Stanly Kubrick orgie!:)

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Thomas H
Ok, here I will give every Stanly movie I hae seen a grade!
The highest grade is 6
1. The Killing 5-
2. 2001 a space odesey 1+
3. Full Metal Jacket 5-
4. A clockwork Orange 4+
5. Spartacus 3+
6. phats of Glory (I will report i tomorrow!)
7. The shining 5

finti
ohyeah cause Eyes wide shut blew MAJOR

Full Metal Jacket was kinda cool. Vincent D'Onofrio is superb

Corran
FMJ does not deserve -5. It deserves at least 3 if only for the great chant:-
'This is my rifle, this is my Gun
This is for shooting, this is for fun'.

finti
I dont know but I`ve been told
eskimo pusy is mighty cold

Thomas H
a lot of nasty words in Full metal, i almost laughed my self to death!

Corran
Yes, even I decided not to quote all of it because of the kids, don't know what came over me.

finti
to bad it was only almost evil face

Thomas H
shit I was about to write this one down! It is dam funny...there is actually a hole lot of pussy talking during the training...and offcource in nam, Aaaaa sucki sucki, I am sooo Horny nooow...Black men have to much"!!!! heheh

BackFire349
you forgot dr strangelove. heres my list for kubrick movies

killers kiss - 7
killing - 8.5
paths of glory - 10
sparticus - 8
lolita - 8.5
Dr. Strangelove - 9
2001 - a space oddesey - 9
clockwork orange - 9
the shining - 9.5
full metal jacket - 10
eyes wide shut - 7.5

paths of glory is his best i think.

mah
shame on you!

Ushgarak
Indeed

BackFire349
yeah. 2001 is an outstanding movie.

J-ROC
The only Kubrick movies I like are Full Metal Jacket, The Shinin, Clockwork, and Strangelove. cool

BackFire349
paths of glory is his best.

J-ROC
It was alright. Not his best.

finti
2001 sucked

BackFire349
you like star wars right finti? well if it werent for 2001, most of the special effects used in star wars wouldnt have existed. so you should give it some credit.

finti
no I wont give it any credit at all. I dont give a rats ass about what it did for the special effects I think the movie in it self sucks.

BackFire349
well i believe you should give credits where credits due, you can dislike the movie, but you should respect the fact that if it werent for the special effects kubrick formed for this movie star wars wouldnt have been made for another 10 years after it was released.

finti
those effects would have appered in other things if it hadden come in 2001, it was just the time for it and 2001 used it first

BackFire349
actuallyl since kubrick was allowed to have such a high budget, he and his top of the line associates really created most of it. it had nothing to do with the time, yeah it woulda come eventually, not for at least 5 years probably.

finti
even so i think the movie stink

BackFire349
well thats up to you my friend.

finti
right on

Thomas H

Thomas H
indeed indeed!!!
A reel waste off time, anyway Kubrick has done a lot of masterpices!

mah
people who say 2001 sucked have bad taste in films. doesnt matter that all think different, it's a fact. end of discussion.

Corran
It's only end of discussion if you have ability to close the thread, otherwise it may well just be the end of your participation in the discussion.

Ushgarak
It's a stunning film. Again, not an action fest but that is not the point. The scope and feel is breathtaking and it is a must for people that like anything other than superficial movies.

J-ROC
Backfire! Stop saying things like "Oh if it weren't for this horror movie this would never have been made" or "If this didn't happen- neither would this!" Nobody gives a shit! If someone doesn't like a movie, that is there choice! Don't be such a geek!

BackFire349
dont be so angry. i never said he had to like it, i just believe in giving credit where credit is due. why dont you yell at mah for a change, he's the one that said anyone who dislikes it has bad tastes in movies. and you're calling me a geek, yet you're the one getting upset over someones opinion on a message board, instead of trying to continue an actual discussion, oh well, what should i expect from a canadian.

Thomas H
hahahhaahaha!smilewink
im going to see Path of Glory in an hour, cant wait. I hope its as good as you guys says!

BackFire349
its outstanding. kubricks best i think.

J-ROC
Why do you keep putting down Canadians? What makes you better? Saying shit like "What should I expect from a Canadian?!" Is not an insult man...yer just makn yourself look stupid. Oh my god he called me a Canadian!!!! Don't be so cruel! laughing

BackFire349
speaking of looking stupid


J-ROC quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
you like star wars right finti? well if it werent for 2001, most of the special effects used in star wars wouldnt have existed. so you should give it some credit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Backfire! Stop saying things like "Oh if it weren't for this horror movie this would never have been made" or "If this didn't happen- neither would this!" Nobody gives a shit! If someone doesn't like a movie, that is there choice! Don't be such a geek!

BackFire349
i keep putting down canadians, because your canadian, and your acting like a littl kid. so your th eonly canadian i know so youre my basis for all of them.

finti
J-rock I can handle my own "fight" BF acknowledge my stand so butt out of it.
He puts down canadians cause he knows you go apeshit about it. If you , like other members on the board, just ignored the teasing of your nationality it would end by it self.
At least you dont have Bush as your leader I dont know how the yanks are gonna justify that one

BackFire349
i didnt vote for him. and are you telling me to butt out or him?

finti
can you? laughing out loud

BackFire349
this thread is dead now anyways. it was a fine logical discussion till whats her face threw her hateful comments in. oh well.

finti
her??

BackFire349
her/him, i dunno what it is.

BackFire349
i just figured it was a girl because quite frankly his/her attitude reminds me of my gf's when she's in her period.

finti
hmmm

BackFire349
yep.

finti
picking a fight I see

BackFire349
just stating the truth.

finti
picking a fight....................

Thomas H
Saw paths of glory last night.. a very good movie indeed!

5- out a 6!

BackFire349
picking a fight by stating the truth. and besides, he really picked the fight by calling me an idiot earlier and ruining our discussion.

BackFire349
and yes, paths of glory is outstanding thomas. im glad you enjoyed it.

Thomas H
I really wanted to see that General executed!! what a way to lead his own country men into war! Horrible! the men understand that its impossible. they refuse to run and he orders that their position will be bombed!...sounds a lot like how the Communists fought their war in the ww 2!

BackFire349
i know. what a great villain.

Ushgarak
The French DID shell their own positions in WWI once. The Russians only ever shot people who ran away (as if that were an acceptable position! Just not as bad in comparison).

Thomas H
tells a little bit about their idiotic officers! and Stalin.....wich is also a idiot.
If they would learn how war shold be fought they would have lost much less men!

finti
Actually Thomas there is no way to know how a war should be fought

BackFire349
war should be faught in what ever way it takes to win.

finti
which will be different each time

mah
bullshit

BackFire349
yeah, lets fight awar and try to loose roll eyes (sarcastic)

mah
you're saying every way of fighting a war is acceptable if it leads to victory. I'm saying no.

BackFire349
well thats the point of war isnt it? tahts why the americans lost the vietnam war, we wouldnt fight as dirty and as cowardly as the veitnamese.

mah
you should've never been there in the first place. that would actually mean war AVOIDED...smart eh? smarter than ****ing the world up wanting to win wars that's for sure.

BackFire349
actually mah, i agree with you with that one, i think the vietnam war was completely unnecessary, but all im saying is simply if a country isgoing to go to war, tehy should do everything in their power to win it.

finti
some times you dont pick the war, it will just come to you. Then it is a question of survival.
If you dont do it to them they sure as hell do it to you.
You have to be ruthless in war.

Ushgarak
BF and Finti are right, Mah. If you are IN a war- and Lord knows that should be avoided as much as possible- then fighting to win is your ONLY option and you must do that in any way possible. Obviously, though, those individuals who commit blatant war crimes should be prosecuted.

Also, while it turned out horiffically, the US did have some good grounds to be in Vietnam and even though they pulled out the demonstration that the US was willing to get involved stopped a lot of other places from acting like North Vietnam did.

