everything that has come before in a new light. But they aren't treated as such. They are treated just like any other dialogue or setup in the film. I felt as though the movie should begin to hit its stride when the party finally reaches the town; that everything should begin to fall into place, and the great mystery that's been constructed should be revealed, and the exposure of the truth should lead to some gut-punching dramatic beats that stick with you long after watching.

Well, everything did fall into place. The truth was exposed, and each character was given enough time for a substantial exploration. The film sticks with you after watching... I guess I just didn't get that punch in the gut. The big reveals happen slowly, and it's up to the viewer to figure out exactly what they mean. Once Upon A Time In Anatolia is a film I'd definitely want to see a second time. I'll reiterate: this film rewards patience. And it's a very rewarding film.

Days Of Heaven

A phenomenal film, partly for its charming cast and tragic story, but mostly for the absolutely stunning visuals. It's an experience, worth embarking on twice, and it's also one damn pretty picture.

Terrence Malick is possibly the most interesting filmmaker working today. His first picture was Badlands in 1973, which garnered him critical acclaim in America and internationally. It took him five more years - until 1978 - to finish his second film, Days Of Heaven. After that, he moved to France, and stopped making films for twenty years. In 1998 he came out with The Thin Red Line, again to wide acclaim. Since then he has made The New World (2005), The Tree Of Life (2011), and To The Wonder (as yet unreleased).

What's fascinating about him is that despite garnering such critical and commericial success - and being known even by artsy European directors as a great director - there's reletively little known about him. He doesn't seem to do public interviews, or offer comment on puzzling aspects of his films. He just makes them, and sets them loose upon the world.

Touching The Void

Based on a true story, Touching The Void delivers an extraordinary tale of human survival, with breathtaking re-enactment that packs emotional punch.

In 1985, Joe Simpson and Simon Yates attempted to climb the west face of the Siula Grande - a 6.3km ascent that had never yet been completed. The pair climbed alpine style; this meant no camps halfway up, and no more equipment than the two of them could carry. Joe admits, in hindsight, they were a bit stupid.

Touching the void is a 2003 documentary based on the book by Joe Simpson, detailing their climb, and almost fatal descent. The film uses talking heads (that is, interviews with the climbers themselves), along with performed re-enactments filmed on location at the slope, to convey their struggle to survive, and the brutal decisions each had to make.

Laputa: Castle In The Sky

My favourite of the Miyazaki's that I've seen, and certainly up there with the best of Disney - a great, fun animated adventure!

Miyazaki and Studio Ghibli have made some fantastic films across their career. I only say that to pass on what I know through the grapevine of cyberspace - I've only seen a handful of them; Totoro, Howls Moving Castle, Ponyo, and some of  Spirited Away and Kiki's Delivery Service. This is undoubtably the best piece I have seen from this studio.

Laputa: Castle In The Sky is a fairytale, at it's core. It's about a young boy named Patsu who sees a girl - Sheeta - floating from the sky; he catches her. She's being chased by the military, a secret agent and a gang of pirates, who all want the crystal necklace she's carrying. The crystal holds the potential to unlock the location and secrets of the legendary floating city known as Laputa. By some extraordinary coincidence, Patsu's father once saw Laputa, only to be laughed off for purporting its existence. Patsu dreams of proving his father right, so is absolutely keen beans to fight off pirates and big baddies to protect the girl and find the city.

Brave

Fun, family friendly, original, funny and beautiful; this films' only flaw is that it doesn't stack against the best of what Pixar can do.

Pixar have pretty well established themselves by this point as the 21st century's Disney. Everything they've produced appeals to adults as well as kids, and none of it could be considered 'crap', and the best of what they've given could undoubtably be called 'great'. Their last film was Cars 2, but the film before that (Toy Story 3) is arguably their greatest.

So with their latest offering Brave (directed by Mark Andrews and Brenda Chapman), I had high hopes; a Pixar film with an original story, set in Scotland, featuring bears and a strong red-headed princess... The problem with having high hopes, is that even small dints in them seem all the more disappointing.

Not that Brave is a bad film by any means. It's got a lot going for it. Pixar has mastered the art of side-stepping the uncanny valley, so even as their films get more and more photo-realistic, the human characters never look too real. There's always exaggerations and cartoonish quirks that make them amiable and never creepy. The setting for this film is fantastic; there was clearly a lot of effort put into recreating the natural beauty of the hills of Scotland, and they've done a stunning job, crafting a world of wonder and mystery that is enticing and exciting to inhabit.

