Discussion:
stanley kubrick is an overappreciated twat
(too old to reply)
monsieurblob
2003-07-05 02:00:22 UTC
Permalink
movies are collaboration between people. with deep roots too: its
ontological basis is one where the director always has to rely on A
LIVING BODY on the other side of the camera.

this is why i detest when a person thinks himself kind of the world
and that he owns the place. this is what happens to kubrick, who's
myth exceeds his true vale.

we constantly hear he was a perfectionist, as if his were a fine art,
that he took 7 years to make one movie, that he forced an actor to
make 400 takes etc.

and what result do we have?

a pile of pretentious rubbish. which is not to say that, for example,
the killers has no merit. it does indeed, but its not enough to go
bonkers on it. perhaps if he'd taken the movies in a more relaxed
manner like he did in that movie he would have had a better career.

paths of glory is a silly movie which, nevertheless, has an excellent
ending. all the men from the company are cheering for a girl to
undress but when she starts singing they all get sad and we are shown
just how lost ppl are in wars. but this doesnt take away the fact that
the rest of the movie is a courtroom drama where we are supposed to be
enthralled by the kirk douglas performance or scandalised by the power
structures inside an army. we have stuff like this these years, jfk or
a few good men, silly stuff concerned with the broad picture of
society, with little feel for images and sounds, too preocuppied with
ideologies and morals.

funny, gladiator makes spartacus look good, but then again only by old
men who parade their cinephilia like archbishops in a harem. spartacus
is just another action movie glossed over with stupid ideas like
freedom and justice.

lolita. the only reason this one is still watched is too obvious.
needless t say, the novel much better than the movie. stanley does it
again: like spartacus, alright but by no means a masterpiece

strangelove is alright, but if one peter sellers is enough 500 is too
many. if anything, it's not as funny as they say

space odyssey is a huge pile of pretentious wank. period

havent bothered with clockwork and barry lyndon

the shining. yeeeww, kubrick does it again. this movie is as bad as
four rooms or memento

full metal jacket. all the praise this movie got, a joke. maybe the
cinema has difficulties expressing itself, thats the only explanation
i can find as to why ppl may claim this movie to show the madness of
war... i prefer mash the series

eyes wide shut. you see, with kubrick, a movie can have merit, it can
be entertaining, or beautiful but it will ALWAYS be pretentious. eyes
wide shut or 2001 best illustrate this.
scorsese
2003-07-05 04:01:30 UTC
Permalink
go fuck yourself moron
Post by monsieurblob
movies are collaboration between people. with deep roots too: its
ontological basis is one where the director always has to rely on A
LIVING BODY on the other side of the camera.
this is why i detest when a person thinks himself kind of the world
and that he owns the place. this is what happens to kubrick, who's
myth exceeds his true vale.
we constantly hear he was a perfectionist, as if his were a fine art,
that he took 7 years to make one movie, that he forced an actor to
make 400 takes etc.
and what result do we have?
a pile of pretentious rubbish. which is not to say that, for example,
the killers has no merit. it does indeed, but its not enough to go
bonkers on it. perhaps if he'd taken the movies in a more relaxed
manner like he did in that movie he would have had a better career.
paths of glory is a silly movie which, nevertheless, has an excellent
ending. all the men from the company are cheering for a girl to
undress but when she starts singing they all get sad and we are shown
just how lost ppl are in wars. but this doesnt take away the fact that
the rest of the movie is a courtroom drama where we are supposed to be
enthralled by the kirk douglas performance or scandalised by the power
structures inside an army. we have stuff like this these years, jfk or
a few good men, silly stuff concerned with the broad picture of
society, with little feel for images and sounds, too preocuppied with
ideologies and morals.
funny, gladiator makes spartacus look good, but then again only by old
men who parade their cinephilia like archbishops in a harem. spartacus
is just another action movie glossed over with stupid ideas like
freedom and justice.
lolita. the only reason this one is still watched is too obvious.
needless t say, the novel much better than the movie. stanley does it
again: like spartacus, alright but by no means a masterpiece
strangelove is alright, but if one peter sellers is enough 500 is too
many. if anything, it's not as funny as they say
space odyssey is a huge pile of pretentious wank. period
havent bothered with clockwork and barry lyndon
the shining. yeeeww, kubrick does it again. this movie is as bad as
four rooms or memento
full metal jacket. all the praise this movie got, a joke. maybe the
cinema has difficulties expressing itself, thats the only explanation
i can find as to why ppl may claim this movie to show the madness of
war... i prefer mash the series
eyes wide shut. you see, with kubrick, a movie can have merit, it can
be entertaining, or beautiful but it will ALWAYS be pretentious. eyes
wide shut or 2001 best illustrate this.
RufusTFirefly
2003-07-05 05:02:21 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@posting.google.com>,
***@hotmail.com (monsieurblob) shat:

snippage

What a lot of typing you did just to be an annoying troll.
Chris Cathcart
2003-07-05 14:32:41 UTC
Permalink
Trolling is an art form, sir or madam; you appear not to have mastered
it yet. You can start by using capital letters to improve subtlety.
The inclusion of the word "cinephilia" was a small plus in an
otherwise aimless hash. Pacing was a bit uneven.

Grade: C-
Post by monsieurblob
movies are collaboration between people. with deep roots too: its
ontological basis is one where the director always has to rely on A
LIVING BODY on the other side of the camera.
this is why i detest when a person thinks himself kind of the world
and that he owns the place. this is what happens to kubrick, who's
myth exceeds his true vale.
we constantly hear he was a perfectionist, as if his were a fine art,
that he took 7 years to make one movie, that he forced an actor to
make 400 takes etc.
and what result do we have?
a pile of pretentious rubbish. which is not to say that, for example,
the killers has no merit. it does indeed, but its not enough to go
bonkers on it. perhaps if he'd taken the movies in a more relaxed
manner like he did in that movie he would have had a better career.
paths of glory is a silly movie which, nevertheless, has an excellent
ending. all the men from the company are cheering for a girl to
undress but when she starts singing they all get sad and we are shown
just how lost ppl are in wars. but this doesnt take away the fact that
the rest of the movie is a courtroom drama where we are supposed to be
enthralled by the kirk douglas performance or scandalised by the power
structures inside an army. we have stuff like this these years, jfk or
a few good men, silly stuff concerned with the broad picture of
society, with little feel for images and sounds, too preocuppied with
ideologies and morals.
funny, gladiator makes spartacus look good, but then again only by old
men who parade their cinephilia like archbishops in a harem. spartacus
is just another action movie glossed over with stupid ideas like
freedom and justice.
lolita. the only reason this one is still watched is too obvious.
needless t say, the novel much better than the movie. stanley does it
again: like spartacus, alright but by no means a masterpiece
strangelove is alright, but if one peter sellers is enough 500 is too
many. if anything, it's not as funny as they say
space odyssey is a huge pile of pretentious wank. period
havent bothered with clockwork and barry lyndon
the shining. yeeeww, kubrick does it again. this movie is as bad as
four rooms or memento
full metal jacket. all the praise this movie got, a joke. maybe the
cinema has difficulties expressing itself, thats the only explanation
i can find as to why ppl may claim this movie to show the madness of
war... i prefer mash the series
eyes wide shut. you see, with kubrick, a movie can have merit, it can
be entertaining, or beautiful but it will ALWAYS be pretentious. eyes
wide shut or 2001 best illustrate this.
Thornhill
2003-07-05 14:55:24 UTC
Permalink
To tweak the old-saw for monsieurboob, "Twat is, as twat sees."

