Stanley Kubrick

[blackmoses]

Talk about The Kubrick here.

[atomicsparrow]

In my opinion, the greatest director to have ever graced the planet.

[blackmoses]

I agree!!!!!!!!!!!

[mixed]

Strangelove is cool, he is good but I've only seen strangelove, 2001 and the shining. Strangelove being great, the shining alright and 2001 need another viewing...

[agentknight]

Definitely one of my favourite directors. I still haven't seen Eyes Wide Shut, Barry Lyndon and Full Metal Jacket, but I'll get around to it eventually.

[criterionmaster]

Mother of GOD! Full Metal and Eyes Wide Shut will make you die they are so good. I haven't seen Barry Lyndon yet either though.

[captainofbeef]

I have seen it. It is very good, one of my top 5 favorite Kubrick.

[kiddo]

I think I would rank them something like this:

A Clockwork Orange
2001: A Space Odyssey
Eyes Wide Shut
Barry Lyndon
Full Metal Jacket
The Shining
Dr. Strangelove
Lolita

One of the true masters of cinema.

[captainofbeef]

Ya, he is a true master. But, I think a lot of his films drop off in the second half. Examples are A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket, and Spartacus. The first acts of those films are soo amazing, then the second halfs just fall short.

[PTAhole]

I'm gonna kill you. Just wait.

[blackmoses]

captainofbeef said:

Ya, he is a true master. But, I think a lot of his films drop off in the second half. Examples are A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket, and Spartacus. The first acts of those films are soo amazing, then the second halfs just fall short.

BeeD I HATE YOU! You know nothing.

[meshuggeth]

My favorite director right now. I just need to see Barry Lyndon.

[misterbalco]

Paths of Glory is one of the most underrated films ever. Could any of you disagree? Its one of the 10 best films Ive ever seen.

[Clark Nova]

I've seen 5 Kubricks so far, all of them stunningly great (except for the Shining, which I think is just a little overrated). Here's how I'd rank them.

- Dr. Strangelove (greatest comedy ever made, and one of the greatest films ever made, I think)
- 2001: A Space Odyssey
- A Clockwork Orange
- Full Metal Jacket (fantastic first half, but too conventional in the 2nd half)
- The Shining

[adelinemorty]

misterbalco said:

Paths of Glory is one of the most underrated films ever. Could any of you disagree? Its one of the 10 best films Ive ever seen.

you're right

[Nomansvally]

I've seen 9 Kubricks and here's my rankings:

1. Barry Lyndon (one of my top 5 favorite films ever!)
2. 2001: A Space Odessey
3. A Clockwork Orange
4. The Killing
5. Dr. Strangelove
6. Eyes Wide Shut
7. Full Metal Jacket
8. Spartacus
9. The Shining (I was kinda dissapointed when I saw this for the first time, I had very high anticipation)

[meshuggeth]

Yes Paths of Glory is amazing (my second favorite Kubrick). Here is how I'd rank them:
2001: A Space Odyssey
Paths of Glory
Dr. Strangelove
The Shining
Full Metal Jacket
A Clockwork Orange
I don't agree that The Shining is overrated.

[Nomansvally]

I just recived Paths of Glory and planning to see it really soon. Can't wait!

[ie]

(I'm going to necropost here, so if you don't like it, just delete my post and it'll all be alright.)


I'm coming out of the closet...


I think Stanley Kubrick is overrated. He personally hates me (even though he's dead and probably doesn't care that much) and he almost made me want to stop watching movies completely.

Okay, so the fellow can direct, and he's done some pretty famous imagery. I just don't feel what he's trying to get across, and I haven't really been overly impressed with any of his movies.


Dr. Strangelove - 8/10

Actually, if you want to call it such, this would be my "favorite" Kubrick movie. In that I think it's a decent movie, maybe it hasn't aged very well so when I watch it doesn't quite affect me as much as if I saw it when it was new, but you know, I don't have any negative opinions of it. So moving on...


A Clockwork Orange - 7/10

{{spoilers for the book!}}

I read the novel and read a copy of the last chapter years before watching the movie. So, I actually know it's a story of Alex's redemption. Alex goes through the book, happy as can be, and as we all know, Kubrick didn't know about the proper ending / last chapter, so he tried to figure out what left of the story was meaningful, which I won't knock the guy on at all. Alex probably will return to his life of crime, everyone's happy that isn't dead and no one learned a goddamn thing. What's the point?

Well, in the last chapter, we find out that Alex really has gone back to his old life, with a new group of droogs. He's happy as can be, when a few small events lead him to look at his life for the first time. These events, building in meaning, cause him to really take responsibility for his actions, really makes him think about his place in the world. And guess what? He decides to become a better person. He even thinks about raising a family.

I feel this last chapter, this moral of Alex coming to terms with his actions - which really shows that you can do all of this bad shit when you're young, but when you're ready to grow up, you can really become something. That, I believe, is why A Clockwork Orange should be remembered. Not for Nadsat, nor for the ultraviolence; that is icing.

So, you know, Kubrick did a nice translation. He may have taken some liberties, but he didn't screw up with what he had to work with. He just missed out on what the novel was really about, as most of us here in USA, Inc missed out on.


