|
Wow that was a really good move. I liked the part where the blood flowed down the hallway. They must have really liked that shot, and I did too. I knew the whole story because of the Simpson's Halloween special, and stuff like HERES JOHNNY I saw coming a mile away but still it was good. But it was still good. Amazing. I haven't felt this way about a film in a long time. The part where Jack Nicholson is looking at the model of the maze and it transitions perfectly to an aerial shot... It was a good movie and I recommend it if you haven't seen it.
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 05:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 13:06 |
|
|
Best soundtrack of any horror movie IMO. At least most atmospheric.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 05:36
|
|
|
Did you know that if you follow the turns Jack Nicholson makes in the hallway at the beginning, the window of the hotel manager's office has to be pointing inwards, but it shows the hotel's outside! Stanley Kubrick said that he intentionally distorted the hotel's geography in this way to disorient the audience.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 06:00
|
|
|
I liked it too, good simpsoins episode
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 08:04
|
|
|
The sense of isolation in The Shining is almost palpable and makes everything that happens so much scarier, it's great. It's one of the same reasons I love Carpenter's The Thing and the first Dead Space game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 08:20
|
|
|
Harime Nui posted:Did you know that if you follow the turns Jack Nicholson makes in the hallway at the beginning, the window of the hotel manager's office has to be pointing inwards, but it shows the hotel's outside! Stanley Kubrick said that he intentionally distorted the hotel's geography in this way to disorient the audience. Room 234 (or whatever the name of the documentary was) is really good because it shows how Kubrick is subtly making every sense wrong somehow.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 08:23
|
|
|
If I had to honestly and truly rate my favorite movies: 1) 2001: A Space Odyssey 2) Goodfellas 3) Star Wars: Episode 2: Attack of the Clones 4) Rashômon 5) The Shining I'd say it belongs in some pretty good company
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 08:54
|
|
|
I'd rate Kagemusha over Rashomon, personally, but they're both amazing films.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 12:13
|
|
|
Watch Clockwork Orange if you haven't also. Don't watch 2001 it's a boring poo poo fest of a movie.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 14:44
|
|
|
Did you think it was scary?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 15:14
|
|
|
My favorite thing about The Shining is that America and the rest of the world have two very different cuts, but it's not really common knowledge, so a huge bunch of people are missing like twenty minutes of it and they have no idea.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
Like most of Stanley Kuberick's films, The Shining is a well-thought-out marvel technically but fails in a whole bunch of other ways. For a horror film, it's distinctly not scary (see The Exorcist for another example of a much-lauded horror film that was not scary). It's plot-thin (blame good old Stephen King for that one though). The music is loud and intrusive, to the point where it comes to the foreground and is the main noticeable thing about a scene, rather than subtly underscoring it (see 'Eyes Wide Shut' for another perfect example of Stanley Kuberick's love of doing this). Plus its inclusion of the 'magical negro' stereotype. And it's slow as molasses, apparently thinking that advancing at a glacial pace builds tension. It does gain some props for having a child actor that's not downright abysmal (at least most of the time), and Jack Nicholson's acting does save it somewhat thanks to his being so energetically crazy in it. Basically: it's not very good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
Soul Reaver posted:Like most of Stanley Kuberik's films, The Shining is a well-thought-out marvel technically but fails in a whole bunch of other ways. Can you do this for the other Kubrick movies now?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
"Plot-thin" is a hilarious criticism of The Shining. It's like a parody of a real opinion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
My favorite scene in this movie is this one: The film finally takes us away from the Overlook Hotel and rather than relief, that brings an even more unsettling hotel room. Everything about this scene is a masterwork of bizarre tension.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
