Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Powered by Vanilla
Welcome to Harry Potter Forum! Below you will find many interesting threads and discussions. Enjoy.

Stanley Kubrick

PumpkinjuicePumpkinjuice Posts: 2,300 ✭✭✭✭✭
edited September 2011 in General
Here is my opinion on the four films I have watched:

Let's start with 2001: A Space Odyssey. Something is wrong when the director has to explain the basic plot for the audience to understand it. This indicates to me that the director failed to convey his vision to the audience. Moreover, nothing happens in it except for random turning points that make no sense. There is no coherence nor substance, yet this is considered a deep classic because Kubrick was called a genius. Pretty images and classical music could not save it from being a dreadful film.


Full Metal Jacket is nothing more than mediocre. It starts off well with several scenes showing use the extreme hard training the recruits must go through in a satirical way, but after a while it becomes too repetitive. It overtold the story. We quickly get that Kubrick found war dehumanazing and pointless, and we get the irony in the argument that war is necessary to achieve peace. The effect the training has on one of the recruits is, however, interesting to follow and culminates into
Spoiler:
an ironic scene where he takes out what he has learned on the instructor himself.




This turning point marks the end of the first half of the film. It is soon forgotten about and not mentioned again. It should have been used to develop the main character and to bridge the gap between the first and second half. I don't like how it is artificially divided into two halves because that renders much of the first half useless, which is a shame considering it is far more interesting than the rather boring second part lacking in purpose and a clear conflict. The action is not particularly engaging either until the climax, which is quite suspenseful and surprisingly affective for a Kubrick film.


In A Clockwork Orange the story kicks in halfway through when the sociopath is imprisoned. The theme of dehumanization is even more central in this film. In prison he tests an experimental program by the government to make him detest violence. Here Kubrick asks whether a man who is devoid of choices still is an individual or merely a mechanical machine. Can he be considered a good person if he has no other choice? Interesting theme. As mentioned, the ball doesn't really start rolling until halfway through which is the result of Kubrick dividing it into two halves just like Full Metal Jacket. However, in this case it is the second part that is the most interesting one. While the first part is too long for its own good, here at least the two parts are better linked. In the first hour we see the main characher raping his victims and treating his "friends" badly. Kubrick utilizes low camera angles in those scenes to make him seem dominant and threatening, and we certainly hate this character for a long time. In the second half, when he is out in the free again, the situation is turned upside down: He is now the vulnerable victim and is getting a taste of his own medicine. Kubrick makes us feel pity for him, partially by using high camera angles. All in all, it is a well made and interesting film, but not particularly enjoyable.


The Shining. I need to see this again, but it was quite good. The cinematography was great, as it always is in a Kubrick film. The atmosphere was creepy. Jack turning into a monster could have been developed better; it seemed like he had a psychological problem from the beginning that just got worse as he isolated himself from the world. The ending was suspenseful. It was more entertaining than A Clockwork Orange, but it was not as complex.

So, this is how I would rank them:
1. The Shining/ A Clockwork Orange
3. Full Metal Jacket
4. 2001
Post edited by Pumpkinjuice on
«1

Comments

  • Martin1Martin1 Posts: 7,783 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Gotta agree on 2001. The first time I saw it I didn't like it. The second time I saw it I didn't like it. Before I watched it the 3rd time, I read tons of reviews about why it was great hoping that maybe I would see it. 3rd time's the charm, right?

    Nope, still don't like it. Doubt I ever will.

    I haven't seen Full Metal Jacket, but from the other 3, The Shining is my favorite.
    image
  • AshAsh Posts: 6,577 ✭✭✭✭✭
  • Martin1Martin1 Posts: 7,783 ✭✭✭✭✭
    It's certainly not for everyone.
    This. It wasn't for me.
    image
  • PumpkinjuicePumpkinjuice Posts: 2,300 ✭✭✭✭✭
    It's certainly not for everyone.
    What did you think of it?
  • AbhishekAbhishek Posts: 4,229 ✭✭✭✭
    Pumpkin your Spoiler is showing. Use:

    [*spoiler] TEXT [/*spoiler]

    without the asteriks. ;))
  • PumpkinjuicePumpkinjuice Posts: 2,300 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Pumpkin your Spoiler is showing. Use:

    [*spoiler] TEXT [/*spoiler]

    without the asteriks. ;))
    Fixed.
  • NumberEightNumberEight Posts: 1,574 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Of all of Kubrick's work that I've seen, I like The Shining most.