Man Of Aran

Nearing 80 years old, this documentary still holds great artistic merit, with the beauty and spectacle of the scenery coming through despite the aged film, along with its distinctive editing style.

If I have a regular reading audience (and my friends assure me that I do), this is not the sort of film they would want to see. This is the sort of film you only see if you have a serious interest in the scholarly appreciation of cinema; ie. Film students.

Since I am a film student, and I will be spending a huge chunk of my class time watching films - both obscure and immediate - I'm going to try change up my blog a little. I'm going to post about every film I watch in class. I'm going to reflect a little on what the film is and why it's significant, but I'll try to do so from the perspective of someone who likes movies... but not that much. I'm talking to you Facebook friends: I'll tell you whether or not you should see this movie. Starting with Man Of Aran.

No doubt you will not have heard of Man Of Aran before. That's ok we're in the same boat (Haha, in-joke. There's a boat in the film). It's a little over an hour long, and depicts a group of people who live on a barren spot of land off the west coast of Ireland. It was made in 1934, and is a work of fiction but functions as a documentary. The film features the titular man and his family living off the Aran sea, using pre-modern equipment and techniques to conduct simple tasks such as fishing, potato growing, boat-mending, shark hunting...

Burnt By The Sun

In 1930s Russia, Kotov, a Colonel of the Russian Revolution is living it up with his beautiful wife and daughter, and their crazy family. But politics intrude, as the Great Purge slowly begins to intrude upon their happy life...

Set in the late 1930s, in the final few years before WWII, Burnt By The Sun follows a Colonel (Comdiv) of the Russian Revolution who falls victim to the 'Great Purge' - when Stalin had many of his former fellow revolutionaries executed without trial. A period characterised by paranoia, police surveillance, persecution and repression... Burnt By The Sun represents it as strangely peaceful.

Insomnia

This thrilling drama draws you in to the mind of a detective deprived of sleep, burdened by guilt and dazed by the endless sunlight in far northern Alaska – and it’s a gripping crime story to boot!

From the mind behind Memento comes another film that deals with loaded psychological issues. The hook here is the setting – the town of Nightmute, Alaska, where the sun shines 24/7 in the warmer months. The issues are ones visited by Nolan time and again - guilt, justice, responsibility. Al Pacino plays Will Dormer, a detective of legendary stature sent north to assist local police on a particularly puzzling case, while back in LA he is under the scrutiny of Internal Affairs.

The film is basically a straightforward crime drama until half an hour in, when a chase through the Alaskan fog leads to an accident that changes the course of the investigation, and the film. The majority of the film deals with Wills struggle against the murderer, Walter Finch, despite his deteriorating state as he fails to sleep, night after night.

The performances here are fantastic, particularly Al Pacino as the bad-ass cop slowly coming apart and Robin Williams as a surprisingly chilling villain. The editing is nice, with recurring flashbacks that add to the mystery and atmosphere, especially the very creepy extreme close-up of blood drops soaking through a piece of fabric. For lovers of crime films, this is a must-watch thriller, with heavy atmosphere and surprising plot turns.

SPOILERS FOLLOW

Batman Begins and The Dark Knight

I'm going to do something a little different this week. Firstly, since I was too busy to blog last week, I'm going to write a double post this week - on a series of movies that I love. Secondly, I'm going to start writing my post, then watch the two movies back to back, then finish writing with what stands out to me this time around (my fourth or fifth viewing). 

Some obligatory speculation on what the third instalment in this trilogy will bring will probably be included, but that's not what this post is about. This post is about appreciating a series which has elevated a 'mere' comic book into a spectacular tale interwoven with fantastic production values and deep explorations of themes. This is Christopher Nolans' Batman.

I'll start by saying I have very little history with Batman lore prior to these films. I saw Batman: The Animated Series a few times in my childhood, and I saw Batman action figures aplenty back then as well. I never saw Tim Burtons' films (but I think I remember seeing Batman Forever), and I certainly never saw the 60s serial. I learnt about all these after seeing Batman Begins. 

From what I understand, Spider Man was the movie that demonstrated how a comic book about a super hero had the potential to achieve commercial success as a blockbuster film, with huge crowd appeal and spectacular action. Batman Begins was the first time a comic book character achieved all that and could be taken seriously. The gritty realism in Batman Begins coupled with the believable characters, dark and serious themes and a powerful atmosphere made for a blockbuster that was unique, and thoughtful, unlike much of commercial Hollywood.

The Dark Knight was even more remarkable - firstly because it was a blockbuster sequel that deepened rather than destroyed the canon of the first film. But mostly because it took the comic book blockbuster to a whole new level of credibility. It carried on the themes, characters and world of the first film, but developed them from that origin story. It introduced new elements (most notably the Joker) to discuss different themes, as well as delivering more action and powerful drama. The film played like a conventional crime thriller, and despite the fact it was basically about a man in a bat costume fighting a clown, it was executed so well people were clamouring for a nomination for Best Picture.

There's a lot to be said about both of these films, especially The Dark Knight. My favourite discussion has to be from Christian podcast More Than One Lesson, which explores the underlying philosophies behind Batman and Joker, tracing the latter back to Frederick Nietzsche, and drawing comparisons between TDK and Lord Of The Flies.

And without further ado, I'm going to interrupt this blog with a screening for myself of the films in question. I will be back in a few hours to give my thoughts on the series as a whole, and whatever else springs to mind.

...

...

5 IN-MOVIE HOURS LATER... BRING ON THE SPOILERS!

...

...

Alright, I'm not going to try do this again. It's been 24 hours since I wrote the first half of this post, and spaced out across that time I have watched both Batman movies. Life just gets in the way of everything doesn't it.

I'll start with the big issues of Batman. Justice, for one, is laboured upon heavily in Begins, with the League of Shadows representing an absolute system of justice and punishment, while Batman forges his own path of compassion, intended to inspire redemption of the city. The second film focuses on the role of the hero - as times change, people begin to rise up against the corruption of their city (inspired by Batman), but begin to look to others, such as Harvey, to be the hero.

It is fascinating to see the transformation that goes on in Bruces' mind from grand idealism (in childhood, following his father) to mere vengeance (wanting to kill his parents murderers) to seeking justice (training with the League) to finding a balance between justice and compassion (inspired by Rachel, and in opposition to the League). In TDK he gets even further from his initial concept of justice, leaning more and more towards compassion for the people of Gotham. Eventually he sacrifices his own reputation in order to save that of Harvey Dents'. Jesus parallels abound, and the final montage of TDK sums up his position perfectly: people deserve to have their faith rewarded. Bruce realises that justice is not about revenge, not about balance, not even about himself, the hero, but the thing he started out to create; an idea. Batman symbolised the beginning of the end of corruption in the city, but could not see it through. He had to set aside his lone hero persona, in order to let Gotham save itself.

Initially, it seems, Harvey goes on a similar journey to Bruce Wayne; from the sweeping idealism of the political hero, the good man in the spotlight; to suddenly losing it all, and thirsting for revenge. Who knows, if given time and the right influence, maybe Two-face could have become more like Batman. But Gotham no longer needs Batman; they need a White Knight. And because Batman has taken responsibility for his crimes, Harvey is immortalised in the minds of the people as the ideal; the public face that they can aspire to be.

One scene in TDK reminds me of a video game. It's a shot that spins around the trio of Gordon, Harvey and Batman - in a way that's stylish and effective at presenting them as the three pillars of good in the city - but somehow feels a little like the cutscene right before a mission in a game. Gordon and Harvey argue, while the Batman silently watches; the player character. After some exposition, some character moments, some conflict, the pair of them turn to Batman as if to say 'we've laid it out for you, now go play the level.' Batman of course says yes, because that's always the answer video game heroes give. He then proceeds to Level 10: Hong Kong, where we witness our next action set piece. That's not a criticism, just an observation. Perhaps indicative of the way video games rely on the 'hero' concept for almost every story they tell.

But The Dark Knight shows us Batman as the perfect hero, in a way that most games, and most movies for that matter, don't. Batman is the perfect hero because when it comes time for him to step aside, he does so. More than that, he takes on a heavier burden to allow other people to continue what he started. He set his goals in Batman Begins - to become a symbol and to inspire people to stand against injustice - and stayed true to them to the point of self sacrifice. For most heroes, if it came down to something like that, their pride would get in the way.

