Discussion:
Colour me Kubrick new trailer
(too old to reply)
n***@bigfoot.com
2005-01-26 18:23:49 UTC
Permalink
http://www.cinemovies.fr/cinetv/cinetv3.php?IDfilm=2165&IDBA=5819&typba=quicktime&run=haute%20s

I have to admit I still cannot see this subject as a funny story.
Filippo
www.archiviokubrick.it
Gregory Lowry
2005-01-26 19:25:30 UTC
Permalink
On 1/26/05 10:23 AM, in article
Post by n***@bigfoot.com
http://www.cinemovies.fr/cinetv/cinetv3.php?IDfilm=2165&IDBA=5819&typba=quickt
ime&run=haute%20s
I have to admit I still cannot see this subject as a funny story.
Filippo
www.archiviokubrick.it
Another terrible trailer, if it can be called a trailer. I presume that
everyone in the movie uses the Q-brick mispronunciation because that was
commonplace in the UK. The trailers are unintentionally creepy and
repellent. That this movie was made by Kubrick "insiders" baffles me.

GL
kckh
2005-01-27 10:17:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gregory Lowry
On 1/26/05 10:23 AM, in article
http://www.cinemovies.fr/cinetv/cinetv3.php?IDfilm=2165&IDBA=5819&typba=quickt
Post by Gregory Lowry
Post by n***@bigfoot.com
ime&run=haute%20s
I have to admit I still cannot see this subject as a funny story.
Filippo
www.archiviokubrick.it
Another terrible trailer, if it can be called a trailer. I presume that
everyone in the movie uses the Q-brick mispronunciation because that was
commonplace in the UK. The trailers are unintentionally creepy and
repellent. That this movie was made by Kubrick "insiders" baffles me.
GL
Through the unhappy letters we received from Conway's victims,and the
long police search , resulting in his placement in a mental home, we
were eventually able to stop his activities.
I am hoping that when this film comes out, that all the people who Alan
Conway conned will realise that he was NOT Stanley Kubrick.
It's awful to think that there are *still * people out there who
thought they had met him and were conned by him! During filming
apparently, there were still people coming forward to tell of their
experiences.
Conway was a nasty mad -man. Malcovich does an excellent job imho.
Even so,I find this story rather tragic, regardless that it was my
father whom Alan Conway was impersonating.
The other thing to consider is how
easily people were conned and how much they wanted to believe, and how
much they want to think that they are in the company of Stanley.
Furthermore it demonstates how successful SK had been in remaining
personally anonymous whilst his films were famous world over-an ideal
situation really. Had Stanleys face been better known, Conway, who in
fact hardly knew anything about him , would never have gotten away with
it.

There are amusing moments in the film, and Jim Davidson is very good .

It's a matter of setting the record straight as well as telling AC'c
story.

regards,
Katharina
matthewhunt.com
2005-01-27 16:23:53 UTC
Permalink
I completely agree with Filippo and Gregory above, and the fact that
Jim Davidson (sexist/racist 'comedian') is in it does not exactly fill
me with confidence!

Katharina, if the trailers are representative of the film then it
sounds bad. If they aren't representative then whoever is promoting the
film isn't doing a very good job!