    2001 is mediocre to me and I will always hate that ending.
    Pottermore username: DustBlade76

    So Crucify the ego, before it's far too late, to leave behind this place so negative and blind and cynical. And you will come to find that we are all one mind, capable of all that's imagined and all conceivable.
  • HenrickHenrick Posts: 13,740 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I have always considered Kubrick a really contoversial director. While most of his movies are really hard to enjoy from a entertaining point of view (maybe that's why The Shining is his most popular one between the crowds), they are really interesting for the conditioned response and questions suggested. Discussing Kubrick's movies is always productive.

    It's not my favorite director by far. As I said, it's really hard to enjoy his movies. It's not that kind of movie that you will watch again and again and again. If you do, I'm sure you are doing it because you are trying to enjoy and understand why it's so acclaimed. But they are unique experiences. And important. My ranking:

    1. Clockwork Orange
    2. Eyes Wide Shut
    3. 2001: A Space Odyssey
    4. Barry Lyndon
    5. The Shining
    image image image
    We'll never be forgiven for what we did.
    Trust me, I'm a Film Grad ;)
  • PumpkinjuicePumpkinjuice Posts: 2,300 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited September 2011
    I liked Burton's reference to 2001 in Charlie and the Chocolate factory in which he made the monolith into a chocolate. :))
    The monolith concept is terrible and a middle finger to mankind by the author because it implies that we are all hopeless and need help from someone out there to evolve as humans.
    Post edited by Pumpkinjuice on
  • NumberEightNumberEight Posts: 1,574 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I liked Burton's reference to 2001 in Charlie and the Chocolate factory in which he made the monolith into a chocolate. :))
    The monolith concept is terrible and a middle finger to mankind by the author because it implies that we are all hopeless and need help from someone out there to evolve as humans.
    Do the same to the religious.
    Pottermore username: DustBlade76

    So Crucify the ego, before it's far too late, to leave behind this place so negative and blind and cynical. And you will come to find that we are all one mind, capable of all that's imagined and all conceivable.
  • RyGuyRyGuy Posts: 7,791 mod
    My favorite on this list is A Clockwork Orange. Not only is it a fantastic novel to put a spin on the human condition but its great in its detail and locations in my opinion. I kind of seen the book and film as a metaphor for aging and maturity. The character Alex likes violence, sex, drugs (spiked milk), and just being an overall harm to society in a way in that his actions are so unpredictable...eventually when he slams the giant ceramic dick in the cat ladys's head then he finally realizes...woahh Ive went to far. He gets caught by the police, taken to prison. He can escape though...with the treatment they want to experiment on him. A series of violent, pornographic, and chilling photographic slides which he must stare at and look into the eyes of the victims. He realizes that he committed so much wrong and starts to get sick from it. He is forced to watch the imagery, thus maturing rapidly fast and realizes the error of his ways. When he is released and out back in society though he is now faced with the burdon of his past, his victims and his previous choices. Just like with how Karma works Every action he had made an exact opposite reaction. He created negative responses to people in the beginning of the film, in the end he is trying to better himself and he is faced with the people he previously harmed harming him. Its a perfect metaphor for what people do to others has an equal and opposite reaction and also one must live with the consequences of ones actions. Eventually so troubled and mentally unstable Alex kills himself. Even his friends he had previously done wrong with are now policemen that almost drown him. Ironic given the scene that he kicks one of his "droogs" (term means friends) in the testicles and knocks him in the water, kicks the other friend in the water, and the last stands back and watches. He cuts one of the guy's hand while helping him out of the water as well. This is a perfect example of the meaning of horrors. When atrocities, and violent crimes in the world happen many just sit back and watch and let it happen or even run away, and do not help. Well the film ends as I said with Alex killing himself showing that he could not comprehend the consequences for his actions. A Clockwork orange is a brilliant read and a great film I highly recommend. I wish I could go into more detail on symbolism and all that jazz but my fingers are aching...eff you arthritis!! haha

    image
  • RyGuyRyGuy Posts: 7,791 mod
    Also for The Shining here is in my opinion the most disturbing scene in the whole movie, the story on this too is quite creepy:




    image
  • aaronaaron Posts: 20,919 mod
    I love the Shining. It was shot at a lodge near my town.
    imageimageimage
  • PumpkinjuicePumpkinjuice Posts: 2,300 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Also for The Shining here is in my opinion the most disturbing scene in the whole movie, the story on this too is quite creepy:



