I want to know your theory
I just wanna see if I got this straight, so correct me if I'm wrong. Ok, so we have this family comming into this huge hotel to take care of it while it's shut down during winter. The father is a failed writer. The kid has ESP (Extra Sensorial Perception, mind powers such as telepathy, clairvoyance, telechinesis and so on...) and so does the black guy. Along the movie, I began questioning wether perhaps the father also has ESP. Let's take his side of the story. He come to the hotel to finally do some writting away from the distractions of the city. He hears what happened to the last family who took the job. For the following days, he finds himself still uninspired to write. The days go by and still not one page... As if that wasn't enought, the wife starts bitching about their son, about being lonely, about everything. That stress, plus his fear of being in that ghostly hotel all by himself gets him into seing things, imagining characters (like my Marcus...). Among them, the murderous father of the former family. As the days progress, still no inspiration. Frustration builds up and he begins seeing more of that guy. The buttler. He starts to identify with him. All the while, the kid starts getting all sorts of weird impressions about the place and about what he heard. So both of them have all this energy in them. My guess is, by the time the buttles convinces the father to butcher his own family, all that energy starts materializing things and making things happen. Like when the buttler opens the door for the father, freeing him. Or all the other things that the mother sees in the end of the movie. Even that last photograph, where it's clear that the father has come to such a level of identification, that he believes he is the buttler.
Got any other views on this?
By the way, Kubrick's photography and sript are excellent! I hear they trashed the movie on this new version that came out recently... I don't even feel like watching.
By the way, I just had to do this:
All work and no play make Pan a dull boy.
All work and no play make Pan a dull boy.
All work and no play make Pan a dull boy.
All work and no play make Pan a dull boy.
All work and no play make Pan a dull boy.
All work and no play make Pan a dull boy.

. I have to say: the director, a fellow who goes by the name of McG, must've been really stoned while directing this. There are a bunch of really cool action scenes, but most of them are simply too riiculously far fetched, even for an Angels movie. Like for instance, Demy Moore, the villain, jumping off a builiding and flying half-way across an avenue with clothes that look like a silk version of X-men's Banshee. On the good side, I can enlist the appearence of fellow countryman Rodrigo Santoro, who doesn't actually do anything relevant, but hey, it's one of our actors on the big screen! Also, I really liked the enourmous amounts of references to pop culture idols. I mean, the movie is one big collage of references. From Drew Barrymore wearing David Bowie's Alladin Sane make-up as a wrestler (to the sound of Bowie's Rebel Rebel...), going through Matrix-like action scenes, Moulin Rouge choreographies, and your obvious references to angels, heaven, hell, etc... Nice roles played by X-Files' Robert Patrick and Bruce Willis, who seems to be one more actor to chalk up on that list of guys who always play the same role. Oh, I almost forgot! You also get to see the return of that thin guy who fought with them on the first movie!! Definitely one of the coolest characters (aside from the angels themselves, that it...).
Yes, it was the very first 007 movie. Dad wants to do what everyone always talks of doing: rent them all, in sequence. The first movie seems to be just one big detective story. Nothing too great about it. Bond doesn't even have any of those nifty gadgets he uses. It is, however, the movie that introduces the famous Walter PPK, his famous, yet tiny pistol. Bond is played by a very young Sean Connery, who depicts him as a seductive gumshoe with one or two tricks up his sleave (and bellow the belt...). One thing that really drew my attention is how simple are the fight scenes. Nowadays both the villain and the hero fly up into the air in slow-motion break out the fancy martial arts. But back then, Bond would just unarm his opponents with a simple flick of the wrist. No camera tricks. I'm curious to see how he'll evolve...

. I used to watch some of his movies when I was a kid. My favorite was the 3rd Nightmare on Elm street, called Dream warriors. The thing with Freddy is that he had no specific victim. For all I knew when I was a kid, I could be the next one just as soon as I fell asleep. And you couldn't stay awake forever... That's what made Freddy better than, let's say, Jason, who had a very specific story and a setting. I knew he couldn't come after me in the middle of the city because he always stayed close to water. Reminds me of another horror classic of the 80's: Puppet master. The monsters were this team of small puppets and dolls. Imagine what it was for a kid to watch such a movie and then be put to sleep in a room full of armed G.I. Joes and other toys... Last but not least, there was also Aracnophobia. A movie that seemed to tease our fear of common house spiders.