BEST KUBRICK MOVIE EVER

[Cheebs]

My Barry Lyndon thread devolved into ranking Kubrick movies so I am curious what everyone's is. To make things more interesting, pick three!

[Solo]

2001: A BEST GODDAMN THING EVAR

[Cheebs]

2001: A BEST GODDAMN THING EVAR

2010 was better of course.

[Solo]

Get that shit outta here

[Phoenix Dark]

Spartacus is the only won I've seen from beginning to end, and it's classic. 2001 was ok from what I saw, but so fragmented it shouldn't even be considered

[Solo]

You're so fragmented you shouldnt even be considered

[The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment]

This is very difficult for me, but I'd have to go with Clockwork for being the most rewatchable and straight-up fun.

Or Dr Strangelove...

[Cheebs]

I have to admit I am a BIT surprised the rest of the 2001 "saga" never got made into films.

[The Fake Shemp]

2001 is boring.

Also, where is EYES WIDE SHUT?

Dr. Strangelove ftw!

[Cheebs]

2001 is boring.

Also, where is EYES WIDE SHUT?

Dr. Strangelove ftw!

EYES WIDE SHUT IS UNDER THE OTHER OPTION. It doesn't deserve to be on here.

[The Fake Shemp]

Tom Cruise murdered Stanley Kubrick.

[The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment]

Eyes Wide Shut doesn't deserve to be on any Kubrick lists, ever.

[Phoenix Dark]

I'm sorry but 2001 was pretty boring. No character development, no logical conclusions, and it skips from story to story without explaining what happened to the previous one.

All the parts with actual people talking to each other were good imo, but the movie builds up all this suspense with the dramatic music yet nothing ever happens. It's like a Goosebumps episode if you took out all the "shock" endings before commercial breaks but left in the heart pumping music

[whiteACID]

Full Metal Jacket

Probably my favorite movie ever

[Cheebs]

I'm sorry but 2001 was pretty boring. No character development, no logical conclusions, and it skips from story to story without explaining what happened to the previous one.

All the parts with actual people talking to each other were good imo, but the movie builds up all this suspense with the dramatic music yet nothing ever happens. It's like a Goosebumps episode if you took out all the "shock" endings before commercial breaks but left in the heart pumping music

Check out the sequel!

[The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment]

I'm sorry but 2001 was pretty boring. No character development, no logical conclusions, and it skips from story to story without explaining what happened to the previous one.

All the parts with actual people talking to each other were good imo, but the movie builds up all this suspense with the dramatic music yet nothing ever happens. It's like a Goosebumps episode if you took out all the "shock" endings before commercial breaks but left in the heart pumping music

[Solo]

I'm sorry but 2001 was pretty boring. No character development, no logical conclusions, and it skips from story to story without explaining what happened to the previous one.

All the parts with actual people talking to each other were good imo, but the movie builds up all this suspense with the dramatic music yet nothing ever happens. It's like a Goosebumps episode if you took out all the "shock" endings before commercial breaks but left in the heart pumping music

Stick to Robert Zemeckis and Ron Howard films then. They are more than happy to paint by numbers for you.

[The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment]

Forrest Gump > 2001, AMIRITE GUYS?

[The Fake Shemp]

I've got no problems with the atmosphere or the theme or the ending or Kubrick's standard gloom 'n doom bullshit - it's just boring.

The effects are pretty brilliant for its time, so it's cool to watch for that.  But the pacing blows and it's incredibly boring.

[Solo]

I guess this is why film is SUBJECTIVE. Ive never been bored watching a Kubrick film, whereas Im frequently bored watching, say, a Michael Bay film.

[The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment]

I guess this is why film is SUBJECTIVE. Ive never been bored watching a Kubrick film, whereas Im frequently bored watching, say, a Michael Bay film.

Ain't that the truth.

[The Fake Shemp]

I guess this is why film is SUBJECTIVE. Ive never been bored watching a Kubrick film, whereas Im frequently bored watching, say, a Michael Bay film.

That's because Michael Bay films are boring.

[Solo]

Although I do think the man CAN set up and execute action scenes well. I swear, Bay should hook up with Chris Nolan. Bay can do the action, and Nolan the rest.

[APF]

Voted for Clockwork because I loves it so much, but Strangelove is totally oss

[The Fake Shemp]

Although I do think the man CAN set up and execute action scenes well. I swear, Bay should hook up with Chris Nolan. Bay can do the action, and Nolan the rest.

He's hooking up with SPIELBERG for TRANSFORMERS.  Oscar winner written all over it.

[Cheebs]

Although I do think the man CAN set up and execute action scenes well. I swear, Bay should hook up with Chris Nolan. Bay can do the action, and Nolan the rest.

He's hooking up with SPIELBERG for TRANSFORMERS.  Oscar winner written all over it.

spielberg has nothing to do with transformers. Exec. producing means very little. He exec produces just about anything.