    Senseless scenes like this is something I hate in the Kubrick films.
  • PumpkinjuicePumpkinjuice Posts: 2,300 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited September 2011
    Well the film ends as I said with Alex killing himself showing that he could not comprehend the consequences for his actions. A Clockwork orange is a brilliant read and a great film I highly recommend. I wish I could go into more detail on symbolism and all that jazz but my fingers are aching...eff you arthritis!! haha
    He tried to commit suicide by jumping out of the window, but survived. He has the last line in the film: "I was cured, all right."
    Post edited by Pumpkinjuice on
  • LizLiz Posts: 2,301 ✭✭✭✭
    My favorite on this list is A Clockwork Orange. Not only is it a fantastic novel to put a spin on the human condition but its great in its detail and locations in my opinion. I kind of seen the book and film as a metaphor for aging and maturity. The character Alex likes violence, sex, drugs (spiked milk), and just being an overall harm to society in a way in that his actions are so unpredictable...eventually when he slams the giant ceramic dick in the cat ladys's head then he finally realizes...woahh Ive went to far. He gets caught by the police, taken to prison. He can escape though...with the treatment they want to experiment on him. A series of violent, pornographic, and chilling photographic slides which he must stare at and look into the eyes of the victims. He realizes that he committed so much wrong and starts to get sick from it. He is forced to watch the imagery, thus maturing rapidly fast and realizes the error of his ways. When he is released and out back in society though he is now faced with the burdon of his past, his victims and his previous choices. Just like with how Karma works Every action he had made an exact opposite reaction. He created negative responses to people in the beginning of the film, in the end he is trying to better himself and he is faced with the people he previously harmed harming him. Its a perfect metaphor for what people do to others has an equal and opposite reaction and also one must live with the consequences of ones actions. Eventually so troubled and mentally unstable Alex kills himself. Even his friends he had previously done wrong with are now policemen that almost drown him. Ironic given the scene that he kicks one of his "droogs" (term means friends) in the testicles and knocks him in the water, kicks the other friend in the water, and the last stands back and watches. He cuts one of the guy's hand while helping him out of the water as well. This is a perfect example of the meaning of horrors. When atrocities, and violent crimes in the world happen many just sit back and watch and let it happen or even run away, and do not help. Well the film ends as I said with Alex killing himself showing that he could not comprehend the consequences for his actions. A Clockwork orange is a brilliant read and a great film I highly recommend. I wish I could go into more detail on symbolism and all that jazz but my fingers are aching...eff you arthritis!! haha
    This!!
    image
  • RyGuyRyGuy Posts: 7,791 mod
    edited September 2011
    Also for The Shining here is in my opinion the most disturbing scene in the whole movie, the story on this too is quite creepy:





    Senseless scenes like this is something I hate in the Kubrick films.
    This did have meaning in the book and it was in the film as a nod to the storyline in the book. There was also part of the script which explained this:

    The "bear scene" is a brief moment in The Shining when Wendy, beginning to see the same "1920's Party" events that Jack's been seeing, is wandering through the halls of the hotel. As she looks around a corner, she sees two shapes huddled over the edge of a bed. As she looks, they are revealed to be two men, possibly engaged in oral sex. One is wearing what looks to be a bear costume.

    The scene is taken directly from Stephen King's novel. In one of the novel's scenes set in the 1920's party, Jack is dancing with a beautiful woman. He notices that at one table, there is a young man behaving like a pet dog for the amusement of others, including a tall, bald man.

    The bald man is Horace Derwent, a Howard Hughes-like figure who poured millions into restoring the Overlook Hotel in the 1920's. (Jack has learned this by reading a mysterious scrapbook earlier in the novel.) The younger man has a romantic crush on the bisexual Derwent, and Derwent has said that 'maybe', if the man dresses like a nice doggy, and acts like a nice doggy, he 'may' be willing to sleep with him.

    Later on, in the novel, as Wendy is warily navigating the corridors of the Overlook, she begins to see the visions of the 1920's party. And at one point, peering around a corner, she sees the two men on a bed, one in a doggy costume. The two men are Derwent and his extremely dependent lover.

    It's difficult to say why this second scene remains in the film; as it's somewhat confounding without all of the set-up that King provides in his book. Perhaps its jarring incongruity is reason enough for its inclusion, illustrating as it does Wendy's extreme disorientation at that point in the film. Another explanation is that the background on Derwent may have been scripted and filmed, but excised in the final cut.



