Lithium Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 That is an excellent film too. My favourite Kubrick-flick is Dr. Strangelove largely due to the Cold War buff that I am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swlabr Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 My favorite is probably "Full Metal Jacket." To me it's a pretty cynical view of the Vietnam war. I mean, there was nothing pretty about it but most war movies glorify a soldier's heroism. In this movie, it reveals the psychological damage a war is capable of causing even if you're just a war journalist who hasn't experienced much action. I just thought it was brilliant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lithium Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 That's definitely my second favourite. I don't think I've ever seen a Kubrick film that isn't great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_moleman Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 That's definitely my second favourite. I don't think I've ever seen a Kubrick film that isn't great.Eyes wide shut??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lithium Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 I really enjoyed that one as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_moleman Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 That's probably my least favourite film Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluesy Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 (edited) That's definitely my second favourite. I don't think I've ever seen a Kubrick film that isn't great.Eyes wide shut???Kubrick's films have hidden messages that are virtually undetectable to the average viewer. Eyes Wide Shut is constructed on the surface like some erotic thriller, but there are signs all over the place that allude to conspiracies of the Illuminati. When you've taken that little bit into consideration, you may watch what's happening in a completely different way. Of course, even then, there are things left open to interpretation. Edited January 30, 2009 by bluesy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swlabr Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 (edited) That's definitely my second favourite. I don't think I've ever seen a Kubrick film that isn't great.Eyes wide shut???Kubrick's films have hidden messages that are virtually undetectable to the average viewer. Eyes Wide Shut is constructed on the surface like some erotic thriller, but there are signs all over the place that allude to conspiracies of the Illuminati. When you've taken that little bit into consideration, you may watch what's happening in a completely different way. Of course, even then, there are things left open to interpretation.I've read that "The Shining" has a whole bunch of little signs and stuff relating to Native Americans and something about the movie secretly being about the massacre of Native Indians of North America. Clues like the patterns of the walls, mirrors, walls changing colors. Weird..... Edited January 30, 2009 by swlabr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lithium Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Stan was a genius. I'm staying in tonight and have a movie-night by myself. So far I've seen Clerks and Death Race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADPT Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 I love movies that are open to your own interpretation. Take "2001: A Space Odyssey" for example. To be perfectly honest, I had no idea what it was about for the first hour or so. It was after I watched the movie that I actually took a moment to think about it. What if there really was some deity from outer space that was responsible for our own evolution? That's how I saw it anyway... It's an interesting concept, I think. The visual effects were also out of this world for the time it was made. Crazy lights and stuff. Trippy. Stanley Kubrick knows how to make a good movie, that's for true. I first saw that when I was just into double figures. Loved it. That part about being 'beyond the infinite' always stuck with me. I have always liked sci-fi though. It's a genre that allows the imagination to fully flex it's muscle.That's definitely my second favourite. I don't think I've ever seen a Kubrick film that isn't great.Eyes wide shut???Kubrick's films have hidden messages that are virtually undetectable to the average viewer. Eyes Wide Shut is constructed on the surface like some erotic thriller, but there are signs all over the place that allude to conspiracies of the Illuminati. When you've taken that little bit into consideration, you may watch what's happening in a completely different way. Of course, even then, there are things left open to interpretation.I've read that "The Shining" has a whole bunch of little signs and stuff relating to Native Americans and something about the movie secretly being about the massacre of Native Indians of North America. Clues like the patterns of the walls, mirrors, walls changing colors. Weird.....Did Kubrick ever say it alluded to those things? Or is it a film studies lecturer in overdrive again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swlabr Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 I love movies that are open to your own interpretation. Take "2001: A Space Odyssey" for example. To be perfectly honest, I had no idea what it was about for the first hour or so. It was after I watched the movie that I actually took a moment to think about it. What if there really was some deity from outer space that was responsible for our own evolution? That's how I saw it anyway... It's an interesting concept, I think. The visual effects were also out of this world for the time it was made. Crazy lights and stuff. Trippy. Stanley Kubrick knows how to make a good movie, that's for true. I first saw that when I was just into double figures. Loved it. That part about being 'beyond the infinite' always stuck with me. I have always liked sci-fi though. It's a genre that allows the imagination to fully flex it's muscle.That's definitely my second favourite. I don't think I've ever seen a Kubrick film that isn't great.Eyes wide shut???Kubrick's films have hidden messages that are virtually undetectable to the average viewer. Eyes Wide Shut is constructed on the surface like some erotic thriller, but there are signs all over the place that allude to conspiracies of the Illuminati. When you've taken that little bit into consideration, you may watch what's happening in a completely different way. Of course, even then, there are things left open to interpretation.I've read that "The Shining" has a whole bunch of little signs and stuff relating to Native Americans and something about the movie secretly being about the massacre of Native Indians of North America. Clues like the patterns of the walls, mirrors, walls changing colors. Weird.....Did Kubrick ever say it alluded to those things? Or is it a film studies lecturer in overdrive again?The latter! http://www.drummerman.net/shining/essays.htmlstill interesting though.