Mat.
Post by kckh
Post by Gregory Lowry
On 1/26/05 10:23 AM, in article
http://www.cinemovies.fr/cinetv/cinetv3.php?IDfilm=2165&IDBA=5819&typba=quickt
Post by kckh
Post by Gregory Lowry
Post by n***@bigfoot.com
ime&run=haute%20s
I have to admit I still cannot see this subject as a funny story.
Filippo
www.archiviokubrick.it
Another terrible trailer, if it can be called a trailer. I presume
that
Post by Gregory Lowry
everyone in the movie uses the Q-brick mispronunciation because
that
Post by kckh
was
Post by Gregory Lowry
commonplace in the UK. The trailers are unintentionally creepy and
repellent. That this movie was made by Kubrick "insiders" baffles me.
GL
Through the unhappy letters we received from Conway's victims,and the
long police search , resulting in his placement in a mental home, we
were eventually able to stop his activities.
I am hoping that when this film comes out, that all the people who Alan
Conway conned will realise that he was NOT Stanley Kubrick.
It's awful to think that there are *still * people out there who
thought they had met him and were conned by him! During filming
apparently, there were still people coming forward to tell of their
experiences.
Conway was a nasty mad -man. Malcovich does an excellent job imho.
Even so,I find this story rather tragic, regardless that it was my
father whom Alan Conway was impersonating.
The other thing to consider is how
easily people were conned and how much they wanted to believe, and how
much they want to think that they are in the company of Stanley.
Furthermore it demonstates how successful SK had been in remaining
personally anonymous whilst his films were famous world over-an ideal
situation really. Had Stanleys face been better known, Conway, who in
fact hardly knew anything about him , would never have gotten away with
it.
There are amusing moments in the film, and Jim Davidson is very good .
It's a matter of setting the record straight as well as telling AC'c
story.
regards,
Katharina
kckh
2005-01-27 18:54:13 UTC
Permalink
Whether the film is good, bad or indifferent, it still does the job of
explaining who Alan Conway was and what he did.
That can only be a good thing.
Whatever your opinion of Davidson, he's good for the part he plays, as
is Malcovich, who is superbly sleazy.
I particularly like the touch of Ken Russell splashing his food in the
asylum and saying he's Stanley Kubrick!
*I* think that's funny.

For our family, Conway's activities were repellant and disturbing-
clarification of the situation is what was needed, and this film
succeeds in doing just that.

regards, Katharina
Mike Jackson
2005-01-27 19:13:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by kckh
Whether the film is good, bad or indifferent, it still does the job of
explaining who Alan Conway was and what he did.
That can only be a good thing.
Whatever your opinion of Davidson, he's good for the part he plays, as
is Malcovich, who is superbly sleazy.
I particularly like the touch of Ken Russell splashing his food in the
asylum and saying he's Stanley Kubrick!
*I* think that's funny.
I took that as a sort of reverse "I'm Spartacus" bit. Are they marketing the
movie as a zany comedy because Malcovich is in it or is really zany as it
looks in the previews? I suspect I'll have to wait for it to be on DVD in my
locale before I ever get to see it.
Post by kckh
For our family, Conway's activities were repellant and disturbing-
clarification of the situation is what was needed, and this film
succeeds in doing just that.
regards, Katharina
Someplace I have to the short documentary about Conway on tape but it's been
a while since I've watched it. Are there still repercussions to this day of
stuff he Conway did? Do people still try to collect bills that Conway ran up
and such? You mentioned that people were still coming forward during
filming?

I guess the people that were conned by Conway (what an appropriate name!)
never saw "Six Degrees of Separation"?
--
"Tart words make no friends; a spoonful of honey will catch more flies than
a gallon of vinegar."
-- Ben Franklin
m***@yahoo.com
2005-01-27 20:02:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Jackson
I took that as a sort of reverse "I'm Spartacus" bit. Are they
marketing the
Post by Mike Jackson
movie as a zany comedy because Malcovich is in it or is really zany as it
looks in the previews? I suspect I'll have to wait for it to be on DVD in my
locale before I ever get to see it.
Someplace I have to the short documentary about Conway on tape but it's been
a while since I've watched it. Are there still repercussions to this day of
stuff he Conway did? Do people still try to collect bills that Conway ran up
and such? You mentioned that people were still coming forward during
filming?
I guess the people that were conned by Conway (what an appropriate name!)
never saw "Six Degrees of Separation"?
We had a spirited discussion of this topic during the summer of 2003
when people were still posting...