2001: A Space Odyssey - 5/10

I almost gave up on watching movies completely because of this movie.

Everyone that is serious about movies goes around praising this as the Work of God, the quintessential Masterpiece that all masterpieces should be judged, the definitive movie that will never be toppled, if a movie were half as great as this then it would deserve to be watched even once. The Divine Comedy is but a drop in an ocean compared to 2001: A Space Odyssey. The magnum opus a master of philosophy, and a defining piece of work that will change your very life as you know it. This is why movies exist; mankind evolved so that one day Stanley Kubrick might release 2001: A Space Odyssey! God visited Earth using the alias Stanley Kubrick, and you wouldn't want to smite God, now, would you?

I didn't exactly go in with these lofty expectations, but I went in knowing that a lot of people lust over this movie uncontrollably, and would probably murder anyone that actually thinks of it as any less than a 100/10.

So, when I sat and watched this movie, I honestly couldn't even finish it. It was just a series of four-minute shots of the most monotonous things I could ever imagine. I couldn't philosophize, like by now you may actually doubt I am able to do, I couldn't think. I was just trying to get a grasp for why Stanley Kubrick hated me so much.

Honestly, I couldn't even watch anything past the intermission. I did need to see the Star Child bit to at least know what everyone was talking about, but it just didn't stir anything in me. I was also surprised, when reading Wikipedia to find out what I missed, that the entire plot of what I missed was summarized into one short sentence.

Overall, I almost gave up on watching movies because obviously, if I had such opinions of The Greatest Movie Period, how could anyone take me seriously? More personally, why bother with movies?


So, while I would rather you not call me a fool for not being a devout Kubrickist, I could see why you'd want to. (I don't fear God, which using my earlier analogy would mean Stanley Kubrick, but I should worry about his follows.) At least I do have some reasoning involved, you know?

Also, I have access to Full Metal Jacket and A.I. (which I still consider a Kubrick work), but have only put passive effort into watching either movie. I've heard really good things about Full Metal Jacket, but you know, I've heard the same for all of Stanley Kubrick's other works. And A.I. I've heard is either good or not-so-good, and it seems like I could actually enjoy it, but I'm also a bit hesitant.

Okay, I'm done.

[PTAhole]

A.I. is very much a Steven Spielberg film. And the ending brings out his worst qualities. I love Spielberg personally, but ending of A.I. is just so tacked on. Before that, it is a perfect film. I just wish that the second ending wasn't there. Check it out though, very good film.

[ie]

I'll still check it out, though, since I actually own a DVD of it (bought it before I found out Kubrick had a vendetta against me), so I can't just up and throw it out. I have to check it out. Ape law requires it of me.

I'm just kinda, you know, holding back.

[criterionmaster]

Day of the Fight (Stanley Kubrick; 1951) 8/10

This is an excellent Kubrick short documentary about a boxer before the day of a big fight. Kubrick used this short to get hired to RKO.



Flying Padre (Stanley Kubrick; 1951) 6/10

Kubrick’s other short documentary isn’t as good as Day of the Fight but it was an interesting piece about a priest who flies around his church. It’s worth checking out.



WATCH IT

[blackmoses]

Day of the Fight 8/10
This was pretty good and it had some great shots.

Flying Padre 7/10
This was not as good as Day of the Fight, but it was still pretty good.

[kiddo]

ie said:

... A Clockwork Orange - 7/10

{{spoilers for the book!}}

I read the novel and read a copy of the last chapter years before watching the movie. So, I actually know it's a story of Alex's redemption. Alex goes through the book, happy as can be, and as we all know, Kubrick didn't know about the proper ending / last chapter, so he tried to figure out what left of the story was meaningful, which I won't knock the guy on at all. Alex probably will return to his life of crime, everyone's happy that isn't dead and no one learned a goddamn thing. What's the point?

I think Kubricks masterpiece has a important and vital point. How much can one do to a person to get him "more healthy" or "less agressive"? In A Clockwork Orange, Kubrick deals with this question. At the end, when Alex evidently has got his taste for "ultraviolence" back again, we question ourself: Is it better that he continue his "rampage" than that he walks around in scoiety as a harmless zombie? Alex`s last comment "I was cured, all right", seems like a picture on that he is cured from the society, and not by the society, as he before was.

And I think it`s unfair to compare the book to the film too much. Litterature and cinema are two separate things, and stands on their own feet, even if they have the same setting and/or main story. Kubrick manages to make a film which maybe surpass the books greatness.

ie said:

... Honestly, I couldn't even watch anything past the intermission. I did need to see the Star Child bit to at least know what everyone was talking about, but it just didn't stir anything in me. I was also surprised, when reading Wikipedia to find out what I missed, that the entire plot of what I missed was summarized into one short sentence.

I can understand that you don`t like it (I didn`t the first time i saw it), but how can one state that a film is bad when he/she hasn`t even seen the whole thing?

Other than that, I think it`s cool that you posted this. This is one of the great things with forums like this. We all have different opinions, and cinema is an arena where subjective opinions rule...

