Having seen all of these in the last two years, and the essential ones recently, I feel I can now accurately rank the Stanley Kubrick films I've seen, in terms of my subjective favor.
1. 2001: A Space Odyssey
2. The Shining
3. Eyes Wide Shut
4. Dr. Strangelove
5. A Clockwork Orange
6. Full Metal Jacket
Actually, there has been much more inner conflict than expected. Do I really like this director? Can I even consider any but the 1st and the 4th good movies? Can FMJ really be that bad? I have a surprisingly weak hold on how I feel about Kubrick. I'd say, tentatively, that these are my quality-ratings of the films, chronologically:
Dr. Strangelove (1964): 3.5/4
2001 (1968): 4/4
A Clockwork Orange (1971): 2.5/4
The Shining (1980): 3.5/4
Full Metal Jacket (1987): 2/4
Eyes Wide Shut (1999): 2/4
Yet I call him a great filmmaker... I suppose for his artistry. Whether they're good films or not (and he has some definite ones) they have the element. I suppose I like the director a lot.
Saturday, January 23, 2016
A Clockwork Orange
I'm not sure how good of a film this is. I generally enjoyed it. Ebert despises Kubrick for placing any shard of heroism on Alex, and for assuming that the audience will be pleased with the ending, the return to treachery. He wasn't. I was! Parts of this movie seem amazing; parts disgusting; and parts altogether weak, and boring, and without purpose. I'll call this a poor film but for its invention, namely visual style, musical element, and lingual brilliance by Burgess. I have read the book, and I do consider the language wonderful and fascinating. Kubrick's dealing of the first part of the movie is tremendous and innovative. The rest of it falls short, some of it tiring, most of it aimless. I didn't see much Kubrick in this film, unfortunately. There's the classical music and the grotesque and the pairing of the two, but I'd have taken pleasure in a stronger personal stamp from the great filmmaker.
My first experience of the film was magical. My second was gutwrenching and awful. My third - and here we are - was mildly amusing.
2/4, for the legend Kubrick's outfield project.
My first experience of the film was magical. My second was gutwrenching and awful. My third - and here we are - was mildly amusing.
2/4, for the legend Kubrick's outfield project.
Friday, January 22, 2016
Well, Tracks Seems Like A Very Mediocre Movie!
Tracks seems like a very mediocre movie! 15 minutes in, and not even Wasikowska's bright and shining face can save this doomed biography!
(Biography has quickly become my most-despised genre; not because it produces the worst films, but because it is an inherent thwarting of some often -serious- filmmaking potential. Comparable is novel-adaptation and true-event-adaptation)
(Biography has quickly become my most-despised genre; not because it produces the worst films, but because it is an inherent thwarting of some often -serious- filmmaking potential. Comparable is novel-adaptation and true-event-adaptation)
Quantum of Solace
FUCK everyone calling Quantum of Solace a crappy film! Can we really not differentiate expectations from experience? Imagine all of the endless flak these people have gotten, simply because this film has an older brother who excelled more.
I would threaten to call this a better Bond film than was Spectre, and probably Skyfall too. I don't need Oscar-winner-villains, not in the slightest; this film had pure government intelligence, action, a modest but effective villain--- this is real James Bond, not like the senseless one-upping of late. Skyfall and Spectre are on a substance-less and misguided mission to top everything that came before, and sacrifice a plain good film in the process. Quantum is a plain good Bond film, like Casino Royale, only the latter just had a greater villain, an awesome poker backdrop, etc etc.... The two share much, and, as I reflect more, I wonder why Casino Royale is the god and Quantum is the bastard child. I see them as two of the same sort, and it frustrates me that Quantum is so degraded. I love Casino Royale, love it to a distant end, but it is not an inherently better film than Quantum of Solace. It executes some classic Bond elements well, and has a better premise, but it was also the first in the series-- it had the whole world to work with. Quantum has to carry on the story and mood but with more limited material, and plus it has to traverse the awkward bridge to a new director... But it does it all well! It can't be better than its predecessor, but it's quite a valuable continuation of the former!