piratepilates posted:Can you do this for the other Kubrick movies now? I'll give you another one: 2001: A Space Odyssey is little more than a long music video. Again, like most of Kuberick's work, it's technically extremely accomplished. The space scenes early in the film are iconic for a reason: they are meticulously planned and executed, and the special effects were, for their time, revolutionary. However, while this makes it a historical milestone, it doesn't make it a good film. As an example of what ails the film, consider arguably the most iconic sequence - the space station docking early on. The scene takes over 2 minutes of screen time. The music is wonderful (it's not Kuberick's work) and the special effects revolutionary. However, it serves no greater purpose. It has nothing to say, no deeper meaning and does nothing to further the plot. And this is as the heart of the film's problem: it's overly-long, overly-slow, a handful of statements stretched too thin over too much celluloid. Kuberick is so in love with tightly-wrought visuals that he forgets that they need to serve a purpose other than merely existing. While the underlying plot is interesting, most of it evidences much stronger influence by Arthur C Clarke rather than Kuberick, so he cannot be given full credit for those elements. While the novel is more explicit in its plot, the film obfuscates it simply by not attempting to explain or include some of the more explicit explanations - whether intentional or accidental, it is poor storytelling on Kuberick's part. It is an attempt at adding fake depth by excluding objective information, rather than the inclusion of genuinely ambiguous or interesting elements. We are left with a film stripped of most of its plot. Despite its length, the film forgets to include things like excitement and depth. It hides it well with pretty visuals and nice music, but at it's core it's empty. 2001: A Space Odyssey is empty, boring and not very good. EDIT: Obligatory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmkVWuP_sO0 Soul Reaver fucked around with this message at 00:24 on Jan 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
Blast Fantasto posted:My favorite scene in this movie is this one: Just noticed that even the record collections are symmetrical. Guess having the shining means you get the OCD too 
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
Soul Reaver posted:2001: A Space Odyssey is little more than a long music video.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
Kubrick's films are about observing. 2001 was designed to be a roadshow large-format film. It's sort of like watching an IMAX film on your TV and wondering what the big deal is about.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
The first time I saw The Shining was in Germany, dubbed into German. The movie is just as effective and you don't really miss much if you don't understand what anyone is saying. I suppose that could be said for a lot of his movies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:Kubrick's films are about observing. 2001 was designed to be a roadshow large-format film. It's sort of like watching an IMAX film on your TV and wondering what the big deal is about. I'm always sucked in by it's visuals, plot ambiguity, and deliberate pacing. It doesn't need to be seen on a big screen to be enjoyed necessarily 2001 is one of the best films ever made.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
Terrorist Fistbump posted:What do you think about Barry Lyndon? I have to admit to not having seen it. It looks quite interesting, but it's also over 3 hours long so it might be a while before I find time to watch it. Yaws posted:I'm always sucked in by it's visuals, plot ambiguity, and deliberate pacing. It doesn't need to be seen on a big screen to be enjoyed necessarily The plot ambiguity is artificial - it's only ambiguous because he doesn't bother to tell you the (existing) answers, not because those answers he provides are themselves interesting or meaningful. And 'deliberate' pacing implies there is a reason behind the slow pace. What is that reason? Is it building up tension toward a climax or reveal? What does the slow pacing contribute to the film or what emotional effect does it have? In my case, it largely only served to bore me, which can't have been the intent. But now we're getting onto the subjective side of things: it bored me, it obviously drew you in. I've just never understood the appeal (short of a zeitgeist thing - which however does not make it a film for the ages).