[The Fake Shemp]

spielberg has nothing to do with transformers. Exec. producing means very little. He exec produces just about anything.

a) Thanks for the lesson I was unaware

b) That's not true - he's actually on set

[Cheebs]

spielberg has nothing to do with transformers. Exec. producing means very little. He exec produces just about anything.

a) Thanks for the lesson I was unaware

b) That's not true - he's actually on set

eh? He is just exec. producing it. Exec. Producer doesn't do anything.

[The Fake Shemp]

Again, I know what an executive producer is - thanks.

The other thing is that, you're wrong, he actually is working on Transformers.  Obviously not to the extent that Tom DeSanto is, but why do you think ILM is involved?  That's probably the core of the credit, and yet, he's reportedly talking to Bay about effects and movie crap.  Hell, they presented the trailer together.

[Van Cruncheon]

Spielberg hasn't made a truly inspirational directorial appearance since Close Encounters. FACT. He just picks accessible scripts with themes that twiddle geek glands and gets big budgets to back 'em. He's not a great director; he's just one that won't bungle a big budget.

[Cheebs]

Spielberg hasn't made a truly inspirational directorial appearance since Close Encounters. FACT.

RAIDERS.

[The Fake Shemp]

Whew, that was a close one.  For a second there, I thought you'd might buck your iconoclastic nature.  Close call.

[Cheebs]

I love how this turned from kubrick to spielberg. It seems any topic about a director devolves into a spielberg or lucas thread.
 

[Van Cruncheon]

Raiders is awesome; my favorite film of all time. It's also rife with questional acting, gimped effects shots, and a little too much adherence to the pulp sensibility so hopelessly (and pointlessly) adored by Lucas. It's a GEEK MOVIE.

[The Fake Shemp]

Not really.  Raiders has a pretty broad audience.  You don't make that much money off of geeks alone, they just help merchandise sales and Internet traffic nowadays.

[Cheebs]

Raiders was a cultural event. It got nominated for best director and best film remember

[The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment]

Raiders is a classic, but its definitely been blown out of porportion by net geeks and general audiences.

[The Fake Shemp]

Raiders is a classic, but its definitely been blown out of porportion by net geeks and general audiences.

Yeah, damn those Internet geeks that made it such a huge hit and award winn- OH WAIT THERE WAS NO INTERNET THEN LOL

[The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment]

Raiders is a classic, but its definitely been blown out of porportion by net geeks and general audiences.

Yeah, damn those Internet geeks that made it such a huge hit and award winn- OH WAIT THERE WAS NO INTERNET THEN LOL

I'm talking about now, dude. Don't play dumb.

[The Fake Shemp]

But Raiders has been a huge hit since its release.  It was one of the reason people bought VCRs.  It was one of the highest grossing films of all time.

DAMN THOSE INTERNET GEEKS!

[Van Cruncheon]

So do a lot of films that don't demonstrate any unique directorial vision or qualities, but instead possess themes that tweak the geek glands of the Oscar committee. For example: want to garner an undeserved best actress nomination? Be an innocent-looking pretty-young thing, and take on a sexually controversial role. The Oscars are a joke, and most so-called cinemaphiles are just comic book dorks with an expanded vocabulary, unable to separate a movie's theme from it's directorial qualities.

[The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment]

But Raiders has been a huge hit since its release.  It was one of the reason people bought VCRs.  It was one of the highest grossing films of all time.

DAMN THOSE INTERNET GEEKS!

Did you totally miss my point, or what?

[Van Cruncheon]

But Raiders has been a huge hit since its release.  It was one of the reason people bought VCRs.  It was one of the highest grossing films of all time.

DAMN THOSE INTERNET GEEKS!

You always posit this fallacy, Willco. Popular opinion does not equate to a movie's directorial quality. It just means it was accessible and didn't have any gross failings.

As ever: is Britney Spears a musical genius? Is the Ford Explorer a sterling example of modern automotive design? What would Orson Welles have thought of Armageddon? Toshinden sold people Playstations!

[The Fake Shemp]

That wasn't my point Drinky, shame you lost it while trying to carefully word your way out of your original argument.

I wasn't arguing whether or not Raiders was awesome.  And certainly because it was a hit.  I was arguing that the so-called "geek crowd" is too small, and certainly not as organized as when Raiders was released due to the lack of the Internet, to be the only reason why it was such a huge hit.

Answer: IT HAD A BROAD AUDIENCE.

[The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment]

Obviously you either deliberately missed my point or can't read, Willco, because I was talking about how net geeks THESE DAYS -- such as yourself -- give the film more than due credit, heralding it as some sort of masterpiece of the modern cinema.

[The Fake Shemp]

Nobody hails it as a masterpiece, just as an awesome film.  Yet, you yourself state is a classic.  So it's a classic, but you dislike how people claim it to be a classic?  I think you're confusing yourself.

