|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Re: NO director matches the number of Kubrick's great films. posted by patrickU on February 03, 2004 at 07:06:24:
IMO, Barry Lyndon and 2001 are Kubrick's best. I've grown weary of Clockwork; I think The Shining works better as comedy.
Follow Ups:
But what about Paths of Glory, The Killing, and Full Metal Jacket? I also think Eyes Wide Shut is much better than it is given credit for, its digital censorship and incorrect video aspect ratio notwithstanding.
I like Paths of Glory, though I haven't seen it in a while. I remember not being particularly impressed by The Killing. I remain ambivalent about the Full Metal Jacket diptych. And, despite repeated viewings and the increasingly high praise of friends whose judgements I've come to trust and value, I can't see Eyes Wide Shut as a great film.
I never liked 2001, not even the day it came out, I was among my friends the only one not to.
Now that tells us something!
Well, if you reads the other posts of mine, on this film, that should be enough on it.
I only noticed that you were in the anti-2001 camp after I made that post.You should reconsider. I think it has its weaknesses, particularly in the dated, fx-dependent, second sequence. But the rest, I think, is superb, successful for its minimalism, for the unsettling effects of bleakness and solitude (both clausterphobic and agoraphobic) it achieves, as well as for the absence of philosophizing, which, rather than leaving the film "empty" makes it potently suggestive (over-explanation being one of the fundamental faults of sci-fi, which genre 2001 transcends, and, more generally, "ideas" are too often overplayed by artists and praised by critics at the expense of art). Indeed, I think the whole film, from beginning to end, is suffused with a sense of unnerving, of a fear of the unknown akin to that sense one gets when, swimming to the deeper waters of a lake or ocean, one's feet suddenly kick at the colder strata of water beneath the sun-fed warm, telling of potentially limitless depths beneath. Holding up Harold Bloom's criterion of strangeness to film, I think 2001 is among the giants.
Well you will have, I am afraid to explain that!
I reconsider it since 1968! The last time I saw it two years ago, or better said a part of it, as I did found it too boring and stop at looking at it, I want to try to discover why I did not like it and came quickly to the conclusion that it what empty and has only the " flavor " of the day. Certainly it had his good moment, but not enough to make it a real film asking for the old questions, from where do we come..where do we go.., it was more a " trip " of a film..and lack the real introspective you would easily find in a Bergman film.
This is just a " voyage " to no where.
And yes his " minimalisme is superb and reminds me of " Art deco " and your way to describing it his not without charm and more than respectable! And you may see it that way, I just canīt. Your admiration are just the reason I donīt like it.
Cold an empty.
Well you will have, I am afraid to explain that!
I reconsider it since 1968! The last time I saw it two years ago, or better said a part of it, as I did found it too boring and stop at looking at it, I want to try to discover why I did not like it and came quickly to the conclusion that it what empty and has only the " flavor " of the day. Certainly it had his good moment, but not enough to make it a real film asking for the old questions, from where do we come..where do we go.., it was more a " trip " of a film..and lack the real introspective you would easily find in a Bergman film.
This is just a " voyage " to no where.
And yes his " minimalisme is superb and reminds me of " Art deco " and your way to describing it his not without charm and more than respectable! And you may see it that way, I just canīt. Your admiration are just the reason I donīt like it.
Cold an empty.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: