What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Stanley Kubrick: Director Hall of Fame **VOTE HERE** (1 Viewer)

What movie should Kubrick go into the Movie HOF with?

  • Eyes Wide Shut

    Votes: 1 1.0%

  • Full Metal Jacket

    Votes: 14 14.0%

  • The Shining

    Votes: 19 19.0%

  • Barry Lyndon

    Votes: 1 1.0%

  • A Clockwork Orange

    Votes: 14 14.0%

  • 2001: A Space Odyssey

    Votes: 31 31.0%

  • Lolita

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Spartacus

    Votes: 1 1.0%

  • Paths of Glory

    Votes: 3 3.0%

  • The Killing

    Votes: 2 2.0%

  • Dr. Strangelove...

    Votes: 14 14.0%
  • Total voters
    100
KarmaPolice said:
Can we talk about the hate for the 2nd 1/2 of Full Metal Jacket?   I love the movie, and it's my favorite Kubrick, but the most common complaint I seem to come across is the movie is bad after we get to Vietnam.    I find it every bit as quotable and unsettling.  
Click to expand...
I think it does drop off when they go to Vietnam after Private Pyle's demise, but I think it's mainly because the first half with the basic training is so intense.

 
Eephus said:
Voted for Dr. Strangelove because it's a film that only Kubrick could have made.  Comedies even one that's this black will always get the short end when it comes to honoring directors.

Paths of Glory and Barry Lyndon would get my other podium spots although I'm probably out on a limb with the latter. (I guess it's better to be out on a limb with a ladder)
Click to expand...


Mandrake!!     I went with Dr. Strangelove too.  Just watched it again about a year ago for the first time in about 20 years and enjoyed it even more.

I forgot that James Earl Jones was the pilot of the bomber plane. That was his movie debut.

 
rockaction said:
In America. Kubrick was aware of the British version and went ahead anyway. Burgess called it a "misdemeanor." 
Click to expand...
Gotcha, seems like that’s the version American audiences would have been familiar with. Again, I haven’t read it so I can’t really comment in which ending is better. I think Burgess disliked the novel in general. I read he wishes he never wrote it and claimed it was just a quick way to make some cash.

 
If The Shining pulls a comeback, it would be an interesting 4 horror movies for 4 non horror directors which would have been interesting. 

 
Ilov80s said:
When Kubrick wrote the screenplay, the last chapter where Alex is redeemed wasn’t published. It wasn’t part of the original book. The last chapter wasn’t published until the 80s.
Click to expand...
As has been mentioned, the chapter was only omitted from the initial American release.  It was always in the British release.

For the record, I don't like Burgess's ending at all.  I think it's a total narrative cop out.  I'm not sure Kubrick's completely works either, but I think it's better than having the Droogs all naturally mature out of ultraviolence like mates who stop hanging out so much at the pub when their birds have kids.  I think an ending where they become cops or soldiers or some other profession precisely because it allows them to indulge their penchant for violence in socially approved ways would have been much stronger and more in keeping with the rest of the book.

 
I'll also echo the love for Barry Lyndon.  It could be the most beautifully crafted film ever made.  I don't think the rambling Thackeray story quite lives up to the cinematography, but it is undeniably gorgeous to look at.  Like if a Dutch Master strung together thousands of compositions.

 
Too many different criteria to sift through.  They are all equal in the effort he put into them and the visual/artistic results he got, not just visually but also what he coaxed out of his actors.  2001 is still a standard that space-based movies compare to despite it being over 50 years old. It was also his highest-grossing at the box office. Dr. Strangelove is the gold standard for dark comedy and anti-war movies. Barry Lyndon and Eyes Wide Shut are visually gorgeous and always will be. There are superlatives for all of his movies.

Picking one Kubrick movie to represent him is like picking one of my children as the one I love most. I can't do it.

And I hate to be a thread cop here, but @Da Guru, James Earl Jones wasn't the pilot but rather the bombadier.

 
2001 for sure. Outstanding technical achievement, albeit you have to be okay with the reeeaaallllyyyy slllooooowwww pacing of the film. 

Kubrick is my favorite director. Barry Lyndon is probably my least favorite of his films, and somehow I don't think I've ever seen Paths of Glory. But The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, the Killing, A Clockwork Orange, Spartacus and Dr. Strangelove are all incredibly well done and have high re-watch value. One thing that I always noticed about Kubrick films is how cold, unemotional and detached they feel. There's a cynical undercurrent through most of his work. Even in a more personal film like FMJ you never really have any sort of emotional attachment to the characters. You're just watching events unfold in a technically dazzling way. 

