Stanley Kubrick

[lapseofluxury]

Who else here thinks this guy is the Jesus Christ of filmmakers?

2001 should be playing 24/7 in a temple somewhere. Every single one of his films is incredible. He makes movies that are smarter, better-looking, and more entertaining than all of thye moviers being made today.Paths of Glory, Dr. Strangelove, Lolita, Eyes Wide Shut, Full metal Jacket, Clockwork Orange, Spartacus, The Shining, Barry Lyndon, Killer's Kiss. Every single one of these movies are fantastic. I think it can be argued that he himself made 3 or 4 movies that are better than anything else, ever. Someone who doesnt dig him will say I'm a fanboy for sure, but I don't see anything wrong with having that many movies really hit you in a deep, awesome way.

Go Stanley Kubrick.

[Szlia]

I think he is seriously over rated and that it takes some talent to use the word "fantastic" to describe Killer's Kiss. That said, even if most his movies are uneven, he is a true film maker (a rare breed), with a keen sense of composition and camera movement, an obsession with symmetry, often obtained by filming the action in an axial way. Certainly a visual visionary too if you consider the year of production of A Space Odyssey.

For me he is the man of one true masterpiece: Dr. Strangelove, although I have not seen a movie you have not mentioned and that is considered by a friend of mine to be one of the best if not the best Kubrick's movie: The Killing.

[Saediien]

Stanley Kubrick picked a genre and made the best film in the history of the genre. About five or six times.

His style is very clinical and detached, which rubs some people the wrong way. But those people suck. Kubrick rules.

[lapseofluxury]

Ah yes, The Killing. I meant to put that in instead of Killer's Kiss. KK was alright, but it was definitely before he mastered the craft of filmmaking.

What the Beatles were to music Stanley Kubrick was to film.

[randomguy]

Too short of a career.

Thats the only truthfull thing I can say about the man. Everything else can be debated on for years. Barry Lyndon, a solid favorite of mine. Clockwork Orange, so good. The man could make the plot of Lolita into a great film. Pure genius. The Shining ? Oh baby, I want some more.

Though it can be debated with Full Metal Jacket, and Dr. Strangelove on if he got "lucky" with his time period. Whether he was really revolutionary and thinking outside of the box or just had the opportunity mixed with IQ to present something in a way that everyone was thinking. However , I feel, thats what made him so good. That he could present it that way. Too many directors are loved for their movies, when it's not them. It's the story, or the people in the movies that really make it. All they had to do was take wild, intense, and dramatic camera angles to move the viewers focus from scene to scene. Nothing else. This was a man who turned garbage plot lines into genius. Not everything he directed was crap when it was written, but some of his films were not the best well written dialogue or story plots at all. Most of the films he directed on paper would be considered tired and boring. This was a man who made each one explode visually to something it was never ment to be.

Now most people will hate me for this, but I seriously hate the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey. I know its in the top 5 for AFI's movies of all times. I have seen it a few times. I just don't like it. Most people will say "man, you don't get it man". No man. I do, I fucking get it. I just don't like it. It's pretenious, it's poetic, some visually astounding in some scenes. Though it's really not that good to me. My dad saw it in the theater and remembers about 40 mins into it people were screaming "BRING BACK THE MONKEYS" and throwing popcorn at the screen. Funny. Anyhow, that's just my opinion.

[lapseofluxury]

About the him being lucky to be doing the films he did at the time he did them. You could make some films right now that would make alot of people say "this movie sais what all of us were feeling but werent able to say." At every point in history there are hot topics that havent been put on film in the correct way yet. Talking to my mother , who is 60 years old and was in her prime when alot of these movies came out, about the films gives me the impresion that they really struck a strong nerve in the public when they were first released. Lolita, she sais, was extremely taboo, they wouldnt even print the book in the US.

If anyone is interested in Kubrick, I strongly suggest the documentary about his life and career called Stanley Kubrick: Life in Pictures it is a very well done and in-depth documentary and it is narrated by, guess whoooo, Tom Cruise.

[Szlia]

I am sorry, but as far as Peplum goes, Jerzy Kavalerowicz's Faraon is better than Spartacus in just about every way. BUT it was made 6 years later, I'll concede that.

But when it comes to denouncing the absurdity of war, Kon Ichikawa's immortal masterpiece The Burmese Harp was made 1 year before Path of Glory!

That does not make Kubrick less of a major figure of film history, but I don't think he is really worthy of such extreme adoration.

As far as comparing him to the Beatles... I am not sure. Was Kubrick really influential? Did he spawn a whole generation of meticulous plasticians as he was? I don't really see it... Carpenter could be described as an heir of Kubrick in some way (Dark Star, Halloween), Shyamalan also as he is one of the last if not the last american film maker who worries about mise en scène. The Beatles of cinema would probably be something like the fench New Wave that durably and deeply altered the way film were made (both in production and story telling) still to this very day.

[lapseofluxury]

Netflix doesnt have either of the movies you recommended, I tried to check them out.

[Szlia]

Oddly it seems The Burmese Harp does not exist on DVD at this point (probably a problem with rights or quality of the available film prints). Pharaoh does though but it might be a little tough to find. I saw both in theatre myself because I am cool like that (actualy I first saw Pharaoh on TV I think, not sure about The Burmese Harp).

[lapseofluxury]

Alot of the weird ambiguity and mystery in Kubrick's movies, especially 2001 and the shining, is due to the fact that he only looked at the movie as needing "7 non-submersible units". He would just come up with 7 parts that would be cool in the framework of the movie, and then AFTER that he would make the connections between them. I like this style. It helps avoid the corniness.

[Tea on tuesday]

It also makes for horrible pacing: something Kubrick was definately not a master of.

[Nafien]

Maybe its my uncultured uncouthness talking - I dont understand why 2001 is so heralded.

Anyone else find it very pompous that the movie starts with 5 minutes of black screen and buzzing?

I did enjoy the shining, clockwork orange and dr. strangelove - despite Kubricks ego oozing between the frames.

[Cybsled]

Dr. Stangelove is the win.

"MEIN FURHER! I CAN WALK!"

[Vorph]

Loved The Shining and Full Metal Jacket. Hate A Clockwork Orange with every fiber of my being. 2001 bored me to death as both a kid and an adult. I respect Dr. Strangelove for what it was, but like most non-noir, non-Hitchcock (who I feel was a vastly superior filmmaker) movies of that age, I have no interest in ever watching it again.

That about sums up my feelings on Kubrick.

[Kan]

Kubrick is pretty good but not flat out amazing imo. A Clockwork Orange is great as is Full Metal Jacket and The Shining as for 2001 I hate it with a passion it is incredibly boring.