I don't know. 2001 made me lose SO much respect for the guy. Film people can talk all they want about the revolutionary effects and techniques. That stuff is all secondary. Whenever *I* watch, I just see a boring, stretched-out movie that spirals out of nowhere and turns into a trippy acid fest in the excruciating final 20 minutes.

Dr. Strangelove was excellent, but 2001 was painful, pretentious crap. (Braces self for barrage of flames)


--Alan

------------------
http://www.alandenton.com
------------------

There probably will be flames, but who cares? I saw 2001 in a theatre about 10-15 years ago (as a 'classic' film night) - and remember losing count, the number of times I looked at my watch, thinking "what the heck did I do this for?".

I'm sure there are people that love that movie (and Kubrick), but it didn't do anything for me.

Doesn't mean it isn't good, but I just didn't like it.

Mark M
Scooter Productions

I haven't seen 2001 yet, but I watched ClockWork Orange the other night and then again the next night. I didn't watch it twice in a row because I thought it was good, but I watched it twice to see if maybe I missed something the first time around.

Not that his films suck, but until I'm impressed with another one of his movies, I countinue to think he was built up by a cult of ****ty film followers and made into a ledgend based off of terrible film making. Ouch...that sounds harsh, but until I see something better, I'll feel this way.

Can anyone suggest a good film of his? I've seen a few but nothing has done it for me yet? I'm sure there is at least one great film by the man, there are countless books about him...someone help!

Lets hope this thing ends quick...enough said

Lieber gott, there's some serious trolling for flames going on in this post!

I personally think Kubrick was one of the masters of film, partly for his simplistic shooting style, partly for the subjects he chose but mostly for the fact he remained true to himself and that his only influence on his films was himself.

Take Barry Lyndon for example, I don't think anyone else would have DARED use a f0.07 apature lens to shoot all the interiors. He used that lens purely so he could shoot entirely with candle light! The visual quality of that film basically makes all the interiors look like old oil paintings. Barry Lyndon, for those that don't know, was a period drama.

Clockwork Orange and Full Metal Jacket, I don't think anyone else would dare to do screen violence in the way Kubrick did. Sure there have been other films that are just plain nasty to watch: "Baise-Moi" and "Irreversable" to name two but Clockwork Orange leaves a lasting impression other than feeling just sick at the end of it.

If you like his films, good. If you don't ... good. It's your opinion and you are entitled to it. I think his reputation was overblown by harsh critics and snide newspapers, but his films speak for themselves.

Richard Purves
One Man Band
omb@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.omb.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

I agree that Clockwork Orange gave a lasting impression but I don't agree about the screen violence thing. Actually, I found the violence to be pointless. He never gave an answer for the violence. All he did was show that if you cause violence than you too will recieve violence. "An eye for an eye" answer I guess but I was looking for a Third Act and never got it.

Lets hope this thing ends quick...enough said

I think the violence was basically secondary to the point he was going for. Yes, we've got the whole violence begets violence but I'm sure Kubrick (and the book for that matter) was more a satire and comment on human nature than anything else.

Richard Purves
One Man Band
omb@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.omb.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

I see...good point. I never really thought of it that way. Maybe it should have stayed a book...I'm out 18 dollars and lost 4 hours of my life because of that movie. At least I can stay I saw it now.

Lets hope this thing ends quick...enough said

That sounded harsh. OK, I didn't waste 4 hours of my life. This, because I learned what kind of a film maker Kubrick was. I learned about a unique editing style, musical score and acting delivery. I must just say that it was not my type of film. I'm sure many people love this film, actually I know many people love this film. There were some great things in it but not my cup of tea.

I must also admit that Mr. Kubrick put forth some great new ideas for future film makers to pick up on. I thought a lot about "Train Spotting" when I saw this flick. So the good and bad must combine in this case to draw a proper conclusion from my mind.

Lets hope this thing ends quick...enough said

If you didn't like the film (Clockwork Orange), then i'd definately avoid the book by Anthony Burgess. It's entirely written in the same vernacular that the lead character speaks in.

Mind you, the book "Trainspotting" was much the same too.

Richard Purves
One Man Band
omb@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.omb.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

What? I can definately see people thinking 2001 is boring (not me personally, but some people), but to say it is pretentious is to show true ignorance not only to the film, but to the entire art of motion picture.
Think of what film is: moving pictures and sound. No filmmaker has ever showed modern cinema in such a pure way as Kubrick did with 2001. it is only pictures and sound telling a story; it is not cluttered with dialogue or characters. In early cinema history, it was believed that film could only be employed in filming productions of plays; up until 2001, little had changed. Most films utilized the same elements as plays and novels, and didn't go much further. Kubrick made a story purely using motion picture, and sound. You don't have to like the film, but damn it, if you want anybody to take your opinions about film seriously, you have either got to respect 2001 or prove why you don't.

Someone used the name"dave23" a little while back and called my film "a self important pretentious piece of crap" and I wonder if it is the same person. This person on my review didn't know how to use the word correctly either. I read language like I read facial features, and I never forget a face. Watch what you say.

Besides filming, the only other thing I ever did good was filming.

i am sorry but i am who i am because of Stanley Kubrick.

i think it takes a bit of maturity & insight to understand his films.
what i would say is say what you want now, that's cool, but do not overlook him 5 years from now. return to his movies once you have matured a little more and understand cinema better, maybe than you will have much more of an appreciation toward his work.

remember, this is a man who devoted his entire life to photographing and creating motion pictures, that alone should be enough to admire him since all of you are trying to achieve the same goal: making movies.

when 2001 first premiered, around 250 people walked out of the theatre, and Kubrick counted them as they left. i guess that's how most of you feel, correct? but that was 1968! now 2001 is revered as a landmark by critics and audiences. it took that long for it to be recognized for what it was, so you are not alone.

if you want some more insights into the man, email me and I would love to talk about him and his films.

to me, he is my inspiration and so are his films.

