Relating Kubrick to Tarantino, I think it would be really cool if QT used that “metal” sound effect that’s heard at the end of Full Metal Jacket during the sniper scene in Inglorious Bastards.
charles Bronson just opened a new thread about Kubrick. I closed it. Please use the search function before opening new threads. 
One theme one topic.
This is was Charles Bronson wrote:
Does anybody care for Stanley Kubrick? I think his movies are pretty great. I didn’t like Lolita, Barry Lyndon, & Eyes Wide Shut. They were okay but overall they were not great. I’m talking about his breakthrough movies such as 2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange, The Shining, and Full Metal Jacket. All of these movies are great. It’s a shame that the DVDs kinda suck. I don’t think they will be releasing any special edition DVDs anytime soon.
I think Stanley Kubrick’s best movie may very well be Paths of Glory. Its definitely the most emotionally charged of all his films, IMO.
Has anyone seen Stanley Kubrick’s first feature film ‘Fear and Desire’?
I’ll add my comments on Stanley Kubrick. It has been said that critics have dismissed many of Kubrick’s films on first release only to have a U-turn and say that “these are the best films ever made” etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. Whether this is true or not I cannot say. Nonetheless when ‘Eyes Wide Shut’ came out in Britain there was a general consensus among the critics of the “Oh well!” variety. When it came out on video the consensus transformed from “oh well” to “this is a pretty good film”. Nothing strange there. Many films have been slated on release only for a U-turn to happen. One example would be ‘Stargate’. Dismissed as run of the mill science fiction and then on video the reviews gave it five stars and called it a “masterpiece”. Obviously I’m talking about the British reviews. One of the longest U-turns was for Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger’s ‘A Canterbury Tale’. Released in 1944 and it is such an idiosyncratic film that it was only appreciated in the 1980s. At the time it was a huge flop. Now it is considered a classic and rightly so.
Some films, like some albums (Captain Beefheart’s ‘Trout Mask Replica’ being an example), need to be experienced more than once to be truly appreciated. I must admit that I had to watch three Kubrick films more than once to fully appreciate them.
DR. STRANGELOVE OR HOW I LEARNT TO STOP WORRYING AND LOVE THE BOMB:
One of my favourite motion pictures of all time. I saw this at the National Film Theatre in 1999 and we all laughed. We were given a treat afterwards in the form of a deleted scene. The film was going to climax in a custard pie fight. That was the scene that we saw. I love this film and the best thing in it is not Peter Sellers (great as he is) but George C Scott as General ‘Buck’ Turgidson. People harp on and on about Tarantino’s dialogue. In truth he has never written a line as good as “Gentlemen! You cannot fight here, this is the war room!” A great black comedy. However rewind a few years when I first saw it. I didn’t think this was funny at all. I thought it was depressing. I found the film claustophobic. I thought it was overpraised. I sat stony faced through the film. I hated it. Now I can see the brilliance.
FULL METAL JACKET:
Two films in one. Loved the first half, hated the second. I told a friend this and he said he hated the first half and loved the second. I could have dismissed the film as ‘half good’ but there was something about it that made me want to check it out again. Perhaps that is the power of Stanley Kubrick. Perhaps that is the power of any great filmmaker. Great as opposed to cool (which to me means conformist).
2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY
Aha! Many a person has said, " I saw it once on the telly and was bored shitless." You are not alone. You are also not alone in finding the sequel 2010 more comprehensible. I must admit, I felt exactly the same when I saw it on BBC2 at the age of thirteen. The only good bit I thought was the swirly whirly light effects during the star-gate sequence. What you might call the “wake me up when that bit comes on” part of the film. I heard it was great but I found it boring and felt glad that many people felt the same way as I did. Nonetheless images and scenes from the film did stick in my mind. If ever it appeared on television (which was rare), I would try to see it to appreciate the film a little more. It was no help. I was still bored out of my tree. Then I read somewhere that this film should not be seen on television. The small screen diminishes the power of the film. It is meant to be seen on a large cinematic screen. As an aside I would say the same for ‘Reservoir Dogs’. If you have seen it on video then you have only seen half the film. Quentin Tarantino’s first feature only works in the cinema. It has more of a kick. I pity you if you have not seen that film at the cinema. Back to 2001. Sadly there was no way I could see that film at the cinema. I have been lucky to see three “old” films at the cinema (‘It’s A Wonderful Life!’, ‘Dr Strangelove’, ‘A Clockwork Orange’ and some Walt Disney) but not ‘2001’. I wanted to see the film again. There was something about those images and the general aura of the film that took hold of my psyche. Was it the sense of space, the sense of loneliness, the sense of that there was something bigger than us. ‘2001’ is an operatic film. It is a poem, a symphony of the cinema. You might complain about the lack of plot but filmmakers have been fighting against the stranglehold that storytelling has over film. After all, wasn’t it Peter Greenaway who wrote, " Cinema is far too rich and capable a medium to be merely left to the storytellers.