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tater Totts Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Stan was a genius. I'm staying in tonight and have a movie-night by myself. So far I've seen Clerks and Death Race.Clerks = awesome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzraelFenris Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 clerks is one of the best movies ever imo... i recently saw clerks 2... i didnt think it was as good... its more obvious farting funny not smart funny.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirtylenny Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Watched Dirty Harry for the 400 bajillionth time cuz a friend was here and wanted to watch it. One of the great movies of the 70s i think, even if i do know it off by heart (quite literally). An incredible unapologetic piece of cinema that Pauline Kael considered fascist upon its release where, i can see how someone could interpret that, it is obviously not the case. In fact its almost humanist in a distorted kinda way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angelica Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Watched Dirty Harry for the 400 bajillionth time cuz a friend was here and wanted to watch it. One of the great movies of the 70s i think, even if i do know it off by heart (quite literally). An incredible unapologetic piece of cinema that Pauline Kael considered fascist upon its release where, i can see how someone could interpret that, it is obviously not the case. In fact its almost humanist in a distorted kinda way.I love Pauline Kael, though. I don't agree with her at least 80% of the time, but the passion in her writing makes me giddy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Utah Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 Watched Dirty Harry for the 400 bajillionth time cuz a friend was here and wanted to watch it. One of the great movies of the 70s i think, even if i do know it off by heart (quite literally). An incredible unapologetic piece of cinema that Pauline Kael considered fascist upon its release where, i can see how someone could interpret that, it is obviously not the case. In fact its almost humanist in a distorted kinda way.I love Pauline Kael, though. I don't agree with her at least 80% of the time, but the passion in her writing makes me giddy. She's the one who made the famous statement about Mickey Rourke in the early 80's right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirtylenny Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 Watched Dirty Harry for the 400 bajillionth time cuz a friend was here and wanted to watch it. One of the great movies of the 70s i think, even if i do know it off by heart (quite literally). An incredible unapologetic piece of cinema that Pauline Kael considered fascist upon its release where, i can see how someone could interpret that, it is obviously not the case. In fact its almost humanist in a distorted kinda way.I love Pauline Kael, though. I don't agree with her at least 80% of the time, but the passion in her writing makes me giddy. My main gripe with critics of the Pauline Kael variety is that they laid a blueprint for critics since of a kind of assertiveness that doesnt allow for reinterpretation. Part of whats great about cinema is the possibilities behind meanings which you can't be too singular about. I guess its a critics duty to not be vague though. I dunno. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angelica Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 (edited) Watched Dirty Harry for the 400 bajillionth time cuz a friend was here and wanted to watch it. One of the great movies of the 70s i think, even if i do know it off by heart (quite literally). An incredible unapologetic piece of cinema that Pauline Kael considered fascist upon its release where, i can see how someone could interpret that, it is obviously not the case. In fact its almost humanist in a distorted kinda way.I love Pauline Kael, though. I don't agree with her at least 80% of the time, but the passion in her writing makes me giddy. She's the one who made the famous statement about Mickey Rourke in the early 80's right?Yeah, she singled him out quite effusively in her review of Diner. She was as passionate about actors and acting as she was about film.Geeko - She certainly wasn't vague, but she could be incredibly hostile. Which is not a great quality for a critic. She was all gut reaction and if she didn't find something fundamentally enjoyable, she usually lost patience with it (she would have hated Hunger). She also became ridiculously powerful and damaged some careers. But her writing itself is intoxicating, no matter how ludicrous you find her opinion. And she'll always have a place in my heart for championing my beloved Nashville so doggedly. Edited January 31, 2009 by Angelica Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Utah Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 Watched Dirty Harry for the 400 bajillionth time cuz a friend was here and wanted to watch it. One of the great movies of the 70s i think, even if i do know it off by heart (quite literally). An incredible unapologetic piece of cinema that Pauline Kael considered fascist upon its release where, i can see how someone could interpret that, it is obviously not the case. In fact its almost humanist in a distorted kinda way.I love Pauline Kael, though. I don't agree with her at least 80% of the time, but the passion in her writing makes me giddy. She's the one who made the famous statement about Mickey Rourke in the early 80's right?Yeah, she singled him out quite effusively in her review of Diner. She was as passionate about actors and acting as she was about film.Geeko - She certainly wasn't vague, but she could be incredibly hostile. Which is not a great quality for a critic. She was all gut reaction and if she didn't find something fundamentally enjoyable, she usually lost patience with it (she would have hated Hunger). She also became ridiculously powerful and damaged some careers. But her writing itself is intoxicating, no matter how ludicrous you find her opinion. And she'll always have a place in my heart for championing my beloved Nashville so doggedly. Well I have no idea if I'd like her reviews, but I'll give her credit for that. One of the things you notice these days watching Diner, is how much Rourke's voice has changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADPT Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 (edited) Watched Dirty Harry for the 400 bajillionth time cuz a friend was here and wanted to watch it. One of the great movies of the 70s i think, even if i do know it off by heart (quite literally). An incredible unapologetic piece of cinema that Pauline Kael considered fascist upon its release