|
Did Kubrick ever make a bad movie? I didn't like Eyes Wide Shut the first time, but I liked it more after rewatching it
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 07:48 |
|
|
w00tmonger posted:I stick with 2001 as favorite though. A lot of people I know hate the slow pace, but the structure/symbolism/foreshadowing of it can't be beat. This, only said with more Busch Breath
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
Dave Concepcion posted:Oh man I envy you being able to see this beautiful, gorgeous movie for the first time quote:In total there were only 10 lenses made. One was kept by Carl Zeiss, six were sold to NASA, and three were sold to Stanley Kubrick. drat And yeah, you will never regret buying that DVD. Watch it on the largest, best screen you can find.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
I liked the movie way more than the novel, but feel that the hedge animals would have been great to see. As they were in the novel they were okay, but I have a feeling Kubrick would have done very creepy things with them. In case you haven't read it, there are a bunch of hedge animals at the Overlook that move when you don't look at them. A rabbit could be 50' away facing another direction, but if you glace away then return to it, it will have moved towards you. A bunch of these chase Danny and I think one of them catches him and the thorns start to bleed him before something makes them stop.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2016 01:33
|
|
|
Carmant posted:Umm.. it was pretty good actually It was okay
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
drguildo posted:Because Oscar's razor, I guess. Is there any actual evidence it was intentional or is it just assumed? I think Occam's Razor would actually side with Kubrick doing it intentionally in this case.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2016 12:36
|
|
|
It's way better than the novel it's based on, too
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
Holy poo poo I thought my monitors camera turned on for a second or turned into Mirror Mode or something! 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
Watching Spartacus for the first time, it's on Shomi The Shining later this week, my girlfriend has never watched it  Edit: This intro is long as gently caress but good as poo poo! A+ Professor Shark fucked around with this message at 14:01 on Aug 7, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2016 13:59
|
|
|
drat, while reading about Spartacus I read that the director that did the first season of True Detective is making Kubrick's Napoleon
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2016 15:17
|
|
|
Most of the way through Spartacus right now- those fire logs look like they'd be very dangerous to do 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
The guy who played Grady was in Barry Lyndon too
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
From what I read today he got a lot of the scouting stuff while planning for Napoleon
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
hemophilia posted:Eyes Wide shut was the last Kubrick movie I watched for the first time. I haven't seen Barry Lyndon or a few others, I'll get around to it, but Eyes Wide Shut legitimately scared the gently caress out of me. The sex and relationship stuff took a huge backseat for me as Kubrick managed to make the Illuminati stand-in the scarriest poo poo i've ever seen put to film. Before the second season of True Detective came out I had myself all worked up that the "largest orgy ever filmed" scene was going to be EWS times 10 and that the tone of the show would be similar. Oh well.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
The second season was okay, The Night Of is the real spiritual successor to the first season, though Edit: But it could have been great. The Bird Man was just ridiculous enough to be good, but they ditched it and ruined everything cool about "The Bad Guy"
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
Hal_2005 posted:I wish Arthur C Clarke was not such a dick with the 2010 and 2100 movie rights. Taking 2001 to its full, LSD laden conclusion would have been epic. 2010 by Kubrick would have been much better than the most severe let down sequel ever that was made
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2016 13:39
|
|
|
Watched The Shining with my girlfriend last night, she hadn't heard of it before. It was a great rewatch, I'm reading about it on Wiki now and it seems like both Stephen King and whoever wrote large chunks of the page were butt hurt little babies over the differences between the amazing film and the goodish novel.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2016 12:36
|
|
|
I think the most obvious positive change was switching the goddamn croquet mallet to an axe Like what the Hell
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2016 13:01
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:I think the movie is v good but honestly I like the plot and characters in the book a lot more. From what I read today Kubrick was so unsatisfied with the actress that he reduced her character considerably, to the point she just smiles when happy and screams when scared
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 07:48 |
|
|
Reading the wiki confused me because there is all kinds of stuff about some alternate version of Jack once existed at the Overlook in the 20's. I assumed that if the Overlook "gets you", you're just absorbed into its history. Jack was taken in by the hotel in the late 70's, therefore he's "always been there".
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2016 01:08
|
|