But to be honest, the US WAS prepared to fight dirty. Carpet bombing, agent orange, civilian targets, burning down all villages they saw because it was too tiresome to distinguish which were friendly and which were not... they did it all. The US pulled out because of negative public opinion and because they were not prepared to commit to Vietnam like an actual WAR war, rather than just the intervention exercise they were involved in. They could have invaded North Vietnam for real and caused the most almighty slaughter but sanity eventually prevailed.

All of which has ben explored in several very good Vietnam films. Kubrick, of course, had a rather different spin for FMJ- heck, the fights weren't even in the jungle! What sort if Vietnam film is THAT? (Answer- a very good one...)

finti
well they did a little of urban fighting

Thomas H
what the **** is this to do about Kubrick movies?heheh!!


Lets keep up the gong--hooooo bevhavior!

finti
Keep on pecking them trees wood boy

BackFire349
not all teh fighting was done in the jungles of vietnam, my dad was in name for a good 3 years and he never even entered a jungle. just as much fighting was done in the cities.

Ushgarak
I KNOW that! I was actually pointing out that all Vietnam movies concentrate almost exclusively on jungle warfare. Kubrick always hated to do what had already been done.

BackFire349
oh ok. misunderstood smile

Ushgarak
Then everyone is happy!

Thomas H
and its only one film that features city fighting, and that is Full Metal jacket!

Anwyay, did he kill anyone backfire?

finti
come on Thomas that is a bullshit question

Thomas H
nah, it aint!

finti
it is something called common courtesy, you just dont ask questions like that

BackFire349
he doesnt know, he said usually you couldnt even see the enmey so you'd just shoot in the general direction of the bullets that were coming your way, he said he has no real way of knowing if he did or not.

Thomas H
ok...saw a clockwork orange yesterday, what a sick movie! hehe

BackFire349
masterpiece.

J-ROC
I liked Clockwork. The nudity was a bit out of control but the movie fu*kn rules. Too much nudity makes the movie look sleazy.

Thomas H
truly a weird movie! but very good"!

BackFire349
the movie was about rape and murder, theres bound to be nudity if those, especially rape, are to be pertrayed accurately.

Thomas H
hey, backfire im going to see Barry Lyndon, just another Kubrick movie..is it worth 3 hours!?
Anyway, I will post a review tomorrow, on the SK orgie!hihi

BackFire349
thats actually the only one of his movies i dont really care for. i thought it was drawn out and boring. its a good quality movies with great costumes and great directing. its just really long.

Thomas H
I know, Im watching it now, its quite good!
And they used the music in this film in the Black Hawk Down trailer..mmmmm!hehe!

finti
Actually Barry Lyndon was extremly boring

King Jedi
Stanley Kubrik is the most overrated director ever.

J-ROC
Shadaaaaaap!!! No one is forcing u to watch his movies. Go watch Nerd Wars.

Thomas H
In some way, I do agree with King J, but I like his movies, but he also got a lot of overrated movies!

Barry Lyndon: 3 out a 6!

I agree with you Backfire, a little bit drawn out, I like the first 1 and 1/2 hours!

BackFire349
thats why he's been such a major influence on all of todays directors? yeah makes sense. roll eyes (sarcastic)

King Jedi
J-Roc what is Nerd-Wars?

He IS the most overated director. Clockwork Orange is only interesting for the first half-hour.

Full Metal Jacket is only good until they leave the training camp.

Eyes Wide Shut is just rubbish.

So is Barry Lyndon.

So is Lolita.

And 2001 is just pretentious crap. It's nice to look at but then so is Pearl Harbour.

I haven't seen The Shining but Spartacus and Dr Strangelove are good. That's it. He is sooo overated.

Most of his films now look outdated. He is popular because he made controversial films about Peadophiles, Nuclear War, bullying in the army, orgies, and gangs.

I mean, if someone asks you in the street about one of your favourite films what are you going to say? "Oh, I really like Shrek". No, it's much cooler to say, "I love A Clockwork Orange because ot the Singing in the Rain rape scene and the viloence. It rocks!"

I'm not saying he hasn't been influential but he is massivley overated.

