Kubrick2001

http://www.kubrick2001.com

Pretty cool.

Nice.

This is pretty cool too for us Strangelove fans.

-Tom

EDIT: Rats, that may not work as a direct link. If not, go to story #8, A Strange Love, to see scenes from Strangelove recreated with everyday objects. A weird but cool homage to what no one can possibly dispute is Kubrick’s best film.

<baseless challenge>

A somewhat more concise interpretation of 2001: One: A Space Odyssey.

Cue Dungrsroman in 5… 4… 3…

I’m pretty sure I could dispute this as well, but it would be like arguing the relative merits of, say, Psycho versus Vertigo. Still: where’s the Barry Lyndon love, huh?

I prefer 2001, but when you are talking about two films as enormously excellent as those two, arguing over which is better is a bit inane.

Strangelove is my favorite

They forgot to put the funny in.

I find your lack of LEGO faith disturbing.

TOyNBEE IDEA
IN KUbricK’s 2001
RESURRECT DEAD
ON PLANET JUPiTER.

[quote=“madkevin”]

Cue Dungrsroman in 5… 4… 3… [/quote]
What th-? How did I miss this thread? I BET TOM BLOCKED IT FROM ME SOB.

I’m pretty sure I could dispute this as well, but it would be like arguing the relative merits of, say, Psycho versus Vertigo. Still: where’s the Barry Lyndon love, huh?

BL wasn’t R-rated, man. No fun. Just kidding, BL is the spot-on Kubrick-fan title drop to seperate the true-believers from the bandwagoners for sure. But, I won’t argue the greatness of DS. It was awesome. Kubrick did funny, he did scary, he did a lot of things - but in Strangelove, he did funny and scary at the same time, in the same scenes like nobody. My lame love for 2001 is mostly from seeing it as a lad and not getting it at all, but desperately wanting to, which was odd and new for me at the time, like masturbation. And, well, you all know how that went…

Paths of Glory is Kubrick’s best film. Doctor Strangelove was his last good movie, though.

Paths of Glory is amazing, but Kubrick’s last good movie was Full Metal Jacket. Sorry Ben, but if you leave The Shining out of your list of his good films, I can’t possibly give it any credit.

And Barry Lyndon was shot entirely in natural light (candles, sun, and fires only). It was mostly, I think, an experiment in whether or not that could actually be done in a movie, but as Kubrick was a perfectionist, even his experiments were incredibly entertaining.

The Killing, also, is a fabulous Noir film. Highly recommended if you like gangster flicks. The final scene in the mannequin factory is as tense as you’ll get in the 50’s.

The only criticism I can possibly give of Kubrick’s body of work is that, despite his great talent, he couldn’t pull a good acting job out of Kidman and Cruise, but then, that’s a herculean task which I feel no one could have accomplished. Eyes Wide Shit is Kubrick’s only bad film, and from what I gather, he only did it so that Warner Brothers would give him the budget he wanted for AI, a film which Speilberg completely raped into fecal matter.

An interesting Kubrick Anecdote: He wanted to create the definitive biopic of Napoleon. To prepare, he turned a room in his house into a library which was then entirely dedicated to Napoleonic historical books and biographies. He, evidently, read every last one, but in the end, no studio would give him money to make the film.

Full Metal Jacket wasn’t a good movie. The made-for-TV Shining with the dude from Wings was better than Kubrick’s version, which is shit.
Plenty of people have pulled good acting jobs from Cruise and Kidman, and AI didn’t suck because of Spielberg’s ending it. Kubrick is heartily overrated, he went from making great movies to making weird movies and nobody called him on it.

Sorry Ben, but I have now lost all respect for you.

You’re a fanboy and I denigrated your idol, of course you lost respect for me. It’s what you people do.

Full Metal Jacket is half of a good movie.

I’m inclined to think Kubrick is generally overrated. He was a great technician, but his movies were so cold and technical that you didn’t get the feeling that they had a pulse or a heart. I think Dr. Strangelove is an exception, and at times it feels totally unhinged. That’s very unlike most of his later, hermetically sealed movies.

