fake, false and genuwine!!!

Started by aclockworkjj, August 23, 2003, 05:35:33 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages 1 2
User actions

Gold Trumpet

#15
August 27, 2003, 09:38:03 PM
I don't understand the argument against Kubrick's Lolita. Sure, he failed to capture the sexual obcession as seen in the book because of the times he was making the film in. Given the 90s version only goes into the sexual obcession and little else, Kubrick's version seems priceless because of how disposable it is to be able to capture "sexual obcession" these days. When every soft core porn running on cinemax can do that, priorities must be set on what is more important to delve into when adapting a book. Kubrick made the right choice.

~rougerum

The Perineum Falcon

#16
August 28, 2003, 12:21:06 AM
Didn't Kubrick say that if he knew it would've been so much trouble to make then he probably wouldn't have made it at all?
So, I'm not so sure Kubrick wanted it to be so subtle to begin with.
We often went to the cinema, the screen would light up and we would tremble, but also, increasingly often, Madeleine and I were disappointed. The images had dated, they jittered, and Marilyn Monroe had gotten terribly old. We were sad, this wasn't the film we had dreamed of, this wasn't the total film that we all carried around inside us, this film that we would have wanted to make, or, more secretly, no doubt, that we would have wanted to live.

bonanzataz

#17
August 28, 2003, 12:42:23 AM
who gives a shit, lolita's the bomb. i think it's one of the funniest movies i own. some of the pearls in that movie are just laugh out loud. i have to watch it again now.
The corpses all hang headless and limp bodies with no surprises and the blood drains down like devil's rain we'll bathe tonight I want your skulls I need your skulls I want your skulls I need your skulls Demon I am and face I peel to see your skin turned inside out, 'cause gotta have you on my wall gotta have you on my wall, 'cause I want your skulls I need your skulls I want your skulls I need your skulls collect the heads of little girls and put 'em on my wall hack the heads off little girls and put 'em on my wall I want your skulls I need your skulls I want your skulls I need your skulls

jokerspath

#18
August 28, 2003, 10:06:36 AM
Quote from: bonanzatazwho gives a shit, lolita's the bomb. i think it's one of the funniest movies i own. some of the pearls in that movie are just laugh out loud. i have to watch it again now.

Ya, no joke, Sellars was fucking gifted.  He gets me lifted and spliffted (don't ask me why I just said that)...

We're talking about one of the best books of the 20th century (you heard me right).  Its gonna be hard to capture everything Nabokov was getting at, and if you look at it objectively, it can be seen as a book-to-movie failure.  But hot damn if its not a fine funny little film.  

aw
THIS IS NOT AN EXIT

cowboykurtis

#19
August 28, 2003, 10:17:20 AM
i saw the shining when i was 10 -- changed my life -- tis what made me want to make movies for the rest of my life -- still my favorite film -- kubrick is still my favorite director -- in my opinion he argueably has the greatest body of work out of any director in cinema history.
...your excuses are your own...

mutinyco

#20
August 28, 2003, 09:33:02 PM
I always thought his films were too specific, too divisive to have fake fans.
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

Pubrick

#21
August 28, 2003, 10:22:16 PM
he's the best, i've always known it, others take a while to come around. but eventually everyone, even the phonies, will genuinely realise why and just how great he was. could be for just a fleeting moment, but everybody knows.
under the paving stones.

aclockworkjj

#22
August 29, 2003, 02:58:53 PM
I completely forgot to mention 2001...that is another one I like, but can only watch it every once in a while.  I wonder though, what it would been like if he did it more recently.  The movie is ahead of it's time to begin with.  And I wonder what kinda special effects he woulda maybe taken advantage of in a more recent decade...

cine

#23
September 21, 2003, 04:46:12 AM
Scorsese is sort of known as the director who makes movies where if you mute the film, you'll still really enjoy it. I don't think people say that about Kubrick and they should. His camera tells one helluva great story, sound on or off. The soundtrack is probably the greatest element to his films so when you think about it, if you can eliminate that and still really enjoy it, that's saying something.
It's how he establishes shots and frames faces, how the films are photographed.. The power of 2001 for me comes from Strauss, but without it I could really really admire it as a silent film. Dr. Strangelove would still be hilarious to me for its images and facial expressions from the actors (George C. Scott especially). Kubrick's films have such memorable images that his filmmaking just sticks in your head like glue. That makes him great and there shouldn't be one fake out there.
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2
User actions