I thought that this movie gave a very solid experience. That last big scene, in the hotel in the desert... Absolutely tremendous!! If I'm not mistaken there's a moment when Bond accepts his coming death and decides to shoot his companion in the head! Are you kidding me?! This is after some spectacular fighting, some awesome environment destruction, which felt a whole lot less shallow than it does in most action films nowadays...
I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. I think it's probably more fulfilling than the two recent ones. It's obviously not perfect -- I didn't like how Bond had to have a fight scene in every possible mode of transportation, I didn't like the 2-second camera cuts, I didn't love the ending.... But I loved seeing classic old Bond.... And that's the core of this statement I'm trying to make, THIS is classic Bond, Skyfall and Spectre do not belong, but more importantly-- it is classic Bond which is most fulfilling to watch, and this film was more fulfilling to watch.
I loved the fighting, loved the intelligence, liked Olga a lot, loved seeing Bond young and rogue and clearly the best agent in the world. There's nothing more valuable.
I would threaten to call this a better Bond film than was Spectre, and probably Skyfall too. I don't need Oscar-winner-villains, not in the slightest; this film had pure government intelligence, action, a modest but effective villain--- this is real James Bond, not like the senseless one-upping of late. Skyfall and Spectre are on a substance-less and misguided mission to top everything that came before, and sacrifice a plain good film in the process. Quantum is a plain good Bond film, like Casino Royale, only the latter just had a greater villain, an awesome poker backdrop, etc etc.... The two share much, and, as I reflect more, I wonder why Casino Royale is the god and Quantum is the bastard child. I see them as two of the same sort, and it frustrates me that Quantum is so degraded. I love Casino Royale, love it to a distant end, but it is not an inherently better film than Quantum of Solace. It executes some classic Bond elements well, and has a better premise, but it was also the first in the series-- it had the whole world to work with. Quantum has to carry on the story and mood but with more limited material, and plus it has to traverse the awkward bridge to a new director... But it does it all well! It can't be better than its predecessor, but it's quite a valuable continuation of the former!
I thought that this movie gave a very solid experience. That last big scene, in the hotel in the desert... Absolutely tremendous!! If I'm not mistaken there's a moment when Bond accepts his coming death and decides to shoot his companion in the head! Are you kidding me?! This is after some spectacular fighting, some awesome environment destruction, which felt a whole lot less shallow than it does in most action films nowadays...
I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. I think it's probably more fulfilling than the two recent ones. It's obviously not perfect -- I didn't like how Bond had to have a fight scene in every possible mode of transportation, I didn't like the 2-second camera cuts, I didn't love the ending.... But I loved seeing classic old Bond.... And that's the core of this statement I'm trying to make, THIS is classic Bond, Skyfall and Spectre do not belong, but more importantly-- it is classic Bond which is most fulfilling to watch, and this film was more fulfilling to watch.
I loved the fighting, loved the intelligence, liked Olga a lot, loved seeing Bond young and rogue and clearly the best agent in the world. There's nothing more valuable.
Wednesday, January 20, 2016
Birdman
Birdman is, within my current realm of appreciation, easily one of the greatest films I have ever seen. A fourth viewing found me baffled, moment after moment after convention-shattering moment, as to how these writers possibly made this picture work, generating something so utterly perfect and beautiful. Every element is perfect, everything is cohesive, everything is meaningful, everything beautiful-- the greatest orchestration of a film I have ever seen.
Again, through my current critical eyes..... I think that this is the most perfect film I have ever seen.
Again, through my current critical eyes..... I think that this is the most perfect film I have ever seen.
Tuesday, January 19, 2016
The Greatest Thing About Kubrick
Exposition of the fear of someone or something mysterious looking at you.
2001: Old Dave in the parlor
The Shining: The bear-costumed man
Eyes Wide Shut: The roomful of masked men
These are for me the most terrifying moments of these films.