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.movies.kubrick/browse_frm/thread/47b8f5e741fba4c0/06a2c71754915d0d?tvc=1&q=mgenevieve+conway&scrollSave=&&d#06a2c71754915d0d

I wonder if the above link will work? If not one can always type in
conway and malkovich in the search feature for this forum.
Regards,

Genevieve
Gregory Lowry
2005-01-27 20:25:45 UTC
Permalink
On 1/27/05 10:54 AM, in article
Post by kckh
Whether the film is good, bad or indifferent, it still does the job of
explaining who Alan Conway was and what he did.
That can only be a good thing.
Whatever your opinion of Davidson, he's good for the part he plays, as
is Malcovich, who is superbly sleazy.
I particularly like the touch of Ken Russell splashing his food in the
asylum and saying he's Stanley Kubrick!
*I* think that's funny.
For our family, Conway's activities were repellant and disturbing-
clarification of the situation is what was needed, and this film
succeeds in doing just that.
regards, Katharina
Hi Katharina,

It's always appreciated when you post to AMK. I haven't posted for a long
time, but I read all the posts (especially the naughty ones that have
nothing to do with the board), and look for yours in particular. Er ... not
that you post naughty ones. But I digress ...

If you feel that Color Me Kubrick (hereinafter referred to as CMK -- am I
the first to use that?) helps set the record straight, then it's a
worthwhile enterprise. Best wishes to you and your family for some peace in
that regard. And much appreciation for all the cool SK stuff (books,
exhibits, etc.) that your family is making possible. Absolute heaven for a
fanatical Kubrickologist like me.

Kind regards, GL
Brian Siano
2005-01-28 04:10:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by kckh
I particularly like the touch of Ken Russell splashing his food in the
asylum and saying he's Stanley Kubrick!
*I* think that's funny.
That was _Ken Russell_?

(Okay, it was funny at first. Now, it's hilarious.)
Wordsmith
2005-01-28 06:30:13 UTC
Permalink
What's KR doing in front of the camera??!!? He should have directed
*The Singing Detective*!


W : )
Boaz
2005-01-28 16:43:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by kckh
Whether the film is good, bad or indifferent, it still does the job of
explaining who Alan Conway was and what he did.
That can only be a good thing.
Whatever your opinion of Davidson, he's good for the part he plays, as
is Malcovich, who is superbly sleazy.
Just saw the trailer. Yes, Malchovich looks and sounds great there.
Post by kckh
I particularly like the touch of Ken Russell splashing his food in the
asylum and saying he's Stanley Kubrick!
*I* think that's funny.
It is funny, and it also let's us see Russell to the loony bit, after
having shown so many other actors in his films that way.
Post by kckh
For our family, Conway's activities were repellant and disturbing-
clarification of the situation is what was needed, and this film
succeeds in doing just that.
regards, Katharina
So the film's style is that of a dark comedy, based on what I saw the
trailer, right? Perhaps that is the only way to present such a subject.
The idea that this actually happened and that so many people bought
into the lie is itself so absurd is astonishing. It's like how your dad
found the rationale for nuclear proliferation and defense so absurd
that he ended up making DS a dark satire. I think Frewin and Cook took
the right approach in showing how the average person responds to fame.
(Kinda like some of the silly reactions to the thread I've read here,
especially those who think they can still second-guess your dad better
than someone like you, who grew up with him, can.)

Any word on when it will be released?
Boaz ("And may good fortune smile down on . . . most of you.")
yelps
2005-01-28 08:56:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by n***@bigfoot.com
Post by Gregory Lowry
On 1/26/05 10:23 AM, in article
http://www.cinemovies.fr/cinetv/cinetv3.php?IDfilm=2165&IDBA=5819&typba=quickt
Post by Gregory Lowry
Post by n***@bigfoot.com
ime&run=haute%20s
I have to admit I still cannot see this subject as a funny story.
Filippo
www.archiviokubrick.it
Another terrible trailer, if it can be called a trailer. I presume
that
Post by Gregory Lowry
everyone in the movie uses the Q-brick mispronunciation because that
was
Post by Gregory Lowry
commonplace in the UK. The trailers are unintentionally creepy and
repellent. That this movie was made by Kubrick "insiders" baffles me.
GL
Through the unhappy letters we received from Conway's victims,and the
long police search , resulting in his placement in a mental home, we
were eventually able to stop his activities.
I am hoping that when this film comes out, that all the people who Alan
Conway conned will realise that he was NOT Stanley Kubrick.
It's awful to think that there are *still * people out there who
thought they had met him and were conned by him! During filming
apparently, there were still people coming forward to tell of their
experiences.
Conway was a nasty mad -man. Malcovich does an excellent job imho.
Even so,I find this story rather tragic, regardless that it was my
father whom Alan Conway was impersonating.
The other thing to consider is how
easily people were conned and how much they wanted to believe, and how
much they want to think that they are in the company of Stanley.
Furthermore it demonstates how successful SK had been in remaining
personally anonymous whilst his films were famous world over-an ideal
situation really. Had Stanleys face been better known, Conway, who in
fact hardly knew anything about him , would never have gotten away with
it.
There are amusing moments in the film, and Jim Davidson is very good .
It's a matter of setting the record straight as well as telling AC'c
story.
regards,
Katharina
Well I hope it's a great film and leads to even greater interest in Stanley
Kubrick and that inspires a rebirth of creative Cinema. I can't wait to
see this film.