[ie]

I don't think 2001 is bad. I just don't like it.

And, true, because I didn't watch the whole movie, I can't really pass judgment. But I could not tolerate watching it anymore of it; I probably would have given up had the intermission not started. As I recall, it took me some time - just before I was going to return it, actually - before deciding to check out the ending.



As for A Clockwork Orange, since I've finally gathered my thoughts on the matter:


I don't think the questions presented in the movie are as valid as the ones presented in the book. In fact, I don't consider the questions of morality to be valid at all.

The movie essentially asks: is it okay to commit violence if that is in your nature? Or as you wrote: "Is it better that he continue his "rampage" than that he walks around in scoiety as a harmless zombie?"

Random acts of violence are not acceptable in society. It is disruptive to society, and therefore, questioning whether it is acceptable to allow people to commit violence is not valid.

This is one case where I'm up front in saying that the movie was a decent interpretation, but it's not a thinking movie.


Oh, and concerning the book: I haven't read the book in years, so there's only so much I can compare. I can't compare scenes, and I know what you mean, that the written word is different than movies. But I just feel that the issues presented in the novel - that you truly can become a better person if you try - are stronger (and more valid) issues than what was presented in the movie.


I don't mean to be offensive, nor do I mean to say that any of Kubrick's movies are crappy. I am also glad, though, to have discussion on this and other topics. Turns ye old cinema into a thinking game.

[captainofbeef]

I personally thought the book got lost in the dialogue, while the dialogue was presented so well in the movie, I barely even noticed it. But I did see the film before I read the book, so maybe that is a problem. But I feel that the film is a masterpiece and the book is not.

[ie]

Well, the Nadsat masks all of the violence.

So you get halfway through this really violent scene, something that Stanley Kubrick wouldn't even touch, and you just really realize "oh, wait..." and it's just the same kind of shock with movies where you see enough of the violence to know what's happening, but the director lets you imagine the rest.


Honestly, I don't think the book is a masterpiece either.

[kiddo]

Let`s continue our little A Clockwork Orange/Stanley Kubrick-discussion:

I can only say what I felt and feel while watching it, and that is this:

The main theme of the film is societys system vs. the free being of a human. Is it at all rightful to practically "kill" a person (take all the freedom away from him/her) no matter how fucked up the person is? It may be a difficult question, and I think it is asked very clearly in A Clockwork Orange. Alex is a fucked-up son of a bitch, but should he not have his freedom of judgement - and then: Is it better to be emotionally dead than physically dead? Our freedom to do things are one of the most important things, but difficult questions are raised when it comes to devils like Alex.

I will come back with more thoughts later, but now I`m going to school. Cheers.

[ie]

Sure, let's go.


I still don't see any validity in allowing any member of society to be violent.

However, this is something to address: how much should a government interfere in people's lives? Well, I think correction should be involved for violent people, such as current day prisoner correctional programs, but I don't know if they're 100% effective. I don't think of the criminal system too much, actually.

But if we go with the Ludovico technique, the treatment is far too severe. It prevents Alex from doing acts of violence, but it also prevents him from doing other things as well, such as self defense. I do not approve of this technique.
So, ideally, there would be some way of preventing members of society as a whole from committing (unnecessary) acts of violence, or even more so, preventing the inspiration for these random acts of violence. Anger management courses (haven't seen the movie, don't really want to either) and responsible parenting are two examples that could help on a large scale, without negatively influencing the members of a society. You know, diffusing people before they can turn to violence. That kind of stuff.


Overall, it's easy enough to do, but it would require a bit more of government involvement. But this is how government should act. You live in a society, and societies are two-way systems: you help your government, your government helps you. Taxes aren't here just to fuck you over and take your money, they build roads, they pay for things you may not use, but other people do. Sure, you might never have children, but you pay taxes so other people's children can go through a schooling system that isn't complete shit, so they don't grow up to be fucking criminals that will kill you for $20 some day. And if the rules a government puts forth for the members of its society are too much for you, why hang around? It'd be unpleasant for both parties, and eventually they'll stick you in a little hole for half your life if you act up.

So, if Alex was that unhappy with his society, he should have just up and left. Instead, he was exploiting loopholes, gets caught and in the movie's end, he gets to go back to exploiting loop holes and acting all badass.

To me, that's like saying it's better to allow violence.

I don't know. Why do people murder other people? Why can't they just let them be?


edit: You presented some good points, though. Thanks. Hopefully we can continue to avoid a flame war and just have a civil conversation. ;D

[kiddo]

I understand what you are saying, but I can`t really see any new input on the film. In a matter of fact, I think we are much agree on these things about the society we live in. But when it comes to the film, A Clockwork Orange, it seems like we disagree on what/how great the theme is. Am i right?

When I look back on what I wrote in the earlier posts, it may seem like I kind of support Alex a bit, which is wrong. I will not defend his actions, rather question how the society deals with the problem (which is Alex). And you come up with a good question: "how much should a government interfere in people's lives?". The film askes this questions, along with so many others. Let me think more about it, then come back with more thoughts (if I`ve collected something reasonable).