Thornhill

PS - And, don't abuse yourself with Clockwork or Barry. Absolute
wank. Trust me. And, it won't get any better. You've valuable ways
to spend your time, monsewerblob, ie, compos(t)ing more drivel
("ontological"ly speaking, that is).
Post by monsieurblob
movies are collaboration between people. with deep roots too: its
ontological basis is one where the director always has to rely on A
LIVING BODY on the other side of the camera.
this is why i detest when a person thinks himself kind of the world
and that he owns the place. this is what happens to kubrick, who's
myth exceeds his true vale.
we constantly hear he was a perfectionist, as if his were a fine art,
that he took 7 years to make one movie, that he forced an actor to
make 400 takes etc.
and what result do we have?
a pile of pretentious rubbish. which is not to say that, for example,
the killers has no merit. it does indeed, but its not enough to go
bonkers on it. perhaps if he'd taken the movies in a more relaxed
manner like he did in that movie he would have had a better career.
paths of glory is a silly movie which, nevertheless, has an excellent
ending. all the men from the company are cheering for a girl to
undress but when she starts singing they all get sad and we are shown
just how lost ppl are in wars. but this doesnt take away the fact that
the rest of the movie is a courtroom drama where we are supposed to be
enthralled by the kirk douglas performance or scandalised by the power
structures inside an army. we have stuff like this these years, jfk or
a few good men, silly stuff concerned with the broad picture of
society, with little feel for images and sounds, too preocuppied with
ideologies and morals.
funny, gladiator makes spartacus look good, but then again only by old
men who parade their cinephilia like archbishops in a harem. spartacus
is just another action movie glossed over with stupid ideas like
freedom and justice.
lolita. the only reason this one is still watched is too obvious.
needless t say, the novel much better than the movie. stanley does it
again: like spartacus, alright but by no means a masterpiece
strangelove is alright, but if one peter sellers is enough 500 is too
many. if anything, it's not as funny as they say
space odyssey is a huge pile of pretentious wank. period
havent bothered with clockwork and barry lyndon
the shining. yeeeww, kubrick does it again. this movie is as bad as
four rooms or memento
full metal jacket. all the praise this movie got, a joke. maybe the
cinema has difficulties expressing itself, thats the only explanation
i can find as to why ppl may claim this movie to show the madness of
war... i prefer mash the series
eyes wide shut. you see, with kubrick, a movie can have merit, it can
be entertaining, or beautiful but it will ALWAYS be pretentious. eyes
wide shut or 2001 best illustrate this.
Simon Spiegel
2003-07-05 16:59:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by monsieurblob
space odyssey is a huge pile of pretentious wank. period
Ignorance is bliss. Nuff said.
Matt Myrick
2003-07-06 02:58:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by monsieurblob
eyes wide shut. you see, with kubrick, a movie can have merit, it can
be entertaining, or beautiful but it will ALWAYS be pretentious. eyes
wide shut or 2001 best illustrate this.
I hate it when people say that they hate a certain movie, because it is
pretentious. This word seems to be used by people who just want to say that a
movie sucks, but they want to sound intelligent. So movies like 2001 and Eyes
Wide Shut have merit, are entertaining, and beautiful, but they suck because
they are pretentious. That doesn't quite make sense to me. If a movie has all
of that going for it, I would take it any day even if it was pretentious.

Matt
Your Pal Brian
2003-07-06 04:40:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Myrick
I hate it when people say that they hate a certain movie, because it is
pretentious. This word seems to be used by people who just want to say that a
movie sucks, but they want to sound intelligent. So movies like 2001 and Eyes
Wide Shut have merit, are entertaining, and beautiful, but they suck because
they are pretentious. That doesn't quite make sense to me. If a movie has all
of that going for it, I would take it any day even if it was pretentious.
The other one is "self-indulgent".

Brian
pitch audio
2003-07-06 15:05:30 UTC
Permalink
***@hotmail.com (monsieurblob) wrote in message news:<***@posting.google.com>...
<snip>
Post by monsieurblob
a pile of pretentious rubbish. which is not to say that, for example,
the killers has no merit. it does indeed, but its not enough to go
bonkers on it. perhaps if he'd taken the movies in a more relaxed
manner like he did in that movie he would have had a better career.
<snip, etc>

Okay, so let me get this straight: The one Stanley Kubrick movie that
you _remotely_ like is not even a film by Stanley Kubrick.

"The Killers" is a 1946 film directed by Robert Siodmak, and I suppose
it's a good movie.

However, it doesn't surpass Kubrick's film "The Killing," or even
"Killer's Kiss," but it's still pretty good....


GS George

Loading...