4 ms·

Kubrick’s results were all over the map. He made maybe three great films: Dr. Strangelove Full Metal Jacket A Clockwork Orange A bunch of not bad films: 20

by zoky 2y ago

Kubrick’s results were all over the map. He made maybe three great films: Dr. Strangelove Full Metal Jacket A Clockwork Orange A bunch of not bad films: 2001 Lolita Barry Lyndon The Shining Spartacus One real turd of a film: Eyes Wide Shut And a bunch of forgettable filler: All the other films he made. Compare this to the Anti-Kubrick, Clint Eastwood, who made: Unforgiven Mystic River Million Dollar Baby Letters From Iwo Jima Gran Torino And a bunch of okay films: Pretty much everything else And it’s pretty obvious that you don’t need to be an abusive taskmaster like Kubrick to make great art.

hrhfisk 2y ago
sorry but Eastwood is not in the same league as Kubrick, by a long mile. just ask reddit and reverse the results to know who is better
- fidotron 2y ago
  Note to self: In future it's definitely best to respond to all bait with "just ask reddit".
iknownthing 2y ago
2001 was "not bad"????
- hrhfisk 2y ago
  2001 Lolita Barry Lyndon The Shining Spartacus these "mid" films would be among the top 10 ever easily but according to him "tough" guy Eastwood can surpass it
- gspencley 2y ago
  Jumping into this with a "spicy" personal opinion. How I would rate 2001 depends entirely on my criteria. For cinematography and vfx I would give it an 11 out of 10. Ground breaking. For story and entertainment, I'd give it a -1. It is an anti-film in that sense. The most mind-numbingly boring and drawn out piece of "film" that I have ever had the displeasure of trying to sit through. And I say that as a self-professed film nerd. I admire Kubrick a lot. But I can't stand 2001, at least when I judge it by the same criteria that I judge other films. Film is visual story telling. Emphasis on "story." Putting aside Dave & Hal (which make their appearance so late into the "film" that I've already been asleep for 3 hours - yes I'm exaggerating), when you take away identifiable protaganoists and antagonists, with backstories, goals, motivations and obstacles what you are left with is more of an exhibition. 2001 was more of a 1960s speculative endeavour into humanity's future at the dawn of the space age than it was a story told through imagery. It lacked plot, character development, relatibility and it's pacing was so slow and drawn out that it's hard to maintain your attention throughout. When you judge it for what it was, there is a lot of greatness there. Many of its visual effects were truly groundbreaking and influenced filmmaking for decades to come. But when you compare it to films that you actually want to re-watch for entertainment value ... I would put it in the "awful" category. But that's just my personal opinion.
  - Hikikomori 2y ago
    2001 is art but its also like watching paint dry.
  - iknownthing 2y ago
    > It lacked plot, character development, relatibility Kubrick definitely did not play by those rules.

by zoky 2y ago

hrhfisk 2y ago

sorry but Eastwood is not in the same league as Kubrick, by a long mile. just ask reddit and reverse the results to know who is better

fidotron 2y ago
Note to self: In future it's definitely best to respond to all bait with "just ask reddit".

iknownthing 2y ago

2001 was "not bad"????

hrhfisk 2y ago
2001 Lolita Barry Lyndon The Shining Spartacus these "mid" films would be among the top 10 ever easily but according to him "tough" guy Eastwood can surpass it
gspencley 2y ago
Jumping into this with a "spicy" personal opinion. How I would rate 2001 depends entirely on my criteria. For cinematography and vfx I would give it an 11 out of 10. Ground breaking. For story and entertainment, I'd give it a -1. It is an anti-film in that sense. The most mind-numbingly boring and drawn out piece of "film" that I have ever had the displeasure of trying to sit through. And I say that as a self-professed film nerd. I admire Kubrick a lot. But I can't stand 2001, at least when I judge it by the same criteria that I judge other films. Film is visual story telling. Emphasis on "story." Putting aside Dave & Hal (which make their appearance so late into the "film" that I've already been asleep for 3 hours - yes I'm exaggerating), when you take away identifiable protaganoists and antagonists, with backstories, goals, motivations and obstacles what you are left with is more of an exhibition. 2001 was more of a 1960s speculative endeavour into humanity's future at the dawn of the space age than it was a story told through imagery. It lacked plot, character development, relatibility and it's pacing was so slow and drawn out that it's hard to maintain your attention throughout. When you judge it for what it was, there is a lot of greatness there. Many of its visual effects were truly groundbreaking and influenced filmmaking for decades to come. But when you compare it to films that you actually want to re-watch for entertainment value ... I would put it in the "awful" category. But that's just my personal opinion.
- Hikikomori 2y ago
  2001 is art but its also like watching paint dry.
- iknownthing 2y ago
  > It lacked plot, character development, relatibility Kubrick definitely did not play by those rules.