- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 8/22/14 at 10:39 am to LoveThatMoney
quote:
but Full Metal Jacket is not a great movie. It's a great first half of a movie, then it sucks. So that's my pick.
Blasphemy!!
I know we are giving our opinions so I will respect yours but have to disagree strongly.Not only is Full Metal Jacket my favorite Kubrick film, but it is one of my favorite films of all time. The second half does slow down a bit, but I think it is the best example in cinema of the true hell that fighting in the Vietnam war was.I could go on and on by breaking down specific scenes, etc., but I won't (it would be too long).
I don't think too many people on this board would agree with you that FMJ is "not a great movie".
ETA: Of the ones I've seen (missed a couple of the early ones) Barry Lyndon is my least favorite. I watched it probably about 10 years ago (or more) and I don't remember anything about it. Maybe I need to watch it again......
This post was edited on 8/22/14 at 10:45 am
Posted on 8/22/14 at 10:45 am to SportsGuyNOLA
quote:
And we can leave Eyes Wide Shut off the list, because I think that would be everyone's choice (it would be mine).
not mine. it may be my fav
quote:
I know Barry Lyndon was not successful at the box office, but I enjoyed it.
barry lyndon is awesome
i'm not counting the really early works...i don't really count his pre-paths of glory work as his canon
also, i haven't seen all of paths of glory, or lolita
full metal jacket is my least favorite kubrick film...that or spartacus
Posted on 8/22/14 at 10:47 am to Baloo
quote:
I feel like I've grown out of Kubrick. He's a wonderful visual stylist, and he makes some of the most beautiful movies ever put to film. That said, his movies are just so cold. He hasn't an ounce of humanity in him, it seems, and his characters rarely resemble anything approximating an actual human being. I've become much more humanist as I've grown older, and Kubrick, who really was the first director I truly loved, just doesn't appeal to me like he did when I was an Angry Young Man.
Out of curiosity, are you a fan of Aronofsky?
One of my biggest compliments to Aronofsky is his ability to pull the most unbelievable performances out of his actors to bring to life a real human struggle. Many people on here hate the Fountain for some reason (it is one of my favorite films), but I love how Hugh Jackman is so relatable despite the film being so out there. His ability to take us through time and space by showcasing Thomas' love for Izzy is marvelous.
And Aronofsky performs similar feats in nearly all of his other movies.
Posted on 8/22/14 at 10:50 am to LoveThatMoney
Don't turn this into a Noah thread.
That's one step below a Man of Steel thread.
That's one step below a Man of Steel thread.
Posted on 8/22/14 at 10:53 am to Fewer Kilometers
quote:
Don't turn this into a Noah thread.
That's one step below a Man of Steel thread.
... Didn't even mention either of those movies.
ETA: Feel free to ignore my post as it was directed at Baloo. You can continue to debate the point of this thread, which is your least favorite Kubrick film. I grant you that ability.
This post was edited on 8/22/14 at 10:54 am
Posted on 8/22/14 at 11:05 am to LoveThatMoney
I love Aronofsky. Pi is one of my favorite movies, and Requiem for a Dream is probably my favorite movie that I never, ever want to see again. And I'm with you on The Fountain. Aronofsky films are depressing, but there's always hope there. the Fountain is all about that hope, and really, all of the problems in Requiem are caused by their hopes. His vision of humanity isn't as bleak as Kubrick's (or Haneke or von Trier). I'm just not down for a director who seems to delight in punishing his audience anymore.
And if Full Metal Jacket is your rebuttal that Kubrick shows his humanity, well... prosecution rests.
And if Full Metal Jacket is your rebuttal that Kubrick shows his humanity, well... prosecution rests.
Posted on 8/22/14 at 11:08 am to Baloo
quote:
I feel like I've grown out of Kubrick. He's a wonderful visual stylist, and he makes some of the most beautiful movies ever put to film. That said, his movies are just so cold. He hasn't an ounce of humanity in him, it seems, and his characters rarely resemble anything approximating an actual human being. I've become much more humanist as I've grown older, and Kubrick, who really was the first director I truly loved, just doesn't appeal to me like he did when I was an Angry Young Man.
I agree with this for the most part. A Clockwork Orange, when you see that at 15 or 16, it's jsut mind-blowing. Now? Not so much. And frankly, I think The Shining is maybe the only film where he really cares about characters, where humanity gets through, especially with Danny's plight. It might be my favorite Kubrick now.
Because of this my Kubrick rankings have significantly changed....
quote:
I'd say Barry Lyndon is my least favorite Kubrick, as it represents all of my problems with Kubrick. It is weighted down by a wooden performance by his lead actor, and his actions are just an excuse to shoot truly beautiful scenes. It's like the movie equivalent of Macbeth: full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Lyndon used to be my favorite Kubrick, but I have to agree here. It's still a solid piece of film making, outstanding even. But it has fallen in recent years, just because it's too much "film," and not enough of everything else. I love it and I'll always love it, so I can't say it's my least favorite.
That award probably goes to Full Metal Jacket, after boot camp it just falters more than any other Kubrick film. And yeah, I think Kubrick had a tough time displaying any sort of humanity in this one too.
This post was edited on 8/22/14 at 11:10 am
Posted on 8/22/14 at 11:09 am to Baloo
quote:
And if Full Metal Jacket is your rebuttal that Kubrick shows his humanity, well... prosecution rests.
Was going to say the same thing but decided to let it go. The main character is pretty cold and the drill sergeant is downright inhuman. It works because it's the army during Vietnam and Kubrick takes the whole mess to an extreme, but it certainly doesn't show Kubrick's capacity to show humanity. Perhaps the better argument is that Kubrick specifically chooses to take the humanity out of a lot of his films to show just how inhumane we all are.
Posted on 8/22/14 at 11:16 am to Fewer Kilometers
quote:
Don't turn this into a Noah thread.
That's one step below a Man of Steel thread.
This isn't even a Marvel thread...
Posted on 8/22/14 at 11:16 am to Freauxzen
quote:
That award probably goes to Full Metal Jacket, after boot camp it just falters more than any other Kubrick film.
This is the same problem with people who don't like Apocalypse Now! after the bridge - and I know, because I was one of those people - for both films.
You're missing a large part of the point. The Vietnam scenes are the soul of FMJ - there is no soul in the basic training sequence until the very end.
And I get the comments about the films feeling "cold" - because, like Pink Floyd - Kubrick was a master of the silence - the spaces between - things unsaid and unseen. That can come off as cold - but what's really happening is that your imagination is being given an opportunity work. Lynch does this as well, as do the Coen Brothers (at times) and Aronofsky (to at least acknowledge that point in the thread - I do not agree with Aronofsky being in Kubrick's league, but I do agree that he at least attempts to mimic the style, and has successfully recreated that vibe in some of his films).
However, if your imagination is shut off, because you're a product of the overstimulated, overteched, "Michael Bay, J.J. Abrams hit-them-over-the-head-every-millisecond" film audience, then you're going to miss the true genius of an artist like Kubrick.
Film is a visual medium - in most cases, Kubrick's films are enjoyable with the sound turned down. Stunning.
Posted on 8/22/14 at 11:18 am to Freauxzen
i think barry lyndon being a complete sociopath trying to improve himself fits in perfectly with how kubrick presented it
i am not thinking about the character barry lyndon in terms of kubrick's entire canon, just as a character
i do think that the final duel scene shows a ton of development/anger with a very small use of film
i am not thinking about the character barry lyndon in terms of kubrick's entire canon, just as a character
i do think that the final duel scene shows a ton of development/anger with a very small use of film
Posted on 8/22/14 at 11:20 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
i think barry lyndon being a complete sociopath trying to improve himself fits in perfectly with how kubrick presented it
i am not thinking about the character barry lyndon in terms of kubrick's entire canon, just as a character
i do think that the final duel scene shows a ton of development/anger with a very small use of film
I wouldn't disagree, and I still think it's a much more inventive film than a lot of people give it credit for. Technically, it might be Kubrick's best work overall (at least it's equal to 2001). It just may not be my favorite anymore.
Posted on 8/22/14 at 11:22 am to Baloo
I think 2001 is actually his most humanitarian film. It has the running theme of human evolution but its actually talking to you the viewer specifically. There's a theory that the monolith represents the movie screen and the audience is actually going in the monolith and hopefully learning to open your eyes and evolve. I can post a video later but its a really interesting theory.
Posted on 8/22/14 at 11:24 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
However, if your imagination is shut off, because you're a product of the overstimulated, overteched, "Michael Bay, J.J. Abrams hit-them-over-the-head-every-millisecond" film audience, then you're going to miss the true genius of an artist like Kubrick.
Let's refrain from going that far. No one in this thread has said Kubrick is bad and, even if they believe that, that doesn't mean they need to be "hit over the head every millisecond."
quote:
You're missing a large part of the point. The Vietnam scenes are the soul of FMJ - there is no soul in the basic training sequence until the very end.