BackFire349
actually you're right about one thing. he is popular just because of the contraversy i think. but that only for the people who have seen clockwork orange. considering thats his only really contraversal movie. the simple fact is he was the most creative and ahead of his time director to ever come along. his films the killing and paths of glory pretty much changed the way movies are made. he was the first directory to use the camera to give the feel that us as the viewer are there in the action instead of just watching it. and before jumping to conclusions you should see the shining and definately paths of glory which is his best work. and i disagree with you about all those movies except barry lyndon. full metal jacket is best during boot camp. but the rest of it is still great. eyes wide shut is probably his worst movie, but i was still interested when i first saw it, kept me watching. i dont care for barry lyndon. lolita was good. and as far as 2001 goes. you say its nice to look at. well you need to realize that its a visual film and nothing more. the whole point is to look at it. there is very little dialogue and not much story. it was pretty much made just to show off the special effects and to make you ponder what the hell was going on in the movie. Dr. Strangelove was teh first real dark comedy and by far still the best. sparticus is good. and shining is the scariest movie ever made. paths of glory is just a flat out masterpiece that changed the way movies were made forever. bottom line, kubrick deserves all the credit he gets and then some.

BackFire349
and as far as clockwork orange goes. that movie sums up everything that kubrick was about. contraversy, creativity, uniqueness, and of course his biggest trademark, never giving humanity much credit.

Ushgarak
2001 is stunning and is way, WAY away from pretension. That would only be said by someone with no interest in understanding it- and if you do not want to, fine, but that is no reason to belittle how much it means to others by so simply dismissing it as pretension. It is a stunningly beautiful and intellectual film with a powerful message that could ONLY be created by someone like Kubrick, and it is for that sort of reason he gets the praise he is due. Plenty of people make controverisal films and it does not get them praise by default, find any critic who preferred the new Lolita, which was ACTUALLY about paedophilia in any direct way, to Kubrick's, which had to skirt around that main issue. And Peter Sellers was just to die for in that film...

Everyone knows Eyes Wide Shut was a misfire.

No, he has not been overrated one little bit.

And I will remind you that it was because people thought that was what Clockwork Orange was about that he banned it in the UK. It ISN'T about violent gangs and rape; anyone who says so has just let the point of the film fly over his head, so you can't let Kubrick's skill be bismirched just because of the bad attitude of some people that invoke a like of his films for faux intellectual reasons. It's not one of my favourite films of his but I still appreciate it for what it is and the skill involved in creating it.

BackFire349
wow ush, your writing skills sure to come out on this message board, well said my friend. but i do agree with king jedi about one thing, that many people like a clockwork orange simply because they think it makes them seem diferent or wierd. if you ask any goth what they're favorite movie is, there is a very good chance they will say clockwork orange, simply because it is different and they think it gives them some kinda credibility by liking a movie that has been so controversial. but that doesnt change the fact that it, along with all of his other movies is a masterpiece.

BackFire349
i actually think the most overated director is steven spielberg.

Ushgarak
Yes... it is saddening, really. They say Kubrick was horrified when he found out what sort of fans that film was getting- and the reason for it.

And thankyou.

mah
you always have to dis goths as posers, backfire!

I haven't seen A Clockwork Orange actually, but I love 2001

BackFire349
i didnt say they were posers, i just said they like a clockwork orange for teh wrong reason. they can still be satan worshipping self mutalators for all i know.

mah
roll eyes (sarcastic) whatever!

BackFire349
indeed my valley girl mate.

Ushgarak
Well, this has become more discussion than review now so I am moving it over.

King Jedi
Backfire knows exactly what I'm talking about.

When I say he's overated I'm talking about the average person in the street. NOT other filmakers.

I'm fed up of hearing people say "Kubrick was this" and "Kubrick was that" just because it makes them sound cool and a bit dangerous. When they have really know idea what they're talking about.

And I hate how all his films are considered "classics" just because he made them. A Clockwork Orange isn't a classic. It just looks dated.

And Ush how can you say 2001 isn't pretentious? Even the very idea of it is. I had to sit in a film class and watch it about 4 times while a teacher told us how great this part was and what this symbolised. He was looking for things that weren't there. It's avant garde rubbish.