It occurs to me now, I've pretty well finished my raving, I haven't said a thing about The Dark Knight Rises. Well, I have high hopes for the film. And having just watched these two, I'm all the more excited. I've heard talk about the idea that Batman may die at the end of the next film. I honestly can't tell whether or not that's something that Christopher Nolan might do! Or something he might want to do, but the studio would never allow. In any case, I feel like that ending would be (on the one hand) appropriate, to completely round out the story, carry the themes of justice and sacrifice, and bring a real gravity to the film. That is, of course, if it is executed well... doubtless it will be though. On the other hand, Batman is a character who should endure. The appropriate ending to a Batman movie is one like the other two we've received; the Dark Knight overcomes all obstacles and ends up standing on a rooftop, surveying his city, which he will continue to defend. Of course, the discussion of Batman passing on his mantle in TDK casts some doubt on that ending, and TDKs ending itself carried some implications for Batman that are bound to make the next film completely and utterly unique, even amongst these two already different films.

In sum: I don't know what's coming, but I sure look forward to it. Batman has lived long enough to see himself become the villain... and don't we all want to know what he'll do next!

The Shining

So, it's 2 minutes to midnight on Saturday night... If I start writing now it still counts as on time, right? :)

This week I didn't watch any movies that I was desperate to relive. Instead, because my film class is focussed on Horror movies this week, I watched The Shining. In fact, I watched it twice. The first time was supposed to be in class, but I skipped class that day, and watched it alone, at night instead.

Crap, that was a bad idea. Didn't sleep well at all - had visions all night of creepy twins, and a river of blood... I have to say that this is one of the most unpleasant experiences I've had watching a movie, while at the same time it is such an admirably well-made film. The absolute highlight for me was that cascade of blood; possibly the most arresting image I've ever seen on the screen. I had seen it before, on youtube, but in the context of the film it's used to great effect, and it never seems to get old, or less disturbing, no matter how many times it's shown.

In fact, I thought I'd show it to my girlfriend - she loves horror movies - to see if she thought it was as incredible as I did. The moment she saw it she said "We're watching this. Now." So, I sat through this disturbing flick a second time in the same week. It's amazing that even when you know what's coming, the movie is powerful enough to keep you as unsettled as the first watch. Redrum is now our catchphrase.

HERE ONWARDS BE SPOILERS!!

Taking a cue from the Slashfilmcast (probably my favourite movie podcast), I just threw that tag up there to let you know: I'm going to talk about the ending, and other plot details of the film, so if you haven't seen it, read no further. Mind you, I read the plot summary of The Shining on wikipedia years ago; It's not the twists of plot that gets to you, it's the heavy, heavy atmosphere.

One other moment that sticks out for me is when Jack starts screaming in his sleep, and awakes frantic. He looks genuinely frightened as he describes the horrible things he did in his nightmare to his wife. I'm not a father, but having a baby sister, and being a committed boyfriend, I can empathise with the kind of terror that would strike a father at the thought of losing his mind and striking out against the people that depend on you to protect them. I see this scene as a rare moment of sanity for Jack, on his slippery slope into madness, when he suddenly realises that the visions he's seeing are horrible, and desperately seeks a reprieve in his ever-commited wife.

Now, the movie does imply (very definitely in the extended version) that Jack is not a great father; an alcoholic and abusive man, who doesn't care for his family, despite Wendy's incessant loyalty. It's this checkered past in their relationship that makes her turn on him in his time of need, accusing him, quite reasonably, of injuring Danny. Although it is a sad moment of misunderstanding, and perhaps Jack wouldn't have gone quite so mad if she'd stuck with him in that moment (he then proceeds, frustrated, to get an invisible drink from the imaginary bartender; his first vision that ultimately leads to his rampage), in a way it is his own fault, for the way he's treated them in the past.

If you're like me, and wondering what the hell was up with all that craziness at the end (like the visions that Wendy sees, and the motivation behind the ghosts), the book is much less ambiguous, and from what I gathered from Wikipedia, it goes thus:

The Overlook hotel is in fact a psychic entity itself. When Danny arrives, it seeks to obtain his psychic power by killing him. It sends him visions, trying to break him, but he defends himself through his split personality - Tony is like the psychic aspect of himself. Failing that, the hotel attacks Jack, playing off his flaws, to drive him to do it's bidding, i.e., go mad and kill his family (namely Danny). When Halloran is murdered, the hotel absorbs his psychic power, which allows Wendy to see the 'ghosts'.

In sum, the film is a masterpiece, with some harrowing and unsettling imagery and music (Oh the music!), wrapped up in a plot that's both simple and subtly ambiguous. It could be read any number of ways, and the themes in it are powerful, and worth dwelling upon. I've only really offered a taste of the potential for reading this movie, but I guess that's the point of only writing snippets.
800 words. Too many. I'm off to bed.
Redrum.