The only criticism I can possibly give of Kubrick’s body of work is that, despite his great talent, he couldn’t pull a good acting job out of Kidman and Cruise, but then, that’s a herculean task which I feel no one could have accomplished.

Neither is a terrible actor, but Kubrick sucked the life out of their performances due to his tendency to do hundreds and hundreds of takes. And you could tell he never left his house, because there was no sense of reality to Eyes Wide Shut. It was not entirely unlike reality, but it didn’t go far enough in any direction. Bah, it’s a boring, boring movie, unless you like long tracking shots of Tom Cruise walking around. Then it’s great.

Eyes Wide Shit is Kubrick’s only bad film, and from what I gather, he only did it so that Warner Brothers would give him the budget he wanted for AI, a film which Speilberg completely raped into fecal matter.

Nice imagery, but it’s hard to say where Kubrick ended and Spielberg started on AI. Fans of Kubrick think all the bad parts are Spielberg, but some people say otherwise.

Anyway, it’s almost a great movie, had it just ended when the kid fell into the water. There’s some amazing stuff in there, that’s for sure. Spielberg is as good–or better–a technical filmmaker as Kubrick; too bad he’s such a sentimentalist.

Kubrick’s scenes were always as carefully composed as paintings, and looking back on his opus, his greatest strength was the visualization of abstract concepts and raw insanity.

That’s why 2001 is his masterpiece – it’s all about mind-boggling cosmic events, with as little dialogue as possible getting in the way. I think Kubrick successfully handled a subject matter that would have become embarrassing B schlock in the hands of virtually any other director. (A monolith that makes apes use tools and leads a spaceship to Jupiter? An insecure murderous ship computer?)

Also, his visualization of insanity is what made The Shining, A Clockwork Orange, and (partly) Full Metal Jacket so good. I do think that his films tend to get worse the more they are about normal human interaction – those parts usually end up fairly boring, even including the gunfight in FMJ.

I tend to think of Kubrick and Hitchcock being very similar. Both were highly technical, even “cold” directors. The single biggest difference is that AH was consistently able to get great performances from his actors, whereas SK was sorta like Lucas, I think, in that he often seemed to deal with actors as a “necessary evil” of filmmaking.

It should be noted that AH had a few “dogs” as well. SK was a brilliant filmmaker who, if nothing else, had the balls to aspire, and few can dispute that he is among those directors who made “art” before “entertainment” – whether this is good or bad is subjective opinion, I personally find art entertaining.

Underrate the guy for his misses if you must, but at least he always aimed high, which is more than can be said for Spielberg, Sodenberg, and many other other “great” directors of more recent memory. And he never really made a “bomb” – AI and EWS may have had their weaknesses, but they weren’t failures, in my view.

I’m surprised it took so long to mention A Clockwork Orange, which he made after Strangelove and 2001, and stands among his best films, IMHO.

It’s not, really. To anybody who followed the development of AI before or after its release, the SK->SS line is like night and day – actually, you nailed it yourself. And that’s coming from a Speilberg “fan,” who is – shall we say – at least “tolerant” of his additions to AI. I appreciate what he tried, anyway.

FMJ, IMHO, is sorta like the anti-Saving Private Ryan. FMJ is an anti-war movie (SPR is a war movie). FMJ is a bunch of great “bits” that just barely fall short of coming together to make more than the sum of its parts. SPR is like one big whole who’s individual elements are ultimately lacking. Omaha beach in SPR is absolutely incredible, but nothing else in the film even comes close to matching that opening, even the climax. Whereas FMJ is chock full of great parts (boot camp, the “I guess I’m trying to say something about the duality of man, sir!” scene, the Adam “Mutha” Baldwin character) that just fail to make a satisfying whole.

Lolita is about human interaction, although the “normal” part is questionable. It’s funny how rarely Lolita gets mentioned in any Kubrick talk, but I think it’s one of his most successful films, not least of which is due to the incredible performances.