 
KarmaPolice said:
Can we talk about the hate for the 2nd 1/2 of Full Metal Jacket?   I love the movie, and it's my favorite Kubrick, but the most common complaint I seem to come across is the movie is bad after we get to Vietnam.    I find it every bit as quotable and unsettling.  
Click to expand...


I would not call the second half "bad", but I think it's the first half that makes the movie great. First half has the intensity as another poster mentioned, and feels just as fresh today as ever.  I don't think the Vietnam stuff stands out as much, in part because it has been explored in many other movies -- if I was looking for something just about the horrors of combat in Vietnam, I'd probably put on Apocalypse Now and Deer Hunter before it.

 
trader jake said:
Voted 2001.  Clockwork, Dr. Strangelove, and The Shining right behind.

Eyes Wide Shut is underrated.  :oldunsure:
Click to expand...
Very much agree. IMO, casting a Hollywood star couple at the time in Tom & Nicole really hurt it. There was so much hype about them being in it as if it was going to be a typical Hollywood movie, but with lots of nudity, sex, etc. that it hurt perception when it came out. Didn’t help Kubrick died shortly after his final cut and Warner Bros edited it before release.

Heck, I still have a hard time buying into Tom Cruise in it despite his heavy shift into more serious roles during that time period instead of his typical movie star popcorn movies.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Da Guru said:
Mandrake!!     I went with Dr. Strangelove too.  Just watched it again about a year ago for the first time in about 20 years and enjoyed it even more.

I forgot that James Earl Jones was the pilot of the bomber plane. That was his movie debut.
Click to expand...
The pilot was Slim Pickens. James Earl Jones was the bombadier

 
I think it's funny that I can go "Hey, spoilers," about The Shining. Who's Halloran and why was he killed?! 

 
rockaction said:
I think it's funny that I can go "Hey, spoilers," about The Shining. Who's Halloran and why was he killed?! 
Click to expand...
Spoilers a comin':

Scatman Crothers (Halloran). He first discovered Danny's shine in the walk-in cooler in the hotel. Then he came to save him at the end when he heard Danny's cry for help through the shine and met his demise from Whacko Jacko.

Notabley in the book is that Halloran does not die. It's one of the things SK takes issue with.

 
I think it's fair to say that Kubrick was completely uninterested in about 80% of what King was doing in The Shining.  Again, I side pretty squarely with Kubrick in thinking the story works much better as a mental breakdown with just a splash of unexplained supernatural elements rather than as a story where that stuff is actually explored.  It's the same reason why I think the Director's Cut of Donny Darko should be set on fire and never spoken of again.  

 
I'd agree with most of that.

My take is that King wrote out as an allegory of alcoholism almost exclusively. IIRC he said he didn't remember writing much of it.

Kubrick's slant is more on the pressures of fatherhood with alcoholism being a component thereof. 

Also, Jack's downfall in the book is due more to possession, where in the movie he is just a loser to begin with.

I need to read the book again, though. It's been probably 35 years.

 
Andy Dufresne said:
I'd agree with most of that.

My take is that King wrote out as an allegory of alcoholism almost exclusively. IIRC he said he didn't remember writing much of it.

Kubrick's slant is more on the pressures of fatherhood with alcoholism being a component thereof. 

Also, Jack's downfall in the book is due more to possession, where in the movie he is just a loser to begin with.

I need to read the book again, though. It's been probably 35 years.
Click to expand...
I agree with this.

 
Andy Dufresne said:
What does Danny do with The Shine other than get Halloran killed?
Click to expand...


The Shine wasn't only about talking to someone with their minds.  He had other telepathic powers, it allowed him to interact with the spirits of the Overlook.  The hotel "shines" to him.  Redrum, the dead twins, etc.  He can see the past and the future (I believe his make-believe friend is actually him from the future, and warned him about the boiler exploding in the book)".  He physically interacted with the ghost in that one room he wasn't supposed to go in, he had bruises.  

 
prosopis said:
you'r kidding, right?
Click to expand...
Not at all. In the book, Danny amplifies the hotel's evil. In the movie there's really no such connection shown.

Everything supernatural in the movie could be accomplished without Danny having powers. It would have made the movie more Jack-centered, which was the intent anyway, and would have removed the necessity of the Halloran story, at least the part where he returns - and it would have tightened up the movie.