Ah, I knew everyone would eventually rally against me after my Kubrick comments. Keep in mind I don't think the guy is a bad director. I enjoy some of his films. It's just... 2001 brings everything down. To me, it seems like he wants us all to believe that he is being extremely deep and symbolic, but he never actually made clear what it is that he is trying to say. Some say that's the appeal. "It asks more questions than it answers." That seems like a cop out to me.


--Alan


--EDIT-- And to The Mind: No, I'm not that dave guy. I'm Alan.


------------------
http://www.alandenton.com
------------------

if you need to "understand" 2001 then there are many websites that are easily accessable and show an explaination. i personnaly wish i had watched it a few more times before reading the explainations. the book also explains alot as they were both made at the same time. i think its ok to dislike 2001 (though i love it), but only if you hate star wars. ppl who like star wars but hate 2001 are just popcorn/blockbuster/spielberg lovers. i guess i dont have to get back into my anti spielberg campaighn. anyways, i guess its just a good film (2001 is) that i like because it is long and boring, and it is all about the visual images not as much words. you really need to endure and get into it. many movies since but few before took this route. 2001 isnt your normal summer blockbuster pile of overpriced crap. its different. different is good. its what we lack most today.

Nothing I love more than is to have to buy a book to understand what a movie was suppose to tell me? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

Besides filming, the only other thing I ever did good was filming.

Listen to yourself Kubrick77!

"i think it takes a bit of maturity & insight to understand his films."

I love how most of these Kubrick ball-licking dickweeds ASSume that people that don't like his films MUST BE COMPLETE ****ING MORONS!

Grow up please!

Make a film! FIND YOUR OWN IDENTITY AS A FILM-MAKER! ITS OK IF YOU FAIL AT FIRST. FAILURE HELPS YOU LEARN SO YOU DO BETTER NEXT TIME. TAKE A CHANCE ON YOURSELF KUBRICK77! LIFE'S TOO SHORT! DON'T BE A PHONEY!

quote:

---

Originally posted by kubrick77:
i am sorry but i am who i am because of Stanley Kubrick.

i think it takes a bit of maturity & insight to understand his films.
what i would say is say what you want now, that's cool, but do not overlook him 5 years from now. return to his movies once you have matured a little more and understand cinema better, maybe than you will have much more of an appreciation toward his work.

remember, this is a man who devoted his entire life to photographing and creating motion pictures, that alone should be enough to admire him since all of you are trying to achieve the same goal: making movies.

when 2001 first premiered, around 250 people walked out of the theatre, and Kubrick counted them as they left. i guess that's how most of you feel, correct? but that was 1968! now 2001 is revered as a landmark by critics and audiences. it took that long for it to be recognized for what it was, so you are not alone.

if you want some more insights into the man, email me and I would love to talk about him and his films.

to me, he is my inspiration and so are his films.

---

There's that word PRETENTIOUS again...hmmmmmm
Could this be the "dave23" I've been looking for???

Besides filming, the only other thing I ever did good was filming.

Hey. I'm J_Richards not "dave23". If I had a problem with something you said, I'd have the balls to use my own name in my response. But I don't, so I haven't. Cheers. Kubrick77 on the other hand, of course has no response to my prior post. If you are going to post statements that question the intelligence of everybody in this forum except yourself, please have the courtesy to back it up. G'night!

quote:

---

Originally posted by THE MIND:
There's that word PRETENTIOUS again...hmmmmmm
Could this be the "dave23" I've been looking for???

Besides filming, the only other thing I ever did good was filming.

---

"I love how most of these Kubrick ball-licking dickweeds ASSume that people that don't like his films MUST BE COMPLETE ****ING MORONS!"
-J_Richards

If you aren't a complete ****ing moron, maybe you should try backing up your opinions with some evidence.

As I said before, you need evidence to back up your opinion. 2001, for example, is a very simple film to understand (I don't understand who said they needed the book to understand the film, that's total crap). Just look at what happens, and how Kubrick makes it happen; for example, look in the beginning. The apes roam around aimlessly, until they are given intellect, and the ability to use tools. Then what do they do with such tools? Kill other apes. Then, as the ape throws the bone into the air, it dissolves and we see the spaceship: man's ultimate tool.
What is Kubrick trying to say? Think about it. In my opinion, the film is very transcendental; Kubrick is saying that the intellect is an foreign thing and is out of place among nature (observe, also, how the apes, prior to the obelisk, live side by side with the pig things, but post-obelisk the apes eat the pig things). This idea is furthered by the creation of HAL; the ultimate extension of intelligence all the way to point where man has created another living thing. But what does HAL do? Tries to kill man. As soon as the astronaut leaves HAL behind, he is transported. What is this psycadelic journey? Maybe enlightenment, maybe becoming one with nature as Emerson often described.
Finally think of the last scene, the "star child;" well, thoreau did say that he wished he were as smart as teh day he was born; the child represents a pure figure, untainted by man's intellect.
What makes this film so great? It is the fact that it is done using purly what cinema offers: images and sound. He leaves behind the norms of drama and literature that have carried over to cinema. Really, if you think about, what would have happened if 2001 did employ the standard amount of dialogue? There wouldn't be the ape scene for sure, and an ending true to teh themes wouoldn't have worked, becasue the astronaut in the end would need a buddy to explain everything to. This shows Kubricks true genius, a lesser director would have made an Armaggedon-style thriller filled with technobabble. Just image the astronauts talking to each other: "HAL's lux capacitator is overloading. We need to shut down his sensory overrides modules..." A big explosion, then one of them says "that was close."

This is an example of supporting your opinion with evidence.