    Well the film ends as I said with Alex killing himself showing that he could not comprehend the consequences for his actions. A Clockwork orange is a brilliant read and a great film I highly recommend. I wish I could go into more detail on symbolism and all that jazz but my fingers are aching...eff you arthritis!! haha


    He tried to commit suicide by jumping out of the window, but survived. He has the last line in the film: "I was cured, all right."
    :O I thought I put in he was still alive and the central theme but I must have forgot. The very ending is to show the viewer exactly what the movie meant. It means lots of things but mostly, violence is necessary in society.
    Post edited by RyGuy on

    image
  • PumpkinjuicePumpkinjuice Posts: 2,300 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I liked Burton's reference to 2001 in Charlie and the Chocolate factory in which he made the monolith into a chocolate. :))
    The monolith concept is terrible and a middle finger to mankind by the author because it implies that we are all hopeless and need help from someone out there to evolve as humans.


    Do the same to the religious.
    Well, maybe I was a bit too harsh due to the fact that I hate the film and am not religious. But my intention was not to offend the religious.
  • RyGuyRyGuy Posts: 7,791 mod
    I liked Burton's reference to 2001 in Charlie and the Chocolate factory in which he made the monolith into a chocolate. :))
    The monolith concept is terrible and a middle finger to mankind by the author because it implies that we are all hopeless and need help from someone out there to evolve as humans.
    Lol...in all honesty im sure it was thrown in as entertainment purposes and I think some people will read too much into some things, but theres more possibilities that human kind has had a helping hand not just religiously. ;)


    image
  • PumpkinjuicePumpkinjuice Posts: 2,300 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited September 2011


    :O I thought I put in he was still alive and the central theme but I must have forgot. The very ending is to show the viewer exactly what the movie meant. It means lots of things but mostly, violence is necessary in society.
    I think the message of the film is that it's detrimental for society to remove a person's individual freedom. It doesn't make him a good person just because he is programmed to detest violence.

    I should add that the last line was spoken sarcastically. The experiment didn't work out because he got sick every time he witnessed violence or something he associated with violence, which led to him trying to commit suicide. Imagine the consequences if the government in the story had forced the entire population to go through the same treatment for the sake of avoiding any violence being committed. They had all turned into mechanical beings, some perhaps commiting suicide.
    Post edited by Pumpkinjuice on
  • PumpkinjuicePumpkinjuice Posts: 2,300 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited September 2011
    By the way, I added a little more about A Clockwork Orange in my original post.
    Post edited by Pumpkinjuice on
  • PumpkinjuicePumpkinjuice Posts: 2,300 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I just watched Barry Lyndon, which was a good and engaging film despite its lenght. Easily my favourite of his so far.
  • NumberEightNumberEight Posts: 1,574 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I think 2001 is another one of those cases where people say it's awesome because they're supposed to.
    Pottermore username: DustBlade76

    So Crucify the ego, before it's far too late, to leave behind this place so negative and blind and cynical. And you will come to find that we are all one mind, capable of all that's imagined and all conceivable.
  • NumberEightNumberEight Posts: 1,574 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Yes. I'd like to say Citizen Kane, but I haven't seen it and never will because I'll probably end up hating it due to how much praise it gets. When that happens, I judge things more harshly.
    Pottermore username: DustBlade76

    So Crucify the ego, before it's far too late, to leave behind this place so negative and blind and cynical. And you will come to find that we are all one mind, capable of all that's imagined and all conceivable.
  • SwedishSkinJerSwedishSkinJer Posts: 1,053 ✭✭✭
    Just out of curiosity, why would you classify Citizen Kane as a "style over substance" film? Many of our great auteur directors use the visual aspects of filmmaking to communicate substantial ideas. Regardless of your thoughts on their filmography, it's terribly difficult to fault directors such as Kubrick for lacking the insight to explore ideas in their films: 2001 is not something a mere hack, intrigued only by hollow imagery, would dare explore.
  • Martin1Martin1 Posts: 7,783 ✭✭✭✭✭
    For 2001, you either:

    -Absolutely love it and Kubrick
    -Like it, but not love it
    -Don't like it but acknowledge it's considered great and respect that
    -Don't like it and don't see any reason why anybody else does

    I'd go under that 3rd option.


    image
  • Martin1Martin1 Posts: 7,783 ✭✭✭✭✭
    LOL, aren't those options true of just about any film irlkg? BTW, Swedish perhaps my review will clarify in regards to Citizen Kane...

    http://www.cosforums.com/showpost.php?p=5459491&postcount=203
    Nah, cuz for 2001 you see people fall basically exactly as those descriptions. Other films you see a complete wide range from 0-100.