dc
yelps
2005-01-27 07:42:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by n***@bigfoot.com
http://www.cinemovies.fr/cinetv/cinetv3.php?IDfilm=2165&IDBA=5819&typba=quicktime&run=haute%20s
I have to admit I still cannot see this subject as a funny story.
Filippo
www.archiviokubrick.it
Looks pretty damn funny to me.

dc
JJC
2005-01-28 06:35:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by yelps
Post by n***@bigfoot.com
http://www.cinemovies.fr/cinetv/cinetv3.php?IDfilm=2165&IDBA=5819&typba=quicktime&run=haute%20s
I have to admit I still cannot see this subject as a funny story.
Filippo
www.archiviokubrick.it
Looks pretty damn funny to me.
dc
I have to agree.
"Tony Pezzano" <tony<remove>
2005-01-28 08:15:53 UTC
Permalink
Turning an unfunny subject (eg nuclear war) into a comedy?

You're right Stanley Kubrick wouldn't have done this.

Tony Pezzano
Post by n***@bigfoot.com
http://www.cinemovies.fr/cinetv/cinetv3.php?IDfilm=2165&IDBA=5819&typba=quicktime&run=haute%20s
I have to admit I still cannot see this subject as a funny story.
Filippo
www.archiviokubrick.it
ichorwhip
2005-01-29 01:12:37 UTC
Permalink
Looks like it could be an interesting film. Lots of characters weaved
into a bizarre plot based on the truth and lead by Malkovich, a sort of
loon in his own right, but a fine actor given good material, what more
could one want? If it's handled as a black comedy, as it appears,
that's good IMO. A straight sort of docu-drama could be pretty boring
I think. Of course anyone should wait until they at least see it
before forming an opinion of the film's merits or lack of..........

What disturbs me about the Conway story is that he got away with duping
so many.
Why is this? Conway apparently didn't know much at all about Kubrick
or his work. So someone who did know about Kubrick should have easily
been able to trip him up and expose him. Conclusion: Not enough
people knew about Kubrick or his films beyond a vague recollection. I
think his name should be commonplace based on the artistic contribution
he made to the world, and it is sort of, but the average depth to which
Kubrick is known doesn't seem to penetrate much beyond the titles of
the movies he made. That's a tragedy.

So like it's been said, maybe this movie will make more aware of the
real Stanley Kubrick and what he accomplished. This then may lead to a
more widespread appreciation of his work as more become interested and
take a better look at it. Or even a look at all, how many people do
you know that would go out of their way to watch some of his earlier
films like "The Killing", POG and "Lolita"?

On the other hand, Conway would have never gotten away with
impersonating someone like Spielberg for instance. Spielberg and his
ilk never dodge publicity and too many people know what they look like
because they are all over television and so forth. Kubrick obviously
didn't want that sort of notoriety, but I don't think he would have
minded having more watch his films simply because he was the one that
made them. That's fame worth having.

"It's funny how the colours of the real world only seem really real
when you viddy them on a screen."
ichorwhip
"Peace is our Profession"
Boaz
2005-01-29 03:48:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by ichorwhip
Looks like it could be an interesting film. Lots of characters weaved
into a bizarre plot based on the truth and lead by Malkovich, a sort of
loon in his own right, but a fine actor given good material, what more
could one want?
Malcovich even once did a "Top 10" on Letterman; it was one of the
best.
Post by ichorwhip
If it's handled as a black comedy, as it appears,
that's good IMO. A straight sort of docu-drama could be pretty boring
I think. Of course anyone should wait until they at least see it
before forming an opinion of the film's merits or lack of..........
I agree wholeheartedly. One should always reserve judgement until all
the facts are in.

