Stanley Kubrick

Did you read the book?

Yeah he even managed to trick a shitload of people into thinking the american moon landing was real
I mean they were Americans but still

Attached: 68986799_p0.png (1000x1000, 385K)

the book is a mixed bag

I couldn't disagree more. The book is literature at it's finest. I've never read more beautiful writing, honestly. Nabokov is a genius, and the taboo subject just lends itself to his beautiful style of writing.

The movie is just...nothing. It feels like nothing significant. It's just plain bad.

This post is embarrassing and why Kubrick fanboys are universally considered one of the most insufferable fanbases

Only americans believe moon landing was fake.

>2001 is maybe the best sci-fi ever made
Infinity War
>Barry Lyndon is maybe the best period piece ever made
Endgame

oh I too dislike the movie, don't get me wrong
I just had a very hard time enjoying the book past the, admittedly amazing, first part.
second part is a slog to get through, and the prose doesn't really change how plain and boring everything is.
thankfully it recoups a lot in part three

It is fair to say he mastered his craft by the end of his life, but his early films are pretty terrible.

I haven't seen all his flicks because he's too autistic for me but:
>2001 10/10
>Paths of Glory 9/10
>FMJ 7/10
>Eyes Wide Shut 6/10
>Shining 8/10
>Strangelove 7/10
>AI (1st half) actually kino until Spielberg ruined it

It wasn't, but we as Americans are largely dumb fucking idiots

People actually like 2001 on here? I laughed out loud when I saw the fetus shit at the end.

clockwork orange was incredible

thats fair i guess, still a brilliant book if you ask me, and one that to me, seems fairly obvious that it is not adaptable. don't know what kubrick was thinking.

Ya i forgot about that one. I've seen it twice, once in theaters. It's great.

Yes, 2001 is widely considered an exemplary achievement in film making

>I laughed out loud when I saw the fetus shit at the end.
It's OK to have autism, just don't assume normal people experience life the way you do.

>seems fairly obvious that it is not adaptable.
It wasn't adapted. The novel and movie were made at the same time. Kubrick merely wanted something more about images than concepts, with mystery around it. By now, anyone who digs can know what it "really" is but isn't necessarily the point.

People here struggling with general empathy, so them thinking about how a film was perceived decades ago is utterly impossible for them to conceive.

>The novel and movie were made at the same time
You're thinking of 2001. was referring to Lolita

It single handedly changed the way movies were made and perceived and was and still is one of the most revolutionary films of all time

Das Boot, The Thin Red Line and Apocalypse Now are all better than FMJ

Attached: 1565962222440.jpg (2880x1560, 317K)

I appreciate how he wanted his video releases as the 4:3 open matte to make it TV friendly, given how they butchered '2001' with pan and scan. He'd frame for 1.66:1 / 1.85:1 but also protect the 4:3 frame.

It's a shame that pan and scan also stopped him from using wider ratios. If only he had lived to see the popularization of 16:9 TVs.

Thin Red Line is preachiest, sappiest, most pretentious pile of shit I've ever seen

He failed there

Pleb Filtered

>thinking this when anyone can prove it didn't happen

FMJ is not a war movie brainlet, just a movie that happens to take place during war

Yes.
1. His movies are about the biggest subjects—space exploration, AI, aliens, human psychology, violence, war, justice, sex—and he dealt with these subjects not simply to exploit their enormity for commercial reasons (although he always had the box office in mind) but to explore them seriously and artistically.
2. His movies are beautiful and hypnotic. Their effect goes beyond words. Kubrick talked about the "straitjacket" of language. His movies are visual poetry aimed at our subconscious. He admired music for being able to work its magic nonverbally. He took a mediocre horror novel called The Shining and turned it into masterpiece that everybody has a different theory on. I made it through King's book once. Kubrick's movie we can watch over and over again.
3. Kubrick was always thinking about what you can do in film that you can't do in other mediums. Lots of films could easily be plays. Kubrick wanted to make films that would lose nearly everything if you put them on a stage. If you go over his filmography in your head, you'll see that he succeeded.
4. People say his movies are merely pretty or (pretending to be even-handed) they say that they'll give him the visuals, but that's it. It's film. To trash Kubrick with "I'll give him the visuals" is like trashing Shakespeare with "I'll admit he has a way with words." But like Shakespeare, Kubrick was not a mere aesthete. He also liked a good plot. Plenty of directors don't give a shit if you want a good story. Kubrick was not that guy. He married the high and low.

Lolita was an important film to me because it accurately showed how low and pathetic a man can go trying to gain an affection of a woman.

Attached: 1491870144921.jpg (602x709, 67K)

good post

Attached: kirk douglas.jpg (1600x900, 220K)

>Das Boot
U-571 was both a better war movie AND a better submarine movie

10/10 even though I thought Lolita and FMJ are both mediocre