    image
  • PumpkinjuicePumpkinjuice Posts: 2,300 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited October 2011
    Just out of curiosity, why would you classify Citizen Kane as a "style over substance" film? Many of our great auteur directors use the visual aspects of filmmaking to communicate substantial ideas. Regardless of your thoughts on their filmography, it's terribly difficult to fault directors such as Kubrick for lacking the insight to explore ideas in their films: 2001 is not something a mere hack, intrigued only by hollow imagery, would dare explore.
    Oh, he did have ideas, for sure, but the intention of being deep and vague came at the expense of good storytelling. What ideas were not only thrown in, but actually explored throughout the film? That a big chocolate popping up means the next big step in evolution? His decision to make it vague and purposeless unless the audience fills it with meaning, unfortunately means that criticism about its lack of substance is not taken seriously.

    The only clever theme I found was that of dehumanization and how computers may take control over us. Why not focus on that and make a well-structured film rather than a collection of badly strung together ideas? I want a good cohesive plot and a core story to shine though in a film.
    Post edited by Pumpkinjuice on
  • js1138js1138 Posts: 143
    If You've read much of Arthur Clarke, you know that there is a coherent idea. You may not share his vision of the universe, but he was one of the very best hard science fiction writers. 2001 rather eloquently presents the likelihood that an alien intelligence would have incomprehensible motives and technologies.

    It is very nearly the only realistic science fiction movie. The lack of Hollywood story structure is a bonus. Clarke was at his best when he left things hanging.
  • NumberEightNumberEight Posts: 1,574 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Realistic in terms of the portrayal of space activity only.

    Solyaris (1972) is better than 2001 anyway.
    Pottermore username: DustBlade76

    So Crucify the ego, before it's far too late, to leave behind this place so negative and blind and cynical. And you will come to find that we are all one mind, capable of all that's imagined and all conceivable.
  • BaneBane Posts: 9,869 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Kubrick is super overrated. As a director he was about as pretentious as they come, second only to Christopher Nolan.
  • BaneBane Posts: 9,869 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Nah, the difference between Nolan and Tarantino is that Tarantino is a great writer and director.
  • BaneBane Posts: 9,869 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Now, I'm not saying that Quentin ISN'T pretentious, I'm just saying that he's excellent at being pretentious. Nolan, not so much. Inception is hilarious.
  • BaneBane Posts: 9,869 ✭✭✭✭✭
    The first 10 minutes of Inglorious Basterds features better acting, writing, cinematography, tension, and soul than anything in Nolan's filmography.
  • NumberEightNumberEight Posts: 1,574 ✭✭✭✭✭
    The first 10 minutes of Inglorious Basterds features better acting, writing, cinematography, tension, and soul than anything in Nolan's filmography.
    And it's constantly repeated throughout the rest of the film, making it quite dull and repetitive.
    Pottermore username: DustBlade76

    So Crucify the ego, before it's far too late, to leave behind this place so negative and blind and cynical. And you will come to find that we are all one mind, capable of all that's imagined and all conceivable.
  • RyGuyRyGuy Posts: 7,791 mod
    edited October 2011
    Your all a bunch of negative nancys lol. Appreciate a film as a group of people trying to make something entertaining for a whole bunch of people. I dont see how if someone is pretentious it changes the quality of work. Kubrick, Nolan and Tarantino have all made brilliant films. Only an idiot would disagree with that. They have all made bad or sub par films at some point in their careers but the same happens to anyone that works in the film business...unless your M Night Shamalamdingdong...hes recently gone downhill in all departments it seems lol.

    Also, no film will ever be flawless. Every film will always have flaws. lol
    Post edited by RyGuy on

    image
  • NumberEightNumberEight Posts: 1,574 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited October 2011
    Your all a bunch of negative nancys lol. Appreciate a film as a group of people trying to make something entertaining for a whole bunch of people. I dont see how if someone is pretentious it changes the quality of work. Kubrick, Nolan and Tarantino have all made brilliant films. Only an idiot would disagree with that. They have all made bad or sub par films at some point in their careers but the same happens to anyone that works in the film business...unless your M Night Shamalamdingdong...hes recently gone downhill in all departments it seems lol.

    Also, no film will ever be flawless. Every film will always have flaws. lol
    Why should I appreciate filmmakers who make what I perceive to be garbage, ie most of Tarantino's work? Should I appreciate Eli Roth? Uwe Boll? The misogynist Lars Von triers (Melancholia looks interesting)? Michael Bay? Brett Ratner?
    Post edited by NumberEight on
    Pottermore username: DustBlade76

    So Crucify the ego, before it's far too late, to leave behind this place so negative and blind and cynical. And you will come to find that we are all one mind, capable of all that's imagined and all conceivable.
  • RyGuyRyGuy Posts: 7,791 mod
    Your all a bunch of negative nancys lol. Appreciate a film as a group of people trying to make something entertaining for a whole bunch of people. I dont see how if someone is pretentious it changes the quality of work. Kubrick, Nolan and Tarantino have all made brilliant films. Only an idiot would disagree with that. They have all made bad or sub par films at some point in their careers but the same happens to anyone that works in the film business...unless your M Night Shamalamdingdong...hes recently gone downhill in all departments it seems lol.

    Also, no film will ever be flawless. Every film will always have flaws. lol

    Why should I appreciate filmmakers who make what I perceive to be garbage, ie most of Tarantino's work? Should I appreciate Eli Roth? Uwe Boll? The misogynist Lars Von triers (Melancholia looks interesting)? Michael Bay? Brett Ratner?
    I respect most of them...They've made some great films along the way. Maybe you perceive it as garbage but not everyone else views it that way.

    image
  • BaneBane Posts: 9,869 ✭✭✭✭✭
    And it's constantly repeated throughout the rest of the film, making it quite dull and repetitive.
    The first time I saw the film I thought so too, but it went away on multiple viewings.
  • NumberEightNumberEight Posts: 1,574 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited October 2011
    I dont see how if someone is pretentious it changes the quality of work.
    Because it makes their work out to be the best thing to ever grace the medium; they think it's so important when it's not. No film is important outside of the medium and possibly its worthless culture status. Look at the last line in Basterds for an example of mass pretentiousness. Hell, the fact that people use the term "auteur" shows how a director's pretentiousness makes some people's opinions insufferable.

    Now, some pretentious filmmakers have made decent stuff, like Malick (Thin Red Line), but from what I've heard, he goes overboard with Tree of Life. I'm personally tired of his narrations, so I don't know if I'll be able to sit through it all.
    Post edited by NumberEight on
    Pottermore username: DustBlade76

    So Crucify the ego, before it's far too late, to leave behind this place so negative and blind and cynical. And you will come to find that we are all one mind, capable of all that's imagined and all conceivable.
  • js1138js1138 Posts: 143
    Realistic in terms of the portrayal of space activity only.

    Solyaris (1972) is better than 2001 anyway.
    Realistic in many aspects of what might happen if we encountered a superior alien technology that has incomprehensible motives. That's a common theme in Clarke stories.

    Realistic in the sense of not having a tidy Hollywood story structure. Realistic in the sense that you are not led by the nose. You have to interpret it yourself.

  • PumpkinjuicePumpkinjuice Posts: 2,300 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited October 2011
    Kubrick is super overrated. As a director he was about as pretentious as they come, second only to Christopher Nolan.
    Pretentious as in you think he pretended to be more intelligent than he really was and made excessive claims about the value of his films? As far as I remember, Kubrick did not like to discuss his films, but even if he had, I don't see how it would have made him pretentious for wanting to express a message through his films. That's more or less the same as sharing your opinion on politics. Naturally, ambitious filmmakers think that the stories they tell are interesting and worth telling. I am not a fan of Kubrick myself, but I admire him for having values and ideas he wanted to communicate through his films.
    Post edited by Pumpkinjuice on
  • PumpkinjuicePumpkinjuice Posts: 2,300 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Look at the last line in Basterds for an example of mass pretentiousness.
    Then Yates is pretentious too because he put in a line where Luna comments on how impressive the protective enchantments looks. I don't mind at all because it was worth paying attention to.
  • NumberEightNumberEight Posts: 1,574 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Your example isn't remotely comparable to Basturds, a film riddled with pretentious dialogue. The opening scene alone with the conversation about milk was enough for me to roll my eyes. It's funny, really, because the original script contains lots of misspellings, demonstrating Tarantino's lack of standard education. A man made famous because of his dialogue can't even spell. Hilarious!
    Pottermore username: DustBlade76

    So Crucify the ego, before it's far too late, to leave behind this place so negative and blind and cynical. And you will come to find that we are all one mind, capable of all that's imagined and all conceivable.
  • PumpkinjuicePumpkinjuice Posts: 2,300 ✭✭✭✭✭
  • AshAsh Posts: 6,577 ✭✭✭✭✭
Sign In or Register to comment.