| Antidepressant Medications Handle stress, elevate the mood, treat anxiety disorders. | Shared Movies Over 80 Million Movies and TV-Shows No Charge per movie, No download limit! | Casino Classic Best Online Casino! Get $500 free on the house! | Weight Loss Supplements Natural supplements that burn body fat, suppress appetite and support a healthy diet. |
|
Posted at December 31, 1969, 6:00 pm: Quote: Originally Posted by OG- How can a movie that was a essentially a critical disaster be considered overrated? That just doesn't make any sense And for the record, I do think Eyes Wide Shut is hands down Kubrick's best film. Even with its lengthy running time every single frame of the film is engaging. The music alone is a work of genius. It is sexy as hell and I agree with whatever critic coined the phrase that "it is the Citizen Kane of our time". Not to mention it has some of the best cinematography in the history of film . I thought the cinematography was average at best, the film is engaging, but so are indie movies like off the map Quote: Originally Posted by OG- I disagree with you, ObiWanShinobi, heavily that Eyes Wide Shut loses any of its power simply because we already know that 'politicians have sex in secret societies' - if that's all you got away from the film then you are way too dismisive. Firstly, that isn't what the film is about. It isn't some declarative statement that functions to introduce us to secret societies all around us. The secret society in the film is entirely auxillary in my opinion Eyes Wide Shut is about marriage. It is about clinging on, about championing life, the indidvidual and the relationship. It isn't about secret societies and it isn't about shocking people . Apparently you didn't read the message, like a clockwork orange, the shocking imagery was a huge part about making the movie. This is a point the original author made about the subject, he didn't refer it back to your poitn about marriage Which, by the way, has been done by many films, why does it take Stanley Kubrick creating a semi thriller about peopel having sex in order to understand that concept. it doesn't at all, so to say that the secret society political overtone is not a part of the movie is to announce to the wordl that you are a moron. Quote: Originally Posted by OG- Furthermore, the reason it does get prasie (which is not universally the case, hence looping back to how I don't understand it could even be considered overrated in the first case because it was critically poorly rated) isn't because it has Kubrick's name on it, it is because Kubrick is one helluva filmmaker. Call him by any other name and his movies would be just as good, which is quite the opposite of what can be side about Tarantino, who you so clumsly lumped Kubrick in with. Not to mention that you shouldn't think for a second that Kubrick and Tarantino are the only directors whose names can sell a movie. I thought That Full Metal Jacket was badly acted and a ClockWork Orange lost alot of it's luster, I still think he is a good director. But everyone says Kubrick like they say Hitchock and Spielberg, because everyone is a poser Ebert wanting to tell other people what they like and do not like based on a superior critic's standard Kubrick and Tarantino are the only living people that can sell a movie if their name is on the poster, more people would throw their noses up at ridley scott or steven spielberg than would go and watch a movie with their name on it Yea, the cinematography no, the ulterior purpose of the film, maybe. That still doesn't change the fact that it was another statement by him to demonstrate horrors of the world as in a clockwork orange. This point is undeniable, becuase the socioeconomic landscape of the underground was pointed out numerous times throughout the movie as a way of demonstrating just exactly how powerful it was Important to note, as well, is that all of his famous movies (including 2001, which was based off the Sentinel) were adapted from books. This ulterior point means that he is responsible for transferring the film onto screen, but it means he does not make the point itself. Instead of slapping his name all over something to get the righteous cash, maybe some of the deep thinking and provoking things should be attributed to the actual creators of the story Also, morons who love kubrick are oftentimes artsy fartsy snobs who consider drama the real deal, and other genres, such as horror and science fiction, are for noobs. Yet, for reasons stranger to me than the question of life itself, they love both 2001, strangelove, and the shining. I realize this speaks only for a certain amount of people, but I've seen and talked to them. Many believe that the shining was an original non adapted script and therefore classic, while they call stephen king's novels trash It's all hillarious Anyways, I'm definetly sure that his films are meant to shock you, every single one of them. It's not his goal just to shock you the whole way, but rather to convey a point of a story in the best way told possible But while Kubrick will be the king of adaptations, and his film style is great. He is a movie maker, not a point maker, the point only goes so far as to demonstrate how well he translates it onscreen Well, hitchcock might be better at translating adaptations, but they are both great, but they both do adaptations. Original of the message was taken from http://www.movieforums.com/community/ Previous Post: this movie, more than any other, taught me the lesson of why you shoul... Next Post: I'm not gon spend too long replying to your immense post (obiwanshinob... |