BackFire349
he was the most influential director of the past 50 years. thus he deserves all the credit he gets. and all of his movies are considered classics because they are all utterly unique and nothing like them had never been done before he did them. like i said before, i do agree with you that many people like him just because they think it makes them unique or gives them credibility. thats all i agree with.

finti
2001 has a boring story, I had to read the book and I like SF and stuff about the Space but this book was a ddrrrrraaag

mah
but you dont like slow-moving films! what do you expect!

finti
I was refering to the book now mah

mah
oh..and the film?

finti
well the film was based on that boooooooooring book, the result couldnt be anything but boring

mah
roll eyes (sarcastic) well there you go

finti
hmm, my friend rented it so I watched it to be social, I just went oh great when I saw what movie he got for our entertainment.
We gave him hell for that film for a long time

mah
and made him watch all of your favourite films, The Complete Schwarzenegger collection?roll eyes (sarcastic)

finti
nah he has only a couple of good ones, and I dont have any off them.
well if I dont want visitors I jsut tell them my palns for the day is to either watch 2001 or Schindlers list

mah
thats because you and your friends aren't mature enought to move away from the action genre every now and thenbig grin

finti
I take a good action film or a good comedy over drama any day

mah
I'd take a good film of any genre any day!

finti
Not drama, those I have to rent. Can concentrate more about the movie that way. With action it doent matter if you fall out 30 sec.

BackFire349
it just depends on the mood im in. sometimes i like a good well thought out deep drama. sometimes i like a mindless action movie. somtimes i like a good comedy, i can always watch a good horror movie though big grin diversity rules

Ushgarak
It is not in any way pretentious at all. Not AT ALL. It is not at any point claiming to be what it is not, it is not even style over substance. It's ALL substance.

finti
huh?

Thomas H
so, what mah is saying....2001 is an adventure, a reel thrill ride of entertainment! And then I say stop this BS!

Ushgarak
I don't remember Mah saying that. But we like what we like, and I find 2001 very entertaining indeed.

BackFire349
i think its interesting and mesmerizing.

finti
2001 is depressing stuff

Thomas H
and boring!

King Jedi
It's not all substance, it's all style. And the very idea of doing a film like that is pretentious.

BackFire349
why? cuz it makes the viewer think? roll eyes (sarcastic)

Ushgarak
No it isn't. It is a sad day for decent and imaginative filmaking if a quality piece like this can be called pretentious and to call it such leaves no word to deescribe the TRULY pretentious stuff out there.

King Jedi
Because it's avant garde bull. It doesn't make the veiwer think unless you are actually LOOKING for something.

Film an empty room and some "genius" well tell you it's about the meaning of life or soemething. Just because they want to appear smarter than everybody else.

There are plenty of films that make you think.

BackFire349
yes, and they arent pretentious. and neither is this one.

Ushgarak
But 2001 does not compare to that example at all. It is an example of TRULY intelligent filmmaking. It is what you would compare the pretentious films to to shiow WHY they are pretentious in comparison.

King Jedi
I know exactly what you two are saying. You're trying to say that I don't like this film simply because it's "smart" and "intelligent".

I'm saying I don't like it because it's trying to be "smart" and "intelligent" and it just isn't.

It's a crap film. Simple as that.

Ushgarak
Stop putting words in our mouths. In my opinion you don't like this film because you think that makes you seem better than people that do.

Well, it is NOT a crap film at all, it is a GREAT film, simple as THAT- and most people recognise it as such.

BackFire349
it is a smart film though.

King Jedi
Most people? Ha.

The people who like this film only like it because they think it makes them look smart.

Before you say you don't - Why else would you watch it?
Entertainment? One of my best friends is a MASSIVE Stanley Kubrick fan and even he wouldn't say it's entertaining.

You watch it so you can tell people about it.

I don't like it because it's rubbish and it's that simple.
It doesn't entertain me. It bores me.
It doesn't make me think because there is NOTHING in it to think about.