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
Soul Reaver posted:I have to admit to not having seen it. It looks quite interesting, but it's also over 3 hours long so it might be a while before I find time to watch it. Here's what Kubrik had to say: quote:On the deepest psychological level the film's plot symbolizes the search for God, and it finally postulates what is little less than a scientific definition of God [...] The film revolves around this metaphysical conception, and the realistic hardware and the documentary feelings about everything were necessary in order to undermine your built-in resistance to the poetical concept That said, the film is deliberately abstract and allegorical. It asks the audience to come to their own conclusions. People look at this as a deficiency in its plot but I like ambiguity in my Sci-Fi films. As for the pacing being boring, I won't be able to change your mind. People have been saying that (along with your other criticisms) since 1968. I dig that about 2001 though. To each their own 
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 01:29
|
|
|
2001 and The Shining are both really amazing films and if you find them boring it might be because you're not in the right frame of mind. Engaging a movie on it's own terms is really hard to do, but also ultimately rewarding because you can now enjoy a much larger spectrum of movies than before.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:Kubrick's films are about observing. 2001 was designed to be a roadshow large-format film. It's sort of like watching an IMAX film on your TV and wondering what the big deal is about. I did actually see the 70mm roadshow edition in a theatre a few days ago and I still kind of agree with him. A good deal of the film is in this visual presentation of life where space travel is commonplace, shown using revolutionary for 1968 special effects work. The space station docking sequence takes 2 minutes, and while it is a nice sequence of a ship docking at a space station it has lost a lot of visual weight and wonderment from the subsequent 50 years of science fiction cinema, to the point where a (nicely done) model of a ship docking in a model of a space station is not that interesting anymore. From the dawn of man chapter to the intermission is a 1968 showcase of life in the future and a little bit of setup for the post-intermission segment of the movie, but I don't think it's all that interesting in itself in
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
MonsieurChoc posted:2001 and The Shining are both really amazing films and if you find them boring it might be because you're not in the right frame of mind. Agreed, but they don't make movies like 2001 anymore. It's little surprise modern audiences would find the pacing unbearably boring. It's just such a visually engaging and utterly unique film. All the complaints people have about it are the reasons I adore it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
scatman crothers owns in this loving movie
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
"Kuberick"
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 02:33
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:"Kuberick" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4qO8OaUY94
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 02:37
|
|
|
Soul Reaver posted:The plot ambiguity is artificial - it's only ambiguous because he doesn't bother to tell you the (existing) answers, not because those answers he provides are themselves interesting or meaningful. What would you use as an example of a highly ambiguous film done right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 03:49
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:My favorite thing about The Shining is that America and the rest of the world have two very different cuts, but it's not really common knowledge, so a huge bunch of people are missing like twenty minutes of it and they have no idea. The longer cut has significantly more skeletons but aside from that there aren't very many differences.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 08:21
|
|
|
Judicious use of Penderecki's Utrenja and Bela Bartok's work (can't recall the title) create a sense of high tension and dread even though nothing particularly of note is happening on screen. The "Tuesday" title card is a favorite moment of mine because it's accompanied by a big chaotic chord. Oh no! Not Tuesday!
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 08:24
|
|
|
I haven't seen it in ages but I recall Barry Lyndon being hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 08:44
|
|
|
Yaws posted:Agreed, but they don't make movies like 2001 anymore. It's little surprise modern audiences would find the pacing unbearably boring. It's just such a visually engaging and utterly unique film. All the complaints people have about it are the reasons I adore it. The one film I've seen in the past ten years or so that comes close to hitting those same notes is Under the Skin. The scope isn't the same and its obviously telling a much different story than 2001 did, but the deliberate pace and the cinematography gave it a similar feel.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:The longer cut has significantly more skeletons but aside from that there aren't very many differences. It loses the scene with the doctor, which is one of my favorites.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
If I have any gripe about this film, it's that I saw it after The Simpsons, and the movie didn't have Dracula and the Wolfman and stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
Wank posted:The first time I saw The Shining was in Germany, dubbed into German. The movie is just as effective and you don't really miss much if you don't understand what anyone is saying. I suppose that could be said for a lot of his movies. For some reason this sounds amazing and I want to watch the movie this way now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
Red posted:If I have any gripe about this film, it's that I saw it after The Simpsons, and the movie didn't have Dracula and the Wolfman and stuff. You could do a whole thread on stuff you came to after The Simpsons introduced you to it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:You could do a whole thread on stuff you came to after The Simpsons introduced you to it. I didn't get seriously into film until long after I'd seen hundreds of Simpsons episodes so all the classics in every genre I'm a fan of were probably referenced at some point. The writers were generally from Ivy League type schools so it wouldn't surprise me if there are like French New Wave or Bergman references in there, stuff like that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 13:06 |
|
|
Soul Reaver posted:(see The Exorcist for another example of a much-lauded horror film that was not scary). If you are religious the Exorcist is scary as gently caress, my man.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 19:23
|
|