There are other instances... Jack at the Gold bar in The Shining, the two masqueraders on the balcony in Eyes Wide Shut..... We could also talk about a particular facial shot that appears frequently and generates an intense unsettling sensation: Alex's introduction at the Korova Milkbar in A Clockwork Orange, Private Pyle in the dripping bathroom in FMJ, Jack Torrance as he shines in the hotel lobby in The Shining, Nick Nightingale as he reveals his secret at the club in Eyes Wide Shut... Or even worse, the shaking eyes: Dave catapulting through the stargate in 2001, the wheelchaired man in Clockwork, Danny shining in The Shining....
Think about Danny with his fear face on, a silent scream during the red elevator sequence. Think about Dave's face, frozen in time during the stargate sequence. Through all of this we see that Stanley Kubrick knows how to induce fear, just through facial images. The most terrifying parts of all of these movies are entirely due to frightening faces, particularly when they are looking right at you.
Saturday, January 16, 2016
Eyes Wide Shut (Kubrick)
One hour in (Friday, 1/15/16):
What a fuckin awesome movie. Tom Cruise is a hero, sort of superman in my eyes. Strong, correct, logical, disturbed, intense --- strong. Little signs of Kubrick slip in, like that first hour of The Shining. The fade-away cuts after nearly-casual dialogues.... but there's always something almost wrong, almost wrong enough to be caught. Things are building, the man's aggression is building, he broke the universe's first attempt to catch him but he's on his way to a full-out submission. It doesn't feel like Kubrick, other than those small signals; it mostly just feels like a film. Somehow there are very few films that can provide an experience like this. I'm all-in -- not sexually, but I want to see how the characters evolve. This is terrific -- I find something amazing in the protagonist, so I am bound to experience the next hour and a half pretty intensely. This should be good; whether it continues tonight or picks up again tomorrow, it should be good.
Other thoughts.... :
As a matter of fact, I see some Jack Torrance mannerisms in Tom Cruise here. Is this intentional? The characters are obviously vastly different, but Kubrick is crafting some similar vibes, and Cruise is really buying in.
Yep, no mistake, it got upsetting. Dr. Bill's first tour through the mansion brought out the demons.
Does everything turn to shit the moment the nude woman speaks to Tom Cruise? I feel like she should not have spoken, for the sake of the quality of the movie.
Monday, 1/18/16:
I would say that this movie gets quite poor in its last half-hour. The best section is the first hour or hour-and-a-half. There are some tremendous elements to this filmmaking. Later, the direction flies off the rails, but not in any thrilling way. There are various meaningless plot twists, some poor drama, a horribly uncomfortable resolution... It twists my insides to hear the husband and wife try to move on past the night and resume a loving marriage -- it makes me cringe to hear the satirical final line of resolution. This film built up insane potential in its first hour--- Kubrick could have cashed in for the climax like he did with 2001, i.e. blow everybody's fucking mind.
All of the unfathomable intensities crafted in the first section begin to fall flat when the nude woman speaks to the male lead, as I expected. In fact, probably the peak of the filmmaking is before he even arrives at the house. It's the massive sexual darkness that's building... It's all behind-the-scenes at this point, just leaking out so dangerously. Once he arrives at the house the sexual element blows up and the focus goes to the drama, which is completely misdirected. From this point on the director doesn't know what he's doing with his script.
Nicole Kidman was fantastic, I thought. Perhaps an even more impressive performance than Tom Cruise. However, I see her as the fucking devil, which is partly why the call-it-even resolution sickens me so.
The movie had some incredible elements. Kubrick is certainly present, until the script is lost. The intensity of the first hour is unequaled by other films.
Monday, 1/18/16:
I would say that this movie gets quite poor in its last half-hour. The best section is the first hour or hour-and-a-half. There are some tremendous elements to this filmmaking. Later, the direction flies off the rails, but not in any thrilling way. There are various meaningless plot twists, some poor drama, a horribly uncomfortable resolution... It twists my insides to hear the husband and wife try to move on past the night and resume a loving marriage -- it makes me cringe to hear the satirical final line of resolution. This film built up insane potential in its first hour--- Kubrick could have cashed in for the climax like he did with 2001, i.e. blow everybody's fucking mind.
