The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Sorry, but he is.
Poncy, overlong and dull movies for highbrow movie-posers to scratch their Spielberg beards to and say "Hmm, the imagery used to suggest the duality of our nature is brilliant, and the underlying themes of alienation are just perfect", whilst the rest of us sit there and think "This sucks, I could have watched American Pie 2"
2001:
The monkey bits are cool, but then it gets boring for ages in space and the ending is pure bollards. "Ah but it's left for your own interpretation". Yeah, whatever
Strangelove:
Peter Sellers is cool, and "You can't fight in there, this is the war room" is a good line, but c'mon..it's pants
The Shining:
This is actually not bad, which led me to believe that Kubrick didn't make this one really. Jack Nicholson is good, but he's just doing Jack Nicholson.
And, it's just not scary.
Full Metal Jacket:
The training camp is cool, but then it just turns into that old tv series about 'Nam that I can't remember the name of.
(Amusing fact: Private Pyle, the fat mental one is the guy in Men in Black that turns into the massive bug)
Barry Lyndon:
My head exploded waiting for something to happen in this one.
Spartacus:
It's alright, Kirk Douglas is cool but Gladiator did this much better
Eyes Wide Shut:
Awful, awful waste of 9hours. Tom and Mrs Tom go to a party and she says "I thoight about having that sailor"
Tom gets the hump and wanders about for ages looking confused.
The End.
(You dont see them nekkid that much so dont rent this)
There are others but I can't be bothered to make the effort to remember them.
Because Kubrick sucks.
Poncy, overlong and dull movies for highbrow movie-posers to scratch their Spielberg beards to and say "Hmm, the imagery used to suggest the duality of our nature is brilliant, and the underlying themes of alienation are just perfect", whilst the rest of us sit there and think "This sucks, I could have watched American Pie 2"
2001:
The monkey bits are cool, but then it gets boring for ages in space and the ending is pure bollards. "Ah but it's left for your own interpretation". Yeah, whatever
Strangelove:
Peter Sellers is cool, and "You can't fight in there, this is the war room" is a good line, but c'mon..it's pants
The Shining:
This is actually not bad, which led me to believe that Kubrick didn't make this one really. Jack Nicholson is good, but he's just doing Jack Nicholson.
And, it's just not scary.
Full Metal Jacket:
The training camp is cool, but then it just turns into that old tv series about 'Nam that I can't remember the name of.
(Amusing fact: Private Pyle, the fat mental one is the guy in Men in Black that turns into the massive bug)
Barry Lyndon:
My head exploded waiting for something to happen in this one.
Spartacus:
It's alright, Kirk Douglas is cool but Gladiator did this much better
Eyes Wide Shut:
Awful, awful waste of 9hours. Tom and Mrs Tom go to a party and she says "I thoight about having that sailor"
Tom gets the hump and wanders about for ages looking confused.
The End.
(You dont see them nekkid that much so dont rent this)
There are others but I can't be bothered to make the effort to remember them.
Because Kubrick sucks.
Page:
Special Edition, I respect your opinion, but you don't have the right to tell Goatboy, or anyone else that there's is wrong.
An opinion is an opinion, we allow you to state yours without shouting it down, and asking you to review it, please allow others the same courtesy.
Kubrick. I like what I've seen.
An opinion is an opinion, we allow you to state yours without shouting it down, and asking you to review it, please allow others the same courtesy.
Kubrick. I like what I've seen.
You find Jonathan Glazer "consistenly" impressive? its hard to be inconsistant when you have only made one movie and a guiness advert...
Kubricks 'detached' style? have you seen Lolita? one of the most human stories ever told, its this constant generalisation of Kubrick which people who havent seen all his work and have only read what the 'Daily Mirror' has to say about this "sick recluse, whos pretntious flims are unaccessable to the average man".
A clockwork Orange, if you've only seen this film once then its difficult to appriciate the sheer genius that went into it. the coreography and the vision, it just dosent come through on first viewing.
but isnt that what art is all about? being able to revisit it and appriciate it further. its the same with 2001, which other director has dared to push the boundary of flim making? with 2001 he told his version of human evolution, it may not to be your tastes, but can you not appriciate the wonder? its an experience, to just witness one persons ability to put what is in his head, in his imagination, onto the screen in beautiful, memorable, images?
Pathes of Glory, Lolita, Dr Strangelove, Lyndon, 2001, Clockwork orange, The Shining, Spartacus even; any of your "consistantly impressive" directors would be flattered to have made ONE of these flims.
