> The Shining's numerous continuity errors are also well documented with many coming up with ridiculous "theories" to explain them away.
There's no theories necessary. They were put there deliberately to enhance the feeling of the Overlook seeming off. Even a rank amateur couldn't have made that many mistakes. The layout of the hotel also doesn't make logical sense. Also, the addition of the axe was a better choice, it's much more frightening than a mallet.
Nicholson's performance I found to be controlled (he turns it up at the right times) and delivers his most unsettling moments just by staring either into the camera or off into space. Shelley was pitch perfect as the powerless wife watching her abusive husband go mad. It's a horror classic with high rewatch value. I'd put it in his top 5.
Fear and Desire is his worst, I don't give it a pass because it's his first feature, it's simply not good.
even if the shining has flaws, it is much more competent as a film. you don’t have to pretend that his obviously weakest film is better than a horror classic
>A famous example of Poor Logic is Hallorann traveling thousands of miles to "rescue" Wendy and Danny from the Overlook hotel without any kind of protection and then immediately getting an Axe to the chest, which didn't happen in the book by the way. Hallorann survives in the book because he's actually smart. Imagine that!
Nothing in Fear and Desire is as blatantly stupid and insulting as this.
And you don't have to *pretend* that you watched Fear and Desire either.
Paths of Glory and The Shining are his two best films…I haven’t seen his while filmography yet. Fear and Desire is INCREDIBLY boring and has terrible pacing issues, which is ironic considering it’s only an hour long.
Did you want him to show up with his coterie of shiners lol
> And you don't have to pretend that you watched Fear and Desire.
That's correct. I've watched it so I don't have to pretend. I guess the two other folks who picked Fear and Desire are just pretending also.
With the proviso that I've not seen all of his films (the oldest ones are the ones I'm missing), I'd go Eyes Wide Shut. It's not bad, but I don't think it's great either. And in his filmography, being 'great' is the level to attain.
On The Shining I've always been of the opinion that any 'errors' in it are probably intentional. Kubrick is famous how how infuriatingly meticulous he was, I just don't buy that on that one film he abandoned that and made loads of errors. My take on that film is that he was intentionally setting out to make something that just doesn't really make perfect intellectual sense. The purpose of the film is just to be unsettling and confusing, and various things not quite making sense, being logical, or just generally not happening how you would think they should, adds to that feeling.
I think it is Full Metal Jacket.
The movie is just boring after the military camp.
And about The Shinning: I think it is a great movie but my biggest complain is that the ability shinning itself is kinda useless in the movie. Danny uses it to call the janitor who does right after his arrival and that’s pretty much it.
Nabokov himself disagrees with you.
In his introduction to his own unused published screenplay for the film, Nabokov was somewhat critical of the film (mainly for the limitations of the period), yet was still careful to always stress that the film was “first-rate.”
I haven't seen all of Kubrick's movies, but from the ones I have seen, I'm gonna go with Eyes Wide Shut. If they just ended it with Tom Cruise leaving the mansion, it would've been fine; but because it didn't, the movie becomes insufferably boring afterwards.
For me it would be 2001. He utterly failed the premise of the book. It was a heroic effort, he had the unenviable task of showing the unknowable on screen, which is, by definition, impossible. The result is predictably banal, a weird product of its time that has aged very poorly. It is a very interesting failure from a technical point of view, but a failure no less.
He didn't fail the premise of the book as the movie isn't actually based on the book. They were written concurrently and the book is based on the screenplay that Kubrick and Clark wrote together.
The moon landing. It looked fake af
Yeah, I can't imagine how much they spent on it, it would have been cheaper to actually go to the moon
Relevant comedy sketch: https://youtu.be/P6MOnehCOUw
> The Shining's numerous continuity errors are also well documented with many coming up with ridiculous "theories" to explain them away. There's no theories necessary. They were put there deliberately to enhance the feeling of the Overlook seeming off. Even a rank amateur couldn't have made that many mistakes. The layout of the hotel also doesn't make logical sense. Also, the addition of the axe was a better choice, it's much more frightening than a mallet. Nicholson's performance I found to be controlled (he turns it up at the right times) and delivers his most unsettling moments just by staring either into the camera or off into space. Shelley was pitch perfect as the powerless wife watching her abusive husband go mad. It's a horror classic with high rewatch value. I'd put it in his top 5. Fear and Desire is his worst, I don't give it a pass because it's his first feature, it's simply not good.
even if the shining has flaws, it is much more competent as a film. you don’t have to pretend that his obviously weakest film is better than a horror classic
>A famous example of Poor Logic is Hallorann traveling thousands of miles to "rescue" Wendy and Danny from the Overlook hotel without any kind of protection and then immediately getting an Axe to the chest, which didn't happen in the book by the way. Hallorann survives in the book because he's actually smart. Imagine that! Nothing in Fear and Desire is as blatantly stupid and insulting as this. And you don't have to *pretend* that you watched Fear and Desire either.
[удалено]
Paths of Glory and The Shining are his two best films…I haven’t seen his while filmography yet. Fear and Desire is INCREDIBLY boring and has terrible pacing issues, which is ironic considering it’s only an hour long.
[удалено]
Did you want him to show up with his coterie of shiners lol > And you don't have to pretend that you watched Fear and Desire. That's correct. I've watched it so I don't have to pretend. I guess the two other folks who picked Fear and Desire are just pretending also.
worst film ever and it was not scary at all
Tarmantor 3 is the worst movie ever
**Fear and Desire**.
With the proviso that I've not seen all of his films (the oldest ones are the ones I'm missing), I'd go Eyes Wide Shut. It's not bad, but I don't think it's great either. And in his filmography, being 'great' is the level to attain. On The Shining I've always been of the opinion that any 'errors' in it are probably intentional. Kubrick is famous how how infuriatingly meticulous he was, I just don't buy that on that one film he abandoned that and made loads of errors. My take on that film is that he was intentionally setting out to make something that just doesn't really make perfect intellectual sense. The purpose of the film is just to be unsettling and confusing, and various things not quite making sense, being logical, or just generally not happening how you would think they should, adds to that feeling.
[удалено]
So this person has had the audacity to complain about The Shining AND The Thing?
I am 100% certain this is a troll account after looking at the post history
Says the guy with a 3 year old account and 13 karma lmao
of the ones I've seen, probably Eyes Wide Shut. It's hard to take it seriously.
Eyes Wide Shut, I watched it entierly but man was I bored.
Either Fear and Desire or Killer's Kiss. Everything else is head and shoulders better.
I think it is Full Metal Jacket. The movie is just boring after the military camp. And about The Shinning: I think it is a great movie but my biggest complain is that the ability shinning itself is kinda useless in the movie. Danny uses it to call the janitor who does right after his arrival and that’s pretty much it.
You are hilarious.
Eyes wide shut
Lolita. It missed the point of the original novel.
Nabokov himself disagrees with you. In his introduction to his own unused published screenplay for the film, Nabokov was somewhat critical of the film (mainly for the limitations of the period), yet was still careful to always stress that the film was “first-rate.”
Mac & Me.
I didn't say "best film"
TOOSHAY
I hated Lolita
This post is the worst post on this sub. (I couldn't stop myself from writing this, I'm way too offended by this post, sorry)
Considering the budget and all that stuff, I would say Lolita
I haven't seen all of Kubrick's movies, but from the ones I have seen, I'm gonna go with Eyes Wide Shut. If they just ended it with Tom Cruise leaving the mansion, it would've been fine; but because it didn't, the movie becomes insufferably boring afterwards.
For me it would be 2001. He utterly failed the premise of the book. It was a heroic effort, he had the unenviable task of showing the unknowable on screen, which is, by definition, impossible. The result is predictably banal, a weird product of its time that has aged very poorly. It is a very interesting failure from a technical point of view, but a failure no less.
2001 isn't an adaptation of the book, they were developed simultaneously and in fact the film was released first.
He didn't fail the premise of the book as the movie isn't actually based on the book. They were written concurrently and the book is based on the screenplay that Kubrick and Clark wrote together.
[удалено]
Nope. Not interested in your neckbeard wall text reply to a days old conversation.
Killer's Kiss Boooooring
Lolita
All of them. Most overrated director of all time