[Phoenix Dark]

Raiders is a classic, but its definitely been blown out of porportion by net geeks and general audiences.

Yeah, damn those Internet geeks that made it such a huge hit and award winn- OH WAIT THERE WAS NO INTERNET THEN LOL

Raiders is a classic movie. It's perhaps the best adventure movie of the last 30 years. Perfectly paced, well written, and fully engrossing.

[The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment]

Nobody hails it as a masterpiece, just as an awesome film.  Yet, you yourself state is a classic.  So it's a classic, but you dislike how people claim it to be a classic?  I think you're confusing yourself.

Its a classic, but not the life-changing, flawless film many make it out to be. Its littered with horrible acting, cheese, and poor directorial decisions.

[whiteACID]

Willco, shutup.

[The Fake Shemp]

Its a classic, but not the life-changing, flawless film many make it out to be. Its littered with horrible acting, cheese, and poor directorial decisions.

Who calls it a life-changing, flawless film?  I've never heard anyone refer to Raiders as that.  And if it has so much of the latter, how is it a classic?

You're talking in circles.  Drinky can pull it off, but this is ridiculous!

[The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment]

Its a classic for the way it influenced the adventure genre, not because its a flawless film up there with Citizen Kane, The Godfather, etc.

Quit playing dumb.

[Van Cruncheon]

That wasn't my point Drinky, shame you lost it while trying to carefully word your way out of your original argument.

I wasn't arguing whether or not Raiders was awesome.  And certainly because it was a hit.  I was arguing that the so-called "geek crowd" is too small, and certainly not as organized as when Raiders was released due to the lack of the Internet, to be the only reason why it was such a huge hit.

Answer: IT HAD A BROAD AUDIENCE.

Duuuuude, that's not my point at all. My point is that SOME CRITICS WILL LET MIDDLING DIRECTORIAL EFFORTS OFF THE HOOK IF THE MOVIE TINGLES THEIR NERD CENTERS. Most people have a nerd center, and if something hits 'em just right, they'll forgive any number of flaws, or will at least try to elevate a middling effort due to personal bias. The original Star Wars is a TECHNICALLY AWFUL AND UTTERLY AMATEURISH MOVIE but it became a legend because it hit people in the right way at the right time, critics and audiences alike.

I let Raiders off the hook because I CONSIDER IT FUCK AWESOME TOTAL. It makes me nerdgasm. But does that mean it's a technically well-drected movie with sophisticated writing and high quality acting? Not in the fuckin' SLIGHTEST.

[Phoenix Dark]

Its a classic for the way it influenced the adventure genre, not because its a flawless film up there with Citizen Kane, The Godfather, etc.

Quit playing dumb.

Well duh. No one compares it to Godfather in that respect. As far a adventure movies go, it's the perfect blueprint.

[The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment]

So what was all this you yourself posted before about it being "Perfectly paced, well written, and fully engrossing."

In fact, what rating would you give the film?

[The Fake Shemp]

But Raiders wasn't just a critical darling and unlike Shake, you're old enough to know how big of a hit that film was.  Soccer moms like it.  That's as far from a "nerd center" as you can get.  You called it a geek movie, and it's really not.  It was a huge hit across age and gender.  You know that!

Its a classic for the way it influenced the adventure genre, not because its a flawless film up there with Citizen Kane, The Godfather, etc.

Who is saying this?  This is just as outlandish as your claim that more people quote The Evil Dead than The Godfather.

[Mupepe]

FMJ
BL
ACO

[Van Cruncheon]

Its a classic for the way it influenced the adventure genre, not because its a flawless film up there with Citizen Kane, The Godfather, etc.

Quit playing dumb.

Well duh. No one compares it to Godfather in that respect. As far a adventure movies go, it's the perfect blueprint.

No it isn't. It could use less jarring scene transitions and less slavish adherence to a very dated pulp sensibility, for starters. It's very much rooted in the era it plays homage to, which makes it better fodder for satire than duplication.

[The Miles Trahan Burger Experiment]

Oh, please. You know there are legions of nerds who will place Raiders above just about any film ever made, save for Star Wars.

[Phoenix Dark]

So what was all this you yourself posted before about it being "Perfectly paced, well written, and fully engrossing."

In fact, what rating would you give the film?

Well it is. It's a 10/10 in my book for what it is. Not all 10/10s are equal. I think Raiders is the perfect adventure movie, but not a perfect movie like something like To Kill a Mockingbird or Godfather.

As I've said before, Empire Strikes Back is a 10/10 in my book too, for what it is. It's like when you go see a movie called SNAKES ON A PLANE you know what you're getting, and you judge it based on what it is.

[Van Cruncheon]

Willco, re-read my point. EVERYONE has a geek center, where theme overrides any ability to critically evaluate the technical quality of the movie itself. See: Armageddon.