Just go and revisit all of his flims from the Killing right through to Eyes Wide Shut, and then say that
"Kubrick is Boring"
He took chances and he dared to push the boundaries, which make cinema more exciting then it ever could have been without him.
Kubricks 'detached' style? have you seen Lolita? one of the most human stories ever told, its this constant generalisation of Kubrick which people who havent seen all his work and have only read what the 'Daily Mirror' has to say about this "sick recluse, whos pretntious flims are unaccessable to the average man".
A clockwork Orange, if you've only seen this film once then its difficult to appriciate the sheer genius that went into it. the coreography and the vision, it just dosent come through on first viewing.
but isnt that what art is all about? being able to revisit it and appriciate it further. its the same with 2001, which other director has dared to push the boundary of flim making? with 2001 he told his version of human evolution, it may not to be your tastes, but can you not appriciate the wonder? its an experience, to just witness one persons ability to put what is in his head, in his imagination, onto the screen in beautiful, memorable, images?
Pathes of Glory, Lolita, Dr Strangelove, Lyndon, 2001, Clockwork orange, The Shining, Spartacus even; any of your "consistantly impressive" directors would be flattered to have made ONE of these flims.
Just go and revisit all of his flims from the Killing right through to Eyes Wide Shut, and then say that
"Kubrick is Boring"
He took chances and he dared to push the boundaries, which make cinema more exciting then it ever could have been without him.
Fair enough Goatboy.
But David Lynch just freaks me out. He is so wierd. Ever seen Eraserhead? That has got to be the strangest film ever made.
"I just cut it like a regular turkey right"
:-)
But David Lynch just freaks me out. He is so wierd. Ever seen Eraserhead? That has got to be the strangest film ever made.
"I just cut it like a regular turkey right"
:-)
A Clockwork Orange is fantastic.
The Shining is cool.
Full Metal Jacket was fun.
Can't remember seeing anything else.
The Shining is cool.
Full Metal Jacket was fun.
Can't remember seeing anything else.
I've got to agree with goatboy here (i think!).
I didn't like a clockwork orange (the most standard example of a response to a kuberic film) at first, though when i thought about it a little more, it kind of grew on me. But not very much. I don't want to see a film so that i can can listen to a director make a masqueraded 2 hour rant so as to make a point he could have made in 5 minutes, but wouldn't have been particularly insightful to anybody anyway. I can sort that out for myself. I just want to be entertained for a while. Not just in the typical hollywood way (not that there's anything wrong with that, just go with me for a second), films like run lola run, taxi, cube, they weren't massive, hyped or whatever, it took a little more interest in films to find these gems. Hence, SpecEd, you can't dismiss my views as those of someone who just doesn't know about films, but i can probably speak for most film fans by pointing out that there's nothing wrong with watching films for their entertainment value alone.
If a film is going to make a point, i'm all for that, but it should be something fresh and innovative, not just effectively the efforts to express pretty unremarkable opinions in an overly elaborate way.
Take funny games, for example. It makes a point, and one worth paying some attention to in my opinion, by actively engaging the audiences emotion, the resulting emotion being central to the meaning of the film.
To me, that is how a film should, if it tries to, put a message across, and it's the kind of significant, innovative message that deserves to be put across. Not 'aversion therapy is bad and what goes around comes around'.
I didn't like a clockwork orange (the most standard example of a response to a kuberic film) at first, though when i thought about it a little more, it kind of grew on me. But not very much. I don't want to see a film so that i can can listen to a director make a masqueraded 2 hour rant so as to make a point he could have made in 5 minutes, but wouldn't have been particularly insightful to anybody anyway. I can sort that out for myself. I just want to be entertained for a while. Not just in the typical hollywood way (not that there's anything wrong with that, just go with me for a second), films like run lola run, taxi, cube, they weren't massive, hyped or whatever, it took a little more interest in films to find these gems. Hence, SpecEd, you can't dismiss my views as those of someone who just doesn't know about films, but i can probably speak for most film fans by pointing out that there's nothing wrong with watching films for their entertainment value alone.
If a film is going to make a point, i'm all for that, but it should be something fresh and innovative, not just effectively the efforts to express pretty unremarkable opinions in an overly elaborate way.
Take funny games, for example. It makes a point, and one worth paying some attention to in my opinion, by actively engaging the audiences emotion, the resulting emotion being central to the meaning of the film.
To me, that is how a film should, if it tries to, put a message across, and it's the kind of significant, innovative message that deserves to be put across. Not 'aversion therapy is bad and what goes around comes around'.
