Welcome to Harry Potter Forum! Below you will find many interesting threads and discussions. Enjoy.
Stanley Kubrick
Pumpkinjuice
Posts: 2,317 ✭✭✭✭✭
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
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
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
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
Comments
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.
[*spoiler] TEXT [/*spoiler]
without the asteriks.
2001 is mediocre to me and I will always hate that ending.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
: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 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.
http://www.slashfilm.com/stephen-king-officially-announces-dr-sleep-sequel-the-shining/
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.
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.
-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.
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.
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.
Solyaris (1972) is better than 2001 anyway.
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.
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.
Also, no film will ever be flawless. Every film will always have flaws. lol
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.