But that latter part, delivering a tight movie, was never really a concern of Kubrick's.

 
shuke said:
The Shine wasn't only about talking to someone with their minds.  He had other telepathic powers, it allowed him to interact with the spirits of the Overlook.  The hotel "shines" to him.  Redrum, the dead twins, etc.  He can see the past and the future (I believe his make-believe friend is actually him from the future, and warned him about the boiler exploding in the book)".  He physically interacted with the ghost in that one room he wasn't supposed to go in, he had bruises.  
Click to expand...
But I don't think that was entirely necessary in the movie. Wendy sees those things too and we're not told she has The Shine.

It's enough, in the language of the movie, that it was one directional - from the hotel to others.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
rockaction said:
I think it's funny that I can go "Hey, spoilers," about The Shining. Who's Halloran and why was he killed?! 
Click to expand...
Yeah that’s a very contrarian POV. The Shining has to be one the of most widely seen films. Being horror, even a lot of younger people are familiar with it. I’ve seen some negative Kubrick tales before but they usually focus on him being an ##### on set, a toxic masculinity to many of his films and a lack of interest in the humanity of his characters. I don’t think that’s what you are saying so much as you just found his movies boring. I appreciate the unique POV, always makes the convo interesting. Is there any particular trait or thing you can point to that didn’t work?

 
Ilov80s said:
Yeah that’s a very contrarian POV. The Shining has to be one the of most widely seen films. Being horror, even a lot of younger people are familiar with it. I’ve seen some negative Kubrick tales before but they usually focus on him being an ##### on set, a toxic masculinity to many of his films and a lack of interest in the humanity of his characters. I don’t think that’s what you are saying so much as you just found his movies boring. I appreciate the unique POV, always makes the convo interesting. Is there any particular trait or thing you can point to that didn’t work?
Click to expand...
I don't know if I can put my finger on exactly one trait, but I'd say the first word that pops into mind is "pacing." His movies seem very slow, methodical, and long. 2001 is especially notable as one critics say that you have to tune in for the whole way through to get the payoff with about ten minutes or so to go. I'm not really willing to do that, I guess. Full Metal Jacket strikes me as one where the first half is eminently watchable, hence me knowing the "this is my rifle" line. That's really about it other than A Clockwork Orange, which skeeves me out for entirely different reasons than watchability. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Don Quixote said:
Dr. Strangelove for me.

My second pick would probably be Paths of Glory. Not his most popular one (which is why hard to put him in the HOF for it), but the one I’ve rewatched the most. So many scenes that I love in that movie.
Click to expand...
lots of good choices, but I went with Strangelove as well. top 5 movie for me, even if I could (and would) argue some of those others are more interesting/compelling from a director's standpoint.

 
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
I'll also echo the love for Barry Lyndon.  It could be the most beautifully crafted film ever made.  I don't think the rambling Thackeray story quite lives up to the cinematography, but it is undeniably gorgeous to look at.  Like if a Dutch Master strung together thousands of compositions.
Click to expand...
I agree about the artwork and I liked the first half, but the second half just couldn't end soon enough for me.

Full Metal Jacket had a phenomenal opening act but the rest was merely good. 

I went with Space Odyssey.  It probably helps that I saw it in Cinerama (super wide screen) when I was a kid and it left a big impression.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
rockaction said:
I don't know if I can put my finger on exactly one trait, but I'd say the first word that pops into mind is "pacing." His movies seem very slow, methodical, and long. 2001 is especially notable as one critics say that you have to tune in for the whole way through to get the payoff with about ten minutes or so to go. I'm not really willing to do that, I guess. Full Metal Jacket strikes me as one where the first half is eminently watchable, hence me knowing the "this is my rifle" line. That's really about it other than A Clockwork Orange, which skeeves me out for entirely different reasons than watchability. 
Click to expand...
Agree 100%. And it's really my point with The Shining. It's still awesome, but there's some bloat that could have been done away with.

 
maybe the best Kubrick movie is the one he didnt get to make....

i woke up to AI: Artificial Intelligence on SyFy today (that's what falling asleep to ol' Twilight Zones will get you). Watching it for the first time since the theater, i saw what Kubrick saw in it and what America's greatest director did, too. And the dif is what made Kubrick great. Spielberg flix are about the orphan within us all, Kubrick's are about how life orphans us at every turn. Steve saw his Wizard of Oz in this story, Stan saw The Divine Comedy as puppet show. I could see the cruel turn that the master would have supplied, absent in almost every scene. Here's a hint, Steve - you're not a real boy until you can do it without the teddy bear.

 
Andy Dufresne said:
rockaction said:
I don't know if I can put my finger on exactly one trait, but I'd say the first word that pops into mind is "pacing." His movies seem very slow, methodical, and long. 2001 is especially notable as one critics say that you have to tune in for the whole way through to get the payoff with about ten minutes or so to go. I'm not really willing to do that, I guess. Full Metal Jacket strikes me as one where the first half is eminently watchable, hence me knowing the "this is my rifle" line. That's really about it other than A Clockwork Orange, which skeeves me out for entirely different reasons than watchability. 
Click to expand...
Agree 100%. And it's really my point with The Shining. It's still awesome, but there's some bloat that could have been done away with.
Click to expand...


I think the pacing and "bloat" are what give this movie such a feeling of claustrophobia/eeriness/helplessness.  

 
rockaction said:
I don't know if I can put my finger on exactly one trait, but I'd say the first word that pops into mind is "pacing." His movies seem very slow, methodical, and long. 2001 is especially notable as one critics say that you have to tune in for the whole way through to get the payoff with about ten minutes or so to go. I'm not really willing to do that, I guess. Full Metal Jacket strikes me as one where the first half is eminently watchable, hence me knowing the "this is my rifle" line. That's really about it other than A Clockwork Orange, which skeeves me out for entirely different reasons than watchability. 
Click to expand...
2001 is definitely not about a story, it's about an experience. The plot doesn't matter at all. The characters don't matter either. It's there to be experienced. That's certainly not for everyone. 

shuke said:
I think the pacing and "bloat" are what give this movie such a feeling of claustrophobia/eeriness/helplessness.  
Click to expand...
Same but I also don't mind movies that take their time or are limited in plot. I like absorbing the world and the novelistic like qualities a longer movie can take on. Barry Lyndon for example is so slow but it's also so beautiful to look at that it's like touring an art museum, every shot is framed like a master painter would have. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joe Mammy said:
I think for the most part we didn't know what the hell was going on. There was discussion after and we mostly agreed we liked the space parts.

When I saw it years later with cannabis involved it seemed much better.
Click to expand...
One one hand it's a very slow movie for kids but it was also 1970, pre internet and pre Star Wars so I imagine attention spans were better and it was still seeing something that had never truly been seen before. Not many movies can say they were truly revolutionary but 2001 was. It really caused people to stop and question what a movie was and what a movie could be. There were truly visceral reactions to it. 

 
Joe Mammy said:
I think for the most part we didn't know what the hell was going on. There was discussion after and we mostly agreed we liked the space parts.

When I saw it years later with cannabis involved it seemed much better.
Click to expand...


To be fair, Rock Hudson did not know what the hell was going on in it either.

 
As great as many of these are, the most re-watchable of them all is Full Metal Jacket.  If I am flipping through the channels and see it is in the boot camp part of the movie, I'll stop and watch almost every time.

Can't say that about any of his other movies (well....except for certain parts of EWS.....but that's a different issue entirely).

I still think the answer is 2001, but that thought just came to me.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
kupcho1 said:
Of course, he was too focused on adding hidden meanings and symbols.
Click to expand...
Interesting video. I like the bit about truth being revealed only in mirrors. I'd never caught that before.

I don't think Jack ever sexually abuses Danny though. In fact, I think one of the reasons he's so easy for the hotel to corrupt him is because of his sexual repression. Kubrick makes Wendy so unappealing and their marriage is so loveless (at least considering Jack towards Wendy) it's easy too see that Jack's sexual frustration could lead to other "things" - like picking up the Playgirl in the lobby. But he doesn't act on them. The images that Wendy sees as the hotel reveals itself to her - like the guy in the bear costume - are projections of Jack's psyche.

But IMO Halloran is simply wrong when he says the ghosts can't hurt you. And it's a ghost, not Jack, that attacks Danny.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ilov80s
  • Poll
John Huston: Director Hall of Fame **VOTE HERE**
2
Replies
65
Views
1K
Ilov80s
Ilov80s
Ilov80s
  • Poll
James Cameron: Director Hall of Fame **VOTE HERE**
2
Replies
78
Views
2K
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Ilov80s
  • Poll
Billy Wilder Director Hall of Fame **VOTE HERE**
2
Replies
57
Views
2K
squistion
squistion

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top