*sob*
Don't be mean Special Edition..it'll hurt me so.
No Votty, I don't dislike every modern director. There are just some that I can't get into.
And Mr Edition seems to have missed my point about Kubrick, I've watched all of his movies, even though I don't like them.
Why? Because film critics that I know always try to get me to appreciate them and I just don't.
It's a personal thing with me and Kubrick, I find his films dull and impersonal. Which isn't a bad thing as such, but I find Kubrick not to my taste.
And it's my perogative to say so. I don't have to like him Special Edition, and it amuses me that you got so miffed about it.
David Cronenberg also presents a detached style, indifferent and clinical in approach, yet I find his films infinately more watchable, simply because there is a story to hang his style onto.
I find Kubrick doesn't seem overly concerned what a film is about or saying, merely "Look how well I frame my shots" "See how the lighting diffuses throughout the set".
I admire art, but I don't admire paying £5 to watch someone point the camera at nice things and forget to tell a story.
There are plenty of directors working today that I find consistently excellent:
David Lynch (now there's a guy that focuses on stylistics)
Coen Bros
Atom Egoyan
Jonathan Glazer
Jean Pierre Jeunet
Luc Besson
Movies are a personal preference.
And, this made me chuckle, I am the 1st person to rail against the summer blockbuster movies (ask around)
I find directors like Simon West and Micheal Bay to be hacks of the highest degree, but that doesn't mean I automatically like the more art-house guys.
So, Special, why don't you tell us what it is about Kubrick that does it for you, rather than just bowl in and sling insults around?
Why Kubrick?
(I'm interested)
Don't be mean Special Edition..it'll hurt me so.
No Votty, I don't dislike every modern director. There are just some that I can't get into.
And Mr Edition seems to have missed my point about Kubrick, I've watched all of his movies, even though I don't like them.
Why? Because film critics that I know always try to get me to appreciate them and I just don't.
It's a personal thing with me and Kubrick, I find his films dull and impersonal. Which isn't a bad thing as such, but I find Kubrick not to my taste.
And it's my perogative to say so. I don't have to like him Special Edition, and it amuses me that you got so miffed about it.
David Cronenberg also presents a detached style, indifferent and clinical in approach, yet I find his films infinately more watchable, simply because there is a story to hang his style onto.
I find Kubrick doesn't seem overly concerned what a film is about or saying, merely "Look how well I frame my shots" "See how the lighting diffuses throughout the set".
I admire art, but I don't admire paying £5 to watch someone point the camera at nice things and forget to tell a story.
There are plenty of directors working today that I find consistently excellent:
David Lynch (now there's a guy that focuses on stylistics)
Coen Bros
Atom Egoyan
Jonathan Glazer
Jean Pierre Jeunet
Luc Besson
Movies are a personal preference.
And, this made me chuckle, I am the 1st person to rail against the summer blockbuster movies (ask around)
I find directors like Simon West and Micheal Bay to be hacks of the highest degree, but that doesn't mean I automatically like the more art-house guys.
So, Special, why don't you tell us what it is about Kubrick that does it for you, rather than just bowl in and sling insults around?
Why Kubrick?
(I'm interested)
Goatboy, do you just hate every popular director? What is it just to be different or something? :-)
The Shinning is a great film.
I think he's not bad, not brillant, not terrible.
The Clockwork Orange... classic book my foot, its awful.
Mates love the guy so all I know is 2 or 3 films by the guy and their ove for him, so to say.
I think he's not bad, not brillant, not terrible.
The Clockwork Orange... classic book my foot, its awful.
Mates love the guy so all I know is 2 or 3 films by the guy and their ove for him, so to say.
Yah.
Strangelove was top, loved George C Scott and Peter Sellers in it. The mad German Scientist was awesome with his unable-to-control-right arm saluting.
However, Eyes Wide Shut was a tortorous exercise in self-relief and 2001 had monkeys in at the start.
The rest of Kubrick's stuff I can take or leave, but he's one of those "untouchables" that you aren't allowed to say "Umm, he made generally boring movies"
Ooops, er...Dude Where's My Car?
Strangelove was top, loved George C Scott and Peter Sellers in it. The mad German Scientist was awesome with his unable-to-control-right arm saluting.
However, Eyes Wide Shut was a tortorous exercise in self-relief and 2001 had monkeys in at the start.
The rest of Kubrick's stuff I can take or leave, but he's one of those "untouchables" that you aren't allowed to say "Umm, he made generally boring movies"
Ooops, er...Dude Where's My Car?
Page: