I found my copy of DARK SIDE OF GENIUS [not so easily done, as I've double shelved my books, for lack of space--really have to figure out a better way to shelve all my books] so I have read the section on JAMAICA INN in that book.
The movie comes at an awkward time for Hitchcock. He had already agreed to do a picture for Erich Pommer and Charles Laughton's studio, when he was coming to the end of his contract at Gaumont. Meanwhile, Hitchcoock was entertaining offers from America.
His last picture for Gaumont was THE LADY VANISHES which would prove to be a huge success.Before this movie came out, Daphne du Maurier's REBECCA was in galleys and attracted attention from many different people who hoped to make it into a movie. Hitch was friend's with the author's father and he was trying to buy the rights, hoping that this would be his first American movie--and owning the rights would give him more creative freedom.
Because of all the excitement about REBECCA--before the book had even been published--Pommer and Laughton sought to secure the rights to one of her other novels--JAMAICA INN. And they held Hitchcock to his contract with them--forcing him to direct JAMAICA INN, although he had no interest in the story.
Before he began filming on JAMAICA INN, Hitch went to America to finalize his deal with Selznick. Selznick had the idea of getting Hitchcock to direct a movie called THE TITANIC (which also held no interest for Hitch).
Upon his return to Britain, Hitchcock's assistant Joan Harrison was in negotiations with Du Maurier for the REBECCA rights. However, Du Maurier was displeased with the screenplay adaptation of JAMAICA INN--and hoped to find someone who would be more faithful to her REBECCA. Given Selznick's experience with novel adaptations, she trusted him to do a better job and so Selznick won the rights (not Hitch).
Meanwhile, on the set of JAMAICA INN, Laughton's ego ran over Hitchcock and the other actors. The whole movie was a bad memory for the director. The only aspect that really interested him was the Jekyll and Hyde psychology of Laughton's character.
The movie opened to bad reviews and Laughton's performance attracted condemnation from the critics. Hitchcock was anxious to put the whole thing behind him and get on with his new career in Hollywood.
I saw The Way Way Back recently. I thought it was pretty good. In many ways, it made me think of the George Clooney movie The Descendants or Adventureland. The only big difference is that this is told from the POV of a kid, which weakens it just a little bit for me. Overall, though, I highly recommend this movie. Great kind of summer vacation type of movie.
REBECCA became my favorite Hitchcock movie the first time I saw it. Funny enough, what initially caught my attention-- when I turned it on in the middle one day (on TCM)-- was instantly recognizing it as the main source for the "1970 Parallel Time" story on DARK SHADOWS!
A couple months later (I think), I'd started checking TCM's website to compile my own schedule of movies I might like to see, so I wouldn't keep turning things on in the middle. The next time REBECCA was on, I taped it. I've seen it several times since then. I love how the movie never seems to stay in one part of the story long enough to get boring. It keeps progressing, each new section revealing things you didn't know before. Each SUCCESSIVE twist just gets better and better. Although, I think the best twist has to be the scene where Maxim tells his (UN-NAMED!!!) wife, "Is THAT what you think?????" And THEN he tells her the TRUTH!
It's a toss-up between REBECCA and THE DEVIL'S DISCIPLE for my favorite Laurence Olivier film. Although his role as "Gentleman Johnny" is a lot more likable, and far more entertaining.
...I saw THE SECRET LIFE OF WALTER MITTY , Stiller-starr'd/direc'd and I like , quite a bit !!!!!!!!! Bad advances or no . I'd say " See it " !
My wife and I saw Dredd on Netflix the other night, a movie that disappeared from the theaters before I had a chance to see it, and I have always been meaning to see. And we really enjoyed it.
The ultra-violence isn't for everybody, of course, and given the lead character's one-note characterization, it's hard for any actor to do much with him. But the set-up was terrific, the special effects eye-popping and the villain terrific (Lena Headey from Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles -- who says there are no roles for women over 40?). Special mention should be made for Judge candidate Anderson, a psychic (as she was in the comics) who serves as the viewer's POV, and who essentially has to carry the movie, since Dredd's dialogue is sparse and he has virtually no reaction to anything (except to shoot it).
Why didn't this movie do better? Did the Sylvester Stallone vehicle just poison the well too much?
I've liked Lena Headey since her performance in 300, and I really enjoyed the Sarah Connor Chronicles, so I'm adding Dredd to my list based upon the Captain's recommendation. I've also never seen Rebecca for some reason, which is odd since I've watched and loved a lot of Hitchcock, so I'm adding it to my list based upon Henry's recommendation.