Also, I like the idea that it is a dark comedy. I think it has to be
tongue-in-cheek, considering how outrageous this all is. If it were
done as a "very serious" work it would probably turn people off. I
liked the satirical use of "Thus Spake Zarathustra" in the trailer.
That sets us up for the dark comedy right there. The "I'm Stanley
Kubrick!" bit in the "nervous hospital" was a hoot too. One thinks of
Peter Sellers as Quilty saying, "No, I'm Spartacus. You come to free
the slaves or something?" to James Mason as Humbert in "Lolita."
Post by ichorwhip
What disturbs me about the Conway story is that he got away with
duping so many.

Yes. It's puzzling, isn't it?
Post by ichorwhip
Why is this? Conway apparently didn't know much at all about Kubrick
or his work. So someone who did know about Kubrick should have easily
been able to trip him up and expose him. Conclusion: Not enough
people knew about Kubrick or his films beyond a vague recollection.
Is it possible that because ACO was "banned" in the UK for so long that
people didn't think back to any publicity photos that accompanied it
then? Perhaps it might also have been because BL wasn't a big hit. Then
TS ended up being known more through the Nicholson and King fans. Then
there was those long stretches between FMJ and EWS. I'm sure that all
of these factors added up in one way or another.
Post by ichorwhip
I think his name should be commonplace based on the artistic
contribution
Post by ichorwhip
he made to the world, and it is sort of, but the average depth to which
Kubrick is known doesn't seem to penetrate much beyond the titles of
the movies he made. That's a tragedy.
I agree. But the average person doesn't give a shit about film
directors, unless they are "name" directors like Spielberg or
Tarantino. Just look at the crap that clutters up the majority of
screen at multiplexes across the country! Do the people who gather to
these theaters like pigs to a trough really care WHO directed the damn
thing they're watching? My Bog, all one has to do is look at where
Orson Welles' career ended up to see how much the world cared about his
artistic contribution. Most people by the time of his death remembered
him only as this fat old guy who hawked wine on TV. And the average
young moviegover knows even less than that!
Post by ichorwhip
So like it's been said, maybe this movie will make more aware of the
real Stanley Kubrick and what he accomplished. This then may lead to a
more widespread appreciation of his work as more become interested and
take a better look at it. Or even a look at all, how many people do
you know that would go out of their way to watch some of his earlier
films like "The Killing", POG and "Lolita"?
Really. Look at the number of posters here who know him only for ACO.
It is an almost-great film, but I'm afraid that many of those admirers
like it for the wrong reasons. It's the ugly consequences from that
film that I believe Kubrick made himself more "secluded" from the
public. He had to protect his family; they always came first. But the
anonmynity he tried to establish ended up working against him,
ironically. And Conway and his perverted little masquerade was probably
the result.
Post by ichorwhip
On the other hand, Conway would have never gotten away with
impersonating someone like Spielberg for instance. Spielberg and his
ilk never dodge publicity and too many people know what they look like
because they are all over television and so forth. Kubrick obviously
didn't want that sort of notoriety, but I don't think he would have
minded having more watch his films simply because he was the one that
made them. That's fame worth having.
Right. But that's only in a perfect world, and we don't live in a
perfect world. Of course, if we did then Stanley Kubrick as a filmmaker
would never have existed. He probably would have been a doctor, like
his father. A brilliant physician to the medical community, but a
staggering loss in the advancing the art of the cinema.
Boaz ("I must say you guys have come up with something.")
Mike Jackson
2005-01-29 06:11:25 UTC
Permalink
Looks like it could be an interesting film. Lots of characters weaved into a
bizarre plot based on the truth and lead by Malkovich, a sort of loon in his
own right, but a fine actor given good material, what more could one want?
Malcovich even once did a "Top 10" on Letterman; it was one of the best.
What was the "category"?
If it's handled as a black comedy, as it appears, that's good IMO. A
straight sort of docu-drama could be pretty boring I think. Of course anyone
should wait until they at least see it before forming an opinion of the
film's merits or lack of..........
I agree wholeheartedly. One should always reserve judgement until all
the facts are in.
Also, I like the idea that it is a dark comedy. I think it has to be
tongue-in-cheek, considering how outrageous this all is. If it were
done as a "very serious" work it would probably turn people off. I
liked the satirical use of "Thus Spake Zarathustra" in the trailer.
That sets us up for the dark comedy right there. The "I'm Stanley
Kubrick!" bit in the "nervous hospital" was a hoot too. One thinks of
Peter Sellers as Quilty saying, "No, I'm Spartacus. You come to free
the slaves or something?" to James Mason as Humbert in "Lolita."
I thought that was a funny clip though I wonder if it's so obscure to most
of the public that they'll even get it?
What disturbs me about the Conway story is that he got away with duping so
many.
Yes. It's puzzling, isn't it?
There are a lot of stupid people in the world. Go into a bar and start doing
an outrageously bad British accent and start telling people you're Peter
Sellers no matter what you look like and you'll probably get a few that
believe that too...
Why is this? Conway apparently didn't know much at all about Kubrick
or his work. So someone who did know about Kubrick should have easily
been able to trip him up and expose him. Conclusion: Not enough
people knew about Kubrick or his films beyond a vague recollection.
Is it possible that because ACO was "banned" in the UK for so long that
people didn't think back to any publicity photos that accompanied it
then? Perhaps it might also have been because BL wasn't a big hit. Then
TS ended up being known more through the Nicholson and King fans. Then
there was those long stretches between FMJ and EWS. I'm sure that all
of these factors added up in one way or another.
Even in our media saturated time you have to go out of your way to Google up
a picture of Stanley for most people to even know what he looks like. What I
would be curious about is the people that didn't fall for Conway, tried to
raise an alarm and failed utterly to be listened to.

I can't believe no one was skeptical of him back then because from what I
can recall of the documentary about him he looked loonier than Malcovich and
like such a putz I couldn't believe anyone believed his claims in the first
place.
John Lovitz liar guy would have been more believable as a Stanley. I wonder
if Conway claimed as "Kubrick" that he'd faked the Moon landings for NASA?
Right there you could imagine a bunch of conspiracy nuts going "I KNEW IT!"
and buying him all he could drink...

I gotta dig up my copy of the Conway doc and watch it again.
I think his name should be commonplace based on the artistic contribution he
made to the world, and it is sort of, but the average depth to which Kubrick
is known doesn't seem to penetrate much beyond the titles of the movies he
made. That's a tragedy.
I agree. But the average person doesn't give a shit about film
directors, unless they are "name" directors like Spielberg or
Tarantino. Just look at the crap that clutters up the majority of
screen at multiplexes across the country! Do the people who gather to
these theaters like pigs to a trough really care WHO directed the damn
thing they're watching? My Bog, all one has to do is look at where
Orson Welles' career ended up to see how much the world cared about his
artistic contribution. Most people by the time of his death remembered
him only as this fat old guy who hawked wine on TV. And the average
young moviegover knows even less than that!
Well look at what the public flocks to see every weekend. Looked how they
lined up for those insipid Matrix movies!

There was an interesting article on Salon the other day about the dearth of
originality in recent films, especially how the so called 'indie' movement
has been co-opted by Hollywood that I thought was interesting
http://www.salon.com/books/review/2005/01/26/waxman/index_np.html
So like it's been said, maybe this movie will make more aware of the real
Stanley Kubrick and what he accomplished. This then may lead to a more
widespread appreciation of his work as more become interested and take a
better look at it. Or even a look at all, how many people do you know that
would go out of their way to watch some of his earlier films like "The
Killing", POG and "Lolita"?
Really. Look at the number of posters here who know him only for ACO.
It is an almost-great film, but I'm afraid that many of those admirers
like it for the wrong reasons. It's the ugly consequences from that
film that I believe Kubrick made himself more "secluded" from the
public. He had to protect his family; they always came first. But the
anonmynity he tried to establish ended up working against him,
ironically. And Conway and his perverted little masquerade was probably
the result.
I wonder if this has happened to any other directors? I would imagine this
sort of thing goes on a lot with grifters anyhow.
On the other hand, Conway would have never gotten away with impersonating
someone like Spielberg for instance. Spielberg and his ilk never dodge
publicity and too many people know what they look like because they are all
over television and so forth. Kubrick obviously didn't want that sort of
notoriety, but I don't think he would have minded having more watch his films
simply because he was the one that made them. That's fame worth having.
Right. But that's only in a perfect world, and we don't live in a
perfect world. Of course, if we did then Stanley Kubrick as a filmmaker
would never have existed. He probably would have been a doctor, like
his father. A brilliant physician to the medical community, but a
staggering loss in the advancing the art of the cinema.
Boaz ("I must say you guys have come up with something.")
Well there's a movie right there!