BackFire349
i find it very entertaining and intrigueing. thats why i watch it. and obviously he isnt a massive kubrick fan if he doesnt like this movie, which is probably kubricks most impressive and unique achievement.

Ushgarak
No, I watch it because I ENJOY it, and I am sorry if that is so hard for you to understand but I do. And I do not tell others about it because it is impossible to get across without visual aid. I encourage them to watch it. I FIND IT ENTERTAINING. I cannot put it any more simply than that. And your comment that there is nothing in it to think about shows your flawed mentality here.

You think that as people think it is smart, but you have 'spotted' that it isn't, that makes you smarter than them. But that is just a flimsy covering for the fact that you do not like this film because you do not want to make any effort of understandiung the intelligence behind it.

I quote here from a criitc responsing to an allegation of pretension in tbe final sequences:

"This does not mean, however, that there is no meaning in this scene. It's just that one has to look deeper than what's on the surface and get a feel for the film in order to understand it. The way I see it, one has to feel frustrated during the extruciatingly slow scenes to be able to feel compelled enough to question the compressed time in the final scene.

2001 is by all means a product of the 1960's, but it is quality 60's art instead of that mystical twaddle. Inferior 60's shit was pretentious because it either had NO artistic meaning that could be discerned (aside from "Look what a trip drugs does to you, man..."wink or it's meaning is so obvious that you could gag. This film finds its place right in between; it may not be easy, but if you try hard and lose yourself in Kubrickland, you may see (if ever so slightly) a statement, be it political, philosophical, theological, or otherwise.

For example, good 60's art is Antonioni's Blow Up, one of the most popular films of its time beside 2001. Sure it has meaning, but it takes a lot searching of not only the film, but yourself and your own society as well. His follow up, Zabriskie Point, is also a product of the 60's, but its stereotypes and "message" are so extreme that they are crude (as is the film)."

And meanwhile, Kubrick fans will argue until they day they die about which of his films are good and which not, because his reprtoire was very wide and it is impossible for them all to appeal to everyone.

BackFire349
anyone who puts down a kubrick movie cannot be called a true kubrick fan. they are all masterpieces, even barry lyndon which i dont enjoy watching, is a great masterpiece of its genre. a real kubrick fan will apreciate all of his work.

J-ROC
Mm no. You can like and dislike any Kubrick film and still be a fan. You dont have to like every single football team to be a football fan.

BackFire349
a real kubrick fan will at least apreciate all of his films and recognize the fact that they are all masterpieces for different reasons. even if they may not find them that entertaining.

Ushgarak
The ironic thing is that it is Eyes Wide Shut that Kubrick strayed into the realms of the pretentious on. Kubrick's cxlinical touch that served him so well with Paths of Glory and FMJ doesn't work so well with an emotional story like Eyes Wide Shut.

finti
that is your opinion Ush and most people? out of my close acquaintances none of them recognise this as a great film. They look at the story of it and found it to be crap. Most people dont go beyond how a film is made they look to the story and if that aint good enough they will think the movie is crap. I found it to be really boring but then again I read the book before I saw the film and I never liked the book either.

Ushgarak
I have no objection to people not liking the film but pretentious is an inappropriate lable. I made that definitive statement there to counter KJ's equally definitive one above.

However, the film is generally acknowledged as a masterpiece and I stand by the second half of that statement.

BackFire349
i liked eyes wide shut quite a bit

Ushgarak
It's not rubbish, but pretentious would at least be a relevant criticism to make.

finti
Actually I found the whole story stupid, but I wouldnt call the film pretentious cause I guess the effects was astonishing when it was released way back then . So it set a standard for special effects so...

finti
eyes wide shut on the other hand goes beyound crap

Ushgarak
The special effects were shockingly good and there has been nothing as directly realistic since. They were even UPSET they had to add the stars in to please people!

It WAS a slow film, and boring would be a relevant criticism of it. I am not sure about stupid... I would say obscure.

But no, not pretentious. It doesn't qualify for that.

finti
Iwas talking about the story in it self, it is not the films fault the book sucked

<< THERE IS MORE FROM THIS THREAD HERE >>