All of the unfathomable intensities crafted in the first section begin to fall flat when the nude woman speaks to the male lead, as I expected. In fact, probably the peak of the filmmaking is before he even arrives at the house. It's the massive sexual darkness that's building... It's all behind-the-scenes at this point, just leaking out so dangerously. Once he arrives at the house the sexual element blows up and the focus goes to the drama, which is completely misdirected. From this point on the director doesn't know what he's doing with his script.
Nicole Kidman was fantastic, I thought. Perhaps an even more impressive performance than Tom Cruise. However, I see her as the fucking devil, which is partly why the call-it-even resolution sickens me so.
The movie had some incredible elements. Kubrick is certainly present, until the script is lost. The intensity of the first hour is unequaled by other films.
Friday, January 15, 2016
Primer (Shane Carruth)
Paused after one hour:
Primer is one of the most humble films I've ever seen. Like its internal premise, the film itself looks to be nothing but the garage project of a few friends. But amazingly it has kept me engaged the entire way.
Finish:
I don't think that there is any great cinematic sense or artistry or talent behind this movie-- what it has is a very basic intelligence, and somehow it works out. This movie is alright, and somehow that was enough. The lack of funding and professionalism shows occasionally, making this a flawed and modest film, but the premise (and for me, the scientific dialogue) carries it through. I didn't find it anywhere near as overloaded with technical language as reviews indicated. I thought it was simple and easy-- an uncommonly easy movie experience for a hyperselective consumer of experience like myself.
Viewed Thursday, 1/14/16
Primer is one of the most humble films I've ever seen. Like its internal premise, the film itself looks to be nothing but the garage project of a few friends. But amazingly it has kept me engaged the entire way.
Finish:
I don't think that there is any great cinematic sense or artistry or talent behind this movie-- what it has is a very basic intelligence, and somehow it works out. This movie is alright, and somehow that was enough. The lack of funding and professionalism shows occasionally, making this a flawed and modest film, but the premise (and for me, the scientific dialogue) carries it through. I didn't find it anywhere near as overloaded with technical language as reviews indicated. I thought it was simple and easy-- an uncommonly easy movie experience for a hyperselective consumer of experience like myself.
Viewed Thursday, 1/14/16
Saturday, January 2, 2016
Joy (David O. Russell)
I feel that Joy in its first hour created one of my all-time favorite film characters. You know, some great movies don't have characters-- Joy has a character. I loved with a full heart and mind Jennifer Lawrence as Joy, and written so beautifully by Russell. I want to see this film again if only to observe Lawrence in that incredible first hour.
After that time, however, I got the sense that Russell lost control and the film lost its sparkle. Joy the character seemed to shift unfavorably, and the events of the film took an unfortunate turn for the viewer. Yes, this is based on a true story, but it's a shame that Russell couldn't uphold character consistency and holistic vision consistency with his faithfulness to the source material. This is a huge problem in adaptation cinema. I've said it before, but it disappoints me to say in regards to such an amazing filmmaker. The first hour echoed the inimitable energy and devotion of Silver Linings Playbook and American Hustle. The final hour was a disappointment. Yet the character as she began stands as one who has touched me more than most others in all of film.
After that time, however, I got the sense that Russell lost control and the film lost its sparkle. Joy the character seemed to shift unfavorably, and the events of the film took an unfortunate turn for the viewer. Yes, this is based on a true story, but it's a shame that Russell couldn't uphold character consistency and holistic vision consistency with his faithfulness to the source material. This is a huge problem in adaptation cinema. I've said it before, but it disappoints me to say in regards to such an amazing filmmaker. The first hour echoed the inimitable energy and devotion of Silver Linings Playbook and American Hustle. The final hour was a disappointment. Yet the character as she began stands as one who has touched me more than most others in all of film.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)