Maybe Stanley WAS also a brilliant brain surgeon, the leader of a rock and
roll band and a buckaroo who along with his cavalier sidekicks fought aliens
from the 8th dimension in his spare time?

Come on, it coulda happened...

Mission Control: "Er, Stanley, The White House wants to know is everything
ok with the alien space craft from Planet Ten or should we just go ahead and
destroy Russia?"
Stanley: "Tell him yes on one and no on two."
Mission Control: "Uh, which one was yes - go ahead and destroy Russia - or
number two?"
--
"Don't pull on that! You never know what it might be attached to!"
-- Buckaroo Banzai
Sam Rouse
2005-01-29 12:13:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Jackson
Looks like it could be an interesting film. Lots of characters weaved into a
bizarre plot based on the truth and lead by Malkovich, a sort of loon in his
own right, but a fine actor given good material, what more could one want?
Malcovich even once did a "Top 10" on Letterman; it was one of the best.
What was the "category"?
If it's handled as a black comedy, as it appears, that's good IMO. A
straight sort of docu-drama could be pretty boring I think. Of course anyone
should wait until they at least see it before forming an opinion of the
film's merits or lack of..........
I agree wholeheartedly. One should always reserve judgement until all
the facts are in.
Also, I like the idea that it is a dark comedy. I think it has to be
tongue-in-cheek, considering how outrageous this all is. If it were
done as a "very serious" work it would probably turn people off. I
liked the satirical use of "Thus Spake Zarathustra" in the trailer.
That sets us up for the dark comedy right there. The "I'm Stanley
Kubrick!" bit in the "nervous hospital" was a hoot too. One thinks of
Peter Sellers as Quilty saying, "No, I'm Spartacus. You come to free
the slaves or something?" to James Mason as Humbert in "Lolita."
I thought that was a funny clip though I wonder if it's so obscure to most
of the public that they'll even get it?
What disturbs me about the Conway story is that he got away with duping so
many.
Yes. It's puzzling, isn't it?
There are a lot of stupid people in the world. Go into a bar and start doing
an outrageously bad British accent and start telling people you're Peter
Sellers no matter what you look like and you'll probably get a few that
believe that too...
Hmmm.... imagine what someone who looks nothing like Kubrick, but knows a fair
amount about him could do. Most folks probably don't even know that he's
deceased. Someone here should run with this and report back. You have until
the film is released. :-)
Faisal A. Qureshi
2005-02-04 13:50:12 UTC
Permalink
If anyone's interested, the screenwriter Anthony Frewin, is also a good
writer and I think some of his books are still in print. I picked up a copy
of his "Hundred Years of Science Fiction Illustrations" and he also heavily
contributed to the Stephen Dorrill/Anthony Summer's book, Honeytrap,
concerning the Profumo affair.
--
FAQ

"E Pur Si Muove"
If this Email bounces please use: ***@hotmail.com
Mobile:+44 (0) 7747 604 814
WebPages: http://www.ukscreen.com/crew/faq
http://shootingpeople.org/cards/faq

<***@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:***@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
http://www.cinemovies.fr/cinetv/cinetv3.php?IDfilm=2165&IDBA=5819&typba=quicktime&run=haute%20s
Post by n***@bigfoot.com
I have to admit I still cannot see this subject as a funny story.
Filippo
www.archiviokubrick.it
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...