I think it is different than that. I simply think Kubrick didn't know what to do with the second half. It meanders and really doesn't say much, aside from the fact that the characters lack much in the way of humanity, which was an argument presented by one person on here as to why he didn't care for many of Kubrick's films anymore.
quote:
like Pink Floyd - Kubrick was a master of the silence - the spaces between - things unsaid and unseen
It's not that. The argument is that he doesn't have much to say in the way of his characters. Spaces of silence can be effective, but it sounds like the argument is that he is far more worried about making a film than telling a story, to perhaps badly paraphrase.
quote:
Lynch does this as well, as do the Coen Brothers (at times) and Aronofsky
Sure. I think any director worth his salt understands the importance of letting a scene hang when necessary. Hell, nearly all of Drive (and really, nearly all of Nicolas Winding-Refn's movies) is an exercise in this.
quote:
I do not agree with Aronofsky being in Kubrick's league, but I do agree that he at least attempts to mimic the style, and has successfully recreated that vibe in some of his films
To address this, whether you think Aronofsky is in Kubrick's league or not is not really a concern of mine, though I think he is getting far too much flack for Noah, which I have yet to see. I believe if you look at his films, they are intensely personal, from the Wrestler and Black Swan to the Fountain all the way to Pi. He uses space and silence effectively, but in vastly different ways than Kubrick. To say that Aronofsky attempts to mimic the style of Kubrick tells me you have not seen hardly any of Aronofsky's movies because he is quite the opposite of Kubrick in my mind.
This post was edited on 8/22/14 at 11:31 am
Posted on 8/22/14 at 11:24 am to SportsGuyNOLA
A Clockwork Orange
Posted on 8/22/14 at 11:25 am to Baloo
By humanity, does that mean identification with individual, deep characters? If that is what you mean then I could see that for many of Kubrick's films. Maybe best development as far as that goes is Paths of Glory.
However, I've thought that many of his movies made great and powerful statements about humanity as a whole and the significance of some human pursuits, although he probably didn't spend too much time on a depiction of an individual "struggle."
However, I've thought that many of his movies made great and powerful statements about humanity as a whole and the significance of some human pursuits, although he probably didn't spend too much time on a depiction of an individual "struggle."
Posted on 8/22/14 at 11:25 am to Freauxzen
quote:
Technically, it might be Kubrick's best work overall
I'm not sure that's even seriously debated.
Kubrick on natural lighting (generally) and Barry Lyndon:
quote:
Because it's the way we see things. I have always tried to light my films to simulate natural light; in the daytime using the windows actually to light the set, and in night scenes the practical lights you see in the set. This approach has its problems when you can use bright electric light sources, but when candelabras and oil lamps are the brightest light sources which can be in the set, the difficulties are vastly increased. Prior to Barry Lyndon, the problem has never been properly solved. Even if the director and cameraman had the desire to light with practical light sources, the film and the lenses were not fast enough to get an exposure. A 35mm movie camera shutter exposes at about 1/50 of a second, and a useable exposure was only possible with a lens at least 100% faster than any which had ever been used on a movie camera. Fortunately, I found just such a lens, one of a group of ten which Zeiss had specially manufactured for NASA satellite photography. The lens had a speed of fO.7, and it was 100% faster than the fastest movie lens. A lot of work still had to be done to it and to the camera to make it useable. For one thing, the rear element of the lens had to be 2.5mm away from the film plane, requiring special modification to the rotating camera shutter. But with this lens it was now possible to shoot in light conditions so dim that it was difficult to read. For the day interior scenes, we used either the real daylight from the windows, or simulated daylight by banking lights outside the windows and diffusing them with tracing paper taped on the glass. In addition to the very beautiful lighting you can achieve this way, it is also a very practical way to work. You don't have to worry about shooting into your lighting equipment. All your lighting is outside the window behind tracing paper, and if you shoot towwards the window you get a very beautiful and realistic flare effect.
When your actual director (not cinematographer - not camera technician - but your director) understands this level of detail - you have something special.
If Michael Bay woke up tomorrow with 1/1000th of Kubrick's talent, he'd die from outright shock.
Posted on 8/22/14 at 11:28 am to LoveThatMoney
quote:
I simply think Kubrick didn't know what to do with the second half.
I counter with this - the last lines of the film:
quote:
My thoughts drift back to erect nipple wet dreams about Mary Jane Rottencrotch and the Great Homecoming frick Fantasy. I am so happy that I am alive, in one piece and short. I'm in a world of shite... yes. But I am alive. And I am not afraid.
Every single soldier - who ever lived - gets the point from that instantly. Maybe that's the problem - many folks without that experience just don't and can't, maybe.
Posted on 8/22/14 at 11:34 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
I counter with this - the last lines of the film:
quote:
My thoughts drift back to erect nipple wet dreams about Mary Jane Rottencrotch and the Great Homecoming frick Fantasy. I am so happy that I am alive, in one piece and short. I'm in a world of shite... yes. But I am alive. And I am not afraid.
Every single soldier - who ever lived - gets the point from that instantly. Maybe that's the problem - many folks without that experience just don't and can't, maybe.
I fail to see your point. One line does not a second half of a movie make. The movie is utterly bifurcated, which is terrible in and of itself in my opinion, and the second half fails to hold any real interest.
Page 2 of 4
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News