...I saw it theatrically , in 3-D (not an option on Netflix ?) , the first (and IIRC last) " made-for " modern 3-D movie I have seen (I saw the deep remixes of Lion King - hadn't seen it before ! - and Finding Nemo - had !!!!!) , and , my maioden 3-D voyage impressed me a bit - bloodstains hanging in the air !!!!!!!!!
Bluntly , JD is a pretty minor character in America who's pretty far past his highest level of US penetration - Not much to build upon .
What , DC , recently , has the rights and occasionally puts out compiled-for-the-US book collections ? Or do/did they just let the Brit book get exported here ?
I just remembered that IDW series recently - Eeeh .
In the 00s I bought the JUDGE DREDD MEGAZINE regularly - a nice package , newies and reprints and text pieces , Dredd and his universe and not . I didn't buy 2AD . Until fairly recently , and I'd bought a teeny bit of Dredd as far back as the 80s/90s Qualities , I kind of thought Dredd was exclusively , I guess , a sort of dark satire strip , with very brief stories about Mega City Four that inevitably ended in the last two panels with Dredd bursting in and going " Okay you creeps ! It's ten years in the Iso-Cubes for you !!! " , so to speak , aa formulatic in basic structure as And Her Name Was Maud ! or Little Nemo In Slumberland .(Quite a comparison , eh ???????) I didn't know that there had been more extended/" serious " JD stories til' about the time I fell into buying MEGAZINE . I even bought and read at least one JD prose paperback novel involving a return trip to a moon colony that followed up on a famed comics storyline apparently .
The recent Dredd flick had an odd bit where a piece of rather 60s-ish " twangle jangle " (New , however) sorta music was heard twice , whenever the person with kinda Beatles/Byrds-esque hair in the villians' lair was seen onscreen , I asked about it at a Brit-based music board of mine (It wasn't credited in the end titles) and was answered there , but I forget it now .
I saw some speculation on another board that the film may have done well enough non-US-side to rate a sequel ~ They were pretty obviously trying to set up the Cursed World (That's its' name ?????) concept ~ So , the 'hood/tower blocks of Jo'Burg look nough like a yeccchhhy post-apocolyptic you're life's in your hands urban jungle/wilderness that they coniodered it the real MC4 ? I guess Mandela couldn't do everything , eh .
I was a little disillusioned when I found out that Dredd's world was supposed to be the former America , not Britain , more America-bashing on Brits' part it sorta seemed to me , I think??
...DREDD was more or less an uncredited remake of ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13 (which I saw a TV-edit of Carpenter's original of some years ago)...Carpenter's was essentially a redo of RIO BRAVO (which I've never gandered) , I guess...
I watched JAMAICA INN a couple days ago to refresh my memory and I found it not nearly as bad as some make it out to be. There were some HItchcockian things about it--the scene in the cave, the scene with the brandy, and the two pivotal scenes at the end. However, the period setting probably wasn't to HItchcock's liking and the story doesn't really allow for a slow build--which is one of the signatures of many HItchcock movies, as they build the suspense. There's little room in the JAMAICA INN story for Hitchcock to build up the suspense before all the action happens. And I think the negative reaction of the critics at the time was partly due to the lapses in morals--which would have offended public standards of the time.
E.D., Dredd is basically a motorcycle cop of the future, and motorcycle cops are more associated with the US than the UK. His helmet initially had a rounded look, with his visor resembling sunglasses. The very early story excerpted in the preview here stresses Dredd's ruthlessness in applying the law. It might reflect British ideas that American society is violent, or American policing violent. (British police don't carry guns. For the record, Australian police do.) At the time rising urban violence was a concern in America. On the other hand, I'm not sure that that Dredd's future was initially conceived as dystopian. The tendency in that direction may have been more due to the kinds of stories the creators ended up telling. Also, most of the time the people of Mega-City One weren't depicted as thinking of themselves as Americans. Instead, the city came to be represented as self-governing, transcontinental US government having been ended by WWIII. I understand an episode parodying McDonald's appeared in the original "Curse Earth" storyline.
There was another feature in early issues of 2000 A.D. with a US connection, "Harlem's Heroes", which was about a black team that played an aerial version of basketball.
I remember seeing a page of original art (I think) at a convention. It had a thief who was a really fast runner. Dredd blew off both of his legs. This didn't inspire me to follow the character in the books.