where, i can see how someone could interpret that, it is obviously not the case. In fact its almost humanist in a distorted kinda way.I love Pauline Kael, though. I don't agree with her at least 80% of the time, but the passion in her writing makes me giddy. My main gripe with critics of the Pauline Kael variety is that they laid a blueprint for critics since of a kind of assertiveness that doesnt allow for reinterpretation. Part of whats great about cinema is the possibilities behind meanings which you can't be too singular about. I guess its a critics duty to not be vague though. I dunno.I like reading books about films. I find the theories, arguments about subtexts etc fun but at the same time I often find myself thinking "look critic, get back in your box, all I want to know is, is this film worth my spending time and money on?" That's their one duty. Even that is a matter of opinion. I sometimes wish they could just remember that. Edited January 31, 2009 by ADPT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirtylenny Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 Watched Dirty Harry for the 400 bajillionth time cuz a friend was here and wanted to watch it. One of the great movies of the 70s i think, even if i do know it off by heart (quite literally). An incredible unapologetic piece of cinema that Pauline Kael considered fascist upon its release where, i can see how someone could interpret that, it is obviously not the case. In fact its almost humanist in a distorted kinda way.I love Pauline Kael, though. I don't agree with her at least 80% of the time, but the passion in her writing makes me giddy. My main gripe with critics of the Pauline Kael variety is that they laid a blueprint for critics since of a kind of assertiveness that doesnt allow for reinterpretation. Part of whats great about cinema is the possibilities behind meanings which you can't be too singular about. I guess its a critics duty to not be vague though. I dunno.I like reading books about films but at the same time I often find myself thinking "look critic, get back in your box, all I want to know is is this film worth my spending time and money on? When they launch into ideological diatribes it kind of becomes irritating.I'm the opposite, i dont really want a critic, primarily at least, to tell me whether a movie is good or bad, i want them to offer an interpretation first and foremost. They generally end up telling me whether its worth spending my money in doing that anyway. I do know what you mean though, theres a difference between interpretations and cinematic ideology, the latter at times can be quite stifling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADPT Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 Watched Dirty Harry for the 400 bajillionth time cuz a friend was here and wanted to watch it. One of the great movies of the 70s i think, even if i do know it off by heart (quite literally). An incredible unapologetic piece of cinema that Pauline Kael considered fascist upon its release where, i can see how someone could interpret that, it is obviously not the case. In fact its almost humanist in a distorted kinda way.I love Pauline Kael, though. I don't agree with her at least 80% of the time, but the passion in her writing makes me giddy. My main gripe with critics of the Pauline Kael variety is that they laid a blueprint for critics since of a kind of assertiveness that doesnt allow for reinterpretation. Part of whats great about cinema is the possibilities behind meanings which you can't be too singular about. I guess its a critics duty to not be vague though. I dunno.I like reading books about films but at the same time I often find myself thinking "look critic, get back in your box, all I want to know is is this film worth my spending time and money on? When they launch into ideological diatribes it kind of becomes irritating.I'm the opposite, i dont really want a critic, primarily at least, to tell me whether a movie is good or bad, i want them to offer an interpretation first and foremost. They generally end up telling me whether its worth spending my money in doing that anyway. I do know what you mean though, theres a difference between interpretations and cinematic ideology, the latter at times can be quite stifling.I'll interpret something myself in the end, or as much as you can as everyone has their own filters. In the end, I decide what I'm going to go and see much the same way. I just find what they write interesting. When they seem to think they're more important than that it becomes irritating. Kael scared David Lean away from filmmaking for some time. Thanks, Pauline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Satanisk_Slakt Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 I've just seen Roald Dahl's The Witches for the first time since I was a little kid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluesy Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 Watched Dirty Harry for the 400 bajillionth time cuz a friend was here and wanted to watch it. One of the great movies of the 70s i think, even if i do know it off by heart (quite literally). An incredible unapologetic piece of cinema that Pauline Kael considered fascist upon its release where, i can see how someone could interpret that, it is obviously not the case. In fact its almost humanist in a distorted kinda way.I love Pauline Kael, though. I don't agree with her at least 80% of the time, but the passion in her writing makes me giddy. She's the one who made the famous statement about Mickey Rourke in the early 80's right?Yeah, she singled him out quite effusively in her review of Diner. She was as passionate about actors and acting as she was about film.Geeko - She certainly wasn't vague, but she could be incredibly hostile. Which is not a great quality for a critic. She was all gut reaction and if she didn't find something fundamentally enjoyable, she usually lost patience with it (she would have hated Hunger). She also became ridiculously powerful and damaged some careers. But her writing itself is intoxicating, no matter how ludicrous you find her opinion. And she'll always have a place in my heart for championing my beloved Nashville so doggedly. Well I have no idea if I'd like her reviews, but I'll give her credit for that. One of the things you notice these days watching Diner, is how much Rourke's voice has changed.Yea, it's a pretty stark contrast when you go from Body Heat to The Wrestler. The same thing happened to Al Pacino. I'd love to read that Diner review. All I've seen is an excerpt from various articles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirtylenny Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 Rewatched: Minnie & Moskowitz See previous Cassavetes post This movie, along with Husbands, aside from posing interesting questions about latent mysogyny, are testament to the man boundless genius. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts