TV/Movies Megathread

[Ideologue]

OK, I'm done.

[Eddie Teach]

Hitchcock's gotta include The Birds, say what you will about quality, in name recognition it's up there with Psycho and Vertigo.

[CountDeMoney]

Stanley Kubrick is as overrated by his fanbois as Nietzche is by the 18-21 sullen white boys demographic pissed about their high school girlfriends not wanting to make the whole "long distance" thing work in college.

[Habbaku]

Will you knock it the fuck off with the editing already?  You make Valmy look like he's taking his Ritalin.

What are you talking about Valmy uses all the grammar he needs to and is a really nice guy to boot jerk.

[CountDeMoney]

Will you knock it the fuck off with the editing already?  You make Valmy look like he's taking his Ritalin.

What are you talking about Valmy uses all the grammar he needs to and is a really nice guy to boot jerk.

Valmy edits each post approximately 3.1 times.   

[mongers]

OK, I'm done.

Ide, you should get this:

'Werner Herzog and Klaus Kinski: A Film Legacy'

Aguirre, The Wrath of God in Full Frame Presentation (1.33:1)
Woyzeck in Anamorphic Widescreen (1.85:1)
Cobra Verde in Anamorphic Widescreen (1.77:1)
Nosferatu in Anamorphic Widescreen (1.85:1) - German Language Fitzcarraldo in Anamorphic Widescreen (1.85:1)
My Best Fiend in Anamorphic Widescreen (1.77:1)

http://www.amazon.com/Werner-Herzog-Klaus-Kinski-Legacy/dp/B00005YKXQ/ref=sr_1_2?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1350844613&sr=1-2&keywords=Werner+Herzog

I'm just about to order it, if I can find a uk supplier.

[Habbaku]

Will you knock it the fuck off with the editing already?  You make Valmy look like he's taking his Ritalin.

What are you talking about Valmy uses all the grammar he needs to and is a really nice guy to boot jerk.

Valmy edits each post approximately 3.1 times.   

All that and he still can't find the comma. 

[katmai]

Will you knock it the fuck off with the editing already?  You make Valmy look like he's taking his Ritalin.

What are you talking about Valmy uses all the grammar he needs to and is a really nice guy to boot jerk.

Valmy edits each post approximately 3.1 times.   

Still better than MBM's 42 times.

[Ideologue]

Stanley Kubrick is as overrated by his fanbois as Nietzche is by the 18-21 sullen white boys demographic pissed about their high school girlfriends not wanting to make the whole "long distance" thing work in college.

I never liked Nietzche.

Anyway, I think you're pretty off base.  I can't speak to Fear and Desire, Killer's Kiss, The Killing, Lolita, or Barry Lyndon, but I've never seen a bad Stanley Kubrick movie other than AI, which I still think is pretty good to have been made by a dead guy, whereas it's very difficult to argue that Paths of Glory, Spartacus, Dr. Strangelove, 2011, A Clockwork Orange, and the first half of Full Metal Jacket are not excellent.  That's five and a half excellent films.  That's pretty good.

For what it's worth, I think the last half of Full Metal Jacket approaches excellence.

Further, the Shining is widely considered excellent, and though it shouldn't be, all but one of its weaknesses are inherent to the source material (the eponymous Shining is, truthfully, a really incongruous and terrible interference, at least for my enjoyment of the movie), with the remaining major flaw a script problem (even if you pretend the Shining doesn't exist, the unlocking of the pantry door objectively establishes the existence of the supernatural in a movie that had heretofore masterfully played it ambiguous).  Nevertheless, it's still excellently directed.

Then there's Eyes Wide Shut, which isn't widely considered excellent, though it should be.  It's about fucking.  You should like it.

Beyond all that, Kubrick's movies aren't just art house curios, either.  They're beloved.  They're watched by everyone, forever remembered, endlessly, perhaps even sometimes tiresomely, quoted, and irrevocably established in the Western critical and popular canon.  That says something about the quality of the films that they're not just important and influential and masterfully constructed and blah blah blah; but they are richly entertaining on a very basic level.

So I don't think you can really overrate Stanley Kubrick, at least if you're not being hyperbolic and saying that he could do no wrong.  His reputation is fully deserved, both objectively, as wekk as comparatively--there's not many directors who have a more consistently great body of work.  He made a fair number of movies, and just about all of them for a quarter-century year stretch are great or border on greatness (again, with the caveat that I've neglected the protoype three, Lolita, and Lyndon--the first three because they're old and I never got around to it, Lolita for no obvious reason, and Lyndon because I will be the first to admit that shit looks boring).

Who else can claim that?  Not Spielberg or Zemeckis* or Nolan in the popular field,** and probably, I'd expect, not Bergman or Allen or Malick in more hifalutin circles.***

*I keep forgetting that Robert Zemeckis' 20th century output includes some really good stuff.  Is Contact the most underrated movie of all time?  It may be.  I'm looking forward to seeing Flight, which hopefully is a return to form.  It appears to be about Denzel Washington's character from Training Day flying a plane.
**Maybe John Carpenter from Halloween up through Mouth of Madness?   But Kubrick died before he started making really shitty movies, and that always helps.
***Disclosure: I don't know shit about Bergman.  Saw Seventh Seal and it annoyed me.  I mean, parts are excellent, and much of the imagery is indelible and iconic.  But every scene that does not feature Antonius Block is staggeringly dull.  I wish he'd slaughtered the traveling actors.  I'm not sure how that would've fit into the plot, but wouldn't that have been great?  I think Aronofsky has a shot at being as consistently as great a director as Kubrick--you have Pi, Requiem, The Fountain, Black Swan and YES I KNOW I need to watch the Wrestler. We'll see once his remake of Evan Almighty comes out.