“? When Brian Aldiss was working on the first draft of ‘AI’ he was very much interested in narrative. Stanley Kubrick wasn’t interested. He said to Brian, " All you need to make a film is six or eight non-submersible units.” Six or eight great chunks in other ways. And that is how ‘2001’ is structured. There’s that chunk, that chunk and that other chunk. One might compare it to Alfred Hitchcock’s ‘The 39 Steps’ which was structured around ‘episodes’. The ‘train episode’ and ‘the political speech episode’. When did I fully appreciate Stanley Kubrick’s greatest film? In the year 2000. In other words it took me over a decade. I cannot believe that. Though, in my defence, I did not see it that much. What happened was I feeling quite stressed. I was about to go on my first holiday with my girlfriend (now fiancee) to Amsterdam. “Shit! Have I got everything? Will the house be okay? Will my sister come over and look after the cat?” I was near enough to panicking. My girlfriend suggested I sit down and watch my ‘2001’ DVD I got as a present. I think it was the first DVD I ever owned. I started to watch the film. It began with the overture. I settled in and started to relax. I felt glad because I didn’t have to think. “Oh, that’s a monkey.” “Oh, that’s a big slab of rock.” and “Oh, he’s murdering the computer.” I got more and more into the visceral side of the film as opposed to the cerebral. And then I started to smile. A revelation dawned on me. This isn’t just a film with beautiful cinematography, it is a film with a proper story. ‘2001’ is not as non-narrative as some critics have made it out to be. I cannot explain the film. You just have to watch it over and over and then you will understand it. In fact, you will love it. Don’t say, “once is enough for me.” You can still enjoy your collection of ‘The Doll Squad’, ‘Phenomena’ and ‘The Mutations’. Just don’t give this film short-shrift.
Stanley Kubrick overrated? He might be. I cannot say. In an interview with Malcom McDowell (you must see his first film ‘if…’) he said that he did not consider the man to be a genius. He considered Michaelangelo to be a genius and the same for John Ford. What stopped Stanley from being a genius in his eyes was that he did not have the ‘humanity’. His films were too technical, too well thought out. Jimmy Carl Black once said, " Zappa’s good but Beefheart’s the real thing." The same could apply to Stanley Kubrick. I was watching the commentary for ‘Straw Dogs’ the other day. One of the critics compared Sam Peckinpah to Stanley Kubrick. Whilst the latter tends to draw your attention to the compostion, framing and lighting of the shot the former is more concerned with the psychology behind the image. ‘Straw Dogs’ is filmed and edited in a ‘bad way’ to make you feel ill at ease. Stanley Kubrick, of course, was influenced by the graceful dolly shots of the French director Max Ophuls.
Stanley Kubrick inhuman? No. Watch a particular scene in ‘Barry Lyndon’ and see if you don’t cry.
And if you still don’t like ‘2001’ have a read of this from <LINK_TEXT text=“http://www.tv.cream.org/specialassignme … filmsp.htm”>http://www.tv.cream.org/specialassignments/films/filmsp.htm</LINK_TEXT> in which ‘Carry On Loving’ is compared to the space opera:
“But let’s keep a little GOSUB in our hearts for the good old days of the big old humming terminal, and the best computer ever to appear in a film - yes, the Wedded Bliss dating computer from CARRY ON LOVING, in which Sid James gamely commandeered the punchcards and switches, only to reveal - of course! - that the whole thing was a chipboard fake, and Hattie Jacques was sat round the back, looking bored, with a cup of tea. Now there’s a finale which would have improved 2001 no end.”
Here is the 1965 screenplay for 2001:
The Kubrick Site: The '2001' Screenplay (1965)
I think Kuberick is a genious. One of my favorites. My favorite films from him are the Shining, 2001, and a Clockwork Orange. I think that that whole taking to long for him to develop the plot is bull shit. he’ awesom
have you seen The Life and Death of Peter Sellers. They have a portrayal of Kubrick that makes him seem like a genius, but also power mad.
Ok…
I’m a new member here, an italian 22 years old film critic, i’m studying science of comunication so
this is my daily bread.
Stanley Kubrick is a genius…why?
Ok, let’s see Clockwork Orange
The american (and the greater part of european) when watches a film, they wants to watch
a good novel, a story about something and somewhat, not a psychological story.
I can’t made a cinema history here, but i will explain you some important thing.
With Clockwork orange Kubrick analyzes the mind of a man, a child that looks at his life like a game. His life is a game so when you look his violent action you must look it like a game because alex is a child (about seventeen…). Alex dance with the “Rossini gazza ladra ouverture” so he is happy, a Sarcastic vision of the Alex life. But in the second part of the game he will grow up because he will look at his violence “on the screen” and he says that “the violence is really violence only when you look it on the screen” (for example difference between a videogame and a Cnn war reportage).
But Alex will always remain a child because the governor will offer at him “a good work” where he can play his crazy action with the political cover of the governor (it’s a political sarcastic vision).Also the droogs can made their action with the cover of the police law (another political sarcastic vision).
It’s not simply to explain, also in the movie we will see some shot that looks like a Popart picture. Also the Mr Alexander bookcase look s like Mondrian picture.
Ok, hope that helps.
Tony
[quote=“WinslowLeach”]
I wanted to start a post to discuss Stanley Kubrick, who I consider to be a genius of cinema. No he hasnt made films to please the everyone, but he still should be respected as an innovator and visionary of cinema. (most people who have a knowledge of films made before 1994 will agree).
Now, Sebastian, our dear Tarantino Forum Master has drawn a line in the sand. He claims that Kubricks films are basically SHIT. Personally I think Sebs been watching Last Man Standing (his favorite film) too much. Its affecting his brain. 
Since I DO respect other peoples opinions if they have a knowledge of film and film history, I will totally let certain subjects go, BUT this is one case where I cant do that.
So far Seb has said his films are: Plot weak, weird, boring, music scores dont make sense, the films blow because theyre not in Widescreen, and they SUCK ASS.
My opinion is that Kubricks films are : Innovative, comedic, exciting, bizarre, mysterious, breathtaking, surreal, horrific and most of all: fun to watch.
Id like to hear what everyone thinks of Kubrick, do you think hes a great filmmaker or a hackity hack? Be honest and make some valid points please. 
The films: KILLERS KISS, THE KILLING, SPARTACUS, LOLITA, A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, DR STRANGELOVE, EYES WIDE SHUT, FULL METAL JACKET, THE SHINING,2001,BARRY LYNDON, PATHS OF GLORY.
[/quote]
I have seen LOLITA, A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, DR STRANGELOVE, EYES WIDE SHUT, FULL METAL JACKET, THE SHINING, BARRY LYNDON. I liked Clockwork Orange Barry Lyndon,and Eyes wide Shut the best. I have The Killing on order and want to see Killers Kiss,2001,and Fear and Desire. Not a hack a fucking genuis.
Kubrick is a genius. A Clockwork Orange will always be my favourite.
Stanley Kubrick isnt a hack.
Genius. Stanley Kubrick’s movies are like nothing you have ever seen before in terms of framing and style. His films remind me of the famous photographs or paintings you would find in a museum. The main characters in his films give great performances (Jack Nicholson, Malcolm McDowell, Ryan O’Neil just to name a few). Also, when watching his films for the first time, you don’t really know how the film is going to end. It’s not like an action film where you see a guy holding a gun and by the end of the movie you know he is going to kill somebody. The Shining is one of the best horror films I have ever seen. I didn’t like A Clockwork Orange at first, but the film is slowly starting to grow on me and now I love it. Full Metal Jacket is great as well as Dr. Strangelove, and 2001. Eyes Wide Shut is good but is a very, very different film and it wasn’t what I expected the film to be (that’s not bad either. i thought the film would be some cheesy romance movie like the trailer suggested imo). The Killing and Lolita are both good, though not as popular or widely praised as his other films. I have yet to see Killer’s Kiss and Fear & Desire. Does anybody know if Stanley Kubrick: A Life in Pictures is going to be on HBO anytime soon? He is my favorite director. If he were alive to make A.I. and his Napoleon project, I think those would be his crowning achivements because Steven Speilbergs A.I. didn’t do Kubrick’s vision justice.
Remember that scene from ‘Full Metal Jacket’ where Basil Fawlty’s Waldorf Salad eating guest asks Matthew Modine why he has a peace button and ‘born to kill’ written on his helmet?
The Vietnam War
Stanley’s Top Ten Movies in 1963
I Vitelloni
Wild Strawberries
Citizen Kane
The Treasure of Sierra Madre
City Lights
Henry V
La Notte
The Bank Dick (A very funny film starring the excellent W.C. Fields)
Roxie Hart
Hell’s Angels
And. Another. Thing.
The screenplay for the unmade Napoleon
<LINK_TEXT text=“http://stanleykubrick.interfree.it/napo … poleon.pdf”>http://stanleykubrick.interfree.it/napoleon/napoleon.pdf</LINK_TEXT>
I agree with seb on 2001. I think it is a steaming pile of shit. Look at bed. Old guy. Monolith. Baby. WTF!!!
Now when it comes to clockwork orange on the other hand I think its a wonderful film. The visuals are like butter and it has a message. Don’t try to change people, just kill the bad ones.
The Shining was pretty weak, but Doctor Strangelove was hilarious. I guess for me he is hit or miss.
Kubrick is an excellent director. Even if you dont like his films you still have to respect him. Every one of his films are original and unique.