[The Brain]

"wekk"? Maybe you should edit your posts.

[Ideologue]

OK, I'm done.

Ide, you should get this:

'Werner Herzog and Klaus Kinski: A Film Legacy'

Aguirre, The Wrath of God in Full Frame Presentation (1.33:1)
Woyzeck in Anamorphic Widescreen (1.85:1)
Cobra Verde in Anamorphic Widescreen (1.77:1)
Nosferatu in Anamorphic Widescreen (1.85:1) - German Language Fitzcarraldo in Anamorphic Widescreen (1.85:1)
My Best Fiend in Anamorphic Widescreen (1.77:1)

http://www.amazon.com/Werner-Herzog-Klaus-Kinski-Legacy/dp/B00005YKXQ/ref=sr_1_2?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1350844613&sr=1-2&keywords=Werner+Herzog

I'm just about to order it, if I can find a uk supplier.

One of these days I'm gonna dig into some Herzog.  I'm just not sure when.  There's Planet of the Apes sequels to watch.

[Ideologue]

"wekk"? Maybe you should edit your posts.

[The Brain]

Kubrick's greatness is indicated by the fact that he made milestone movies in so many different genres. He did one of the most famous comedies (Dr. Strangelove), SF movies (2001), war movies (Full Metal Jacket), horror movies (The Shining), gay movies (Spartacus) etc.

[CountDeMoney]

Anyway, I think you're pretty off base.  I can't speak to Fear and Desire, Killer's Kiss, The Killing, Lolita, or Barry Lyndon, but I've never seen a bad Stanley Kubrick movie other than AI, which I still think is pretty good to have been made by a dead guy, whereas it's very difficult to argue that Paths of Glory, Spartacus, Dr. Strangelove, 2011, A Clockwork Orange, and the first half of Full Metal Jacket are not excellent.  That's five and a half excellent films.  That's pretty good.

I think you're off base.  You're obviously too entranced by static wide shots to notice his declining ability to edit properly in his last works.

LOL, speaking of editing:  2011. 

For what it's worth, I think the last half of Full Metal Jacket approaches excellence.

Fortunately, the rest of western civilization disagrees with you, as the first half was the best and only half.

Further, the Shining is widely considered excellent, and though it shouldn't be, all but one of its weaknesses are inherent to the source material (the eponymous Shining is, truthfully, a really incongruous and terrible interference, at least for my enjoyment of the movie), with the remaining major flaw a script problem (even if you pretend the Shining doesn't exist, the unlocking of the pantry door objectively establishes the existence of the supernatural in a movie that had heretofore masterfully played it ambiguous).  Nevertheless, it's still excellently directed.

Then there's Eyes Wide Shut, which isn't widely considered excellent, though it should be.  It's about fucking.  You should like it.

Kubrick benefited by actors such as Douglas, Nicholson, HAL and Sellers and their ability to frame the scene on the strength of their own acting ability, not the other way around.  While Kubrick can get kudos for letting actors do their thing by providing a sterile scene, setting up the camera and letting them go is no great accomplishment, particularly for someone who nitpicked endlessly over the myth of the "perfect shot".  He is the very definition of a passive director.

Beyond all that, Kubrick's movies aren't just art house curios, either.  They're beloved.  They're watched by everyone, forever remembered, endlessly, perhaps even sometimes tiresomely, quoted, and irrevocably established in the Western critical and popular canon.  That says something about the quality of the films that they're not just important and influential and masterfully constructed and blah blah blah; but they are richly entertaining on a very basic level.

I stand by my statement.  Overrated and overworshipped, the dramatic equivalents of Monty Python sketches: better appreciated the first and only time, not endlessly, even sometimes tiresomely, quoted by retardo Comic Book Store Guy fanbois.

So I don't think you can really overrate Stanley Kubrick, at least if you're not being hyperbolic and saying that he could do no wrong.  His reputation is fully deserved, both objectively, as wekk as comparatively--there's not many directors who have a more consistently great body of work.  He made a fair number of movies, and just about all of them for a quarter-century year stretch are great or border on greatness (again, with the caveat that I've neglected the protoype three, Lolita, and Lyndon--the first three because they're old and I never got around to it, Lolita for no obvious reason, and Lyndon because I will be the first to admit that shit looks boring).

Yes, and as you have neglected a substantial body of his work in defending somebody "watched by everyone", when he apparently hasn't been because they're "old", etc, I'm going to ignore your use of nifty words like "eponymous".

[Josephus]

I got that Kubrick set last year and it's fucking awesome.

The only movie I'm not a huge fan of is Barry Lydon. I know, I know it takes place during the Seven Years War and as a Languishite, that alone should make me cum, but I found it's a terribly slow-paced movie. Two viewings of it and I can't shake that feeling. It's a beautiful film. But ultimatley boring.

The rest of the movies in that set are all amongst my fave. Even Eyes Wide which was highly criticized is actually a pretty good film that holds up to repeated viewings. PLus it has Nicole Kidman in various shades of undress.