I still assert that no matter how much more viscerally entertaining the first 1/3 of Full Metal Jacket it, the rest of the film is far more amazing thematically, and it is really experimental in its narrative style as well.

Kubrick is my all-time favorite director.

However, I'm not really interested in anything he's done before Paths of Glory. (Although I'm a little lukewarm towards Barry Lyndon, and probably should give it another chance. After all, one of the most amazing things to me about a Kubrick film is how you typically grow to appreciate it rather than instantly love it with the first viewing.)

I've never seen Fear and Desire, probably because I didn't find anything remotely reminiscent of his directorial style in Killer's Kiss or The Killing. Maybe, like Barry Lyndon, I should watch these movies again, but I remember being so unimpressed with both of them I would really need to bite a bullet to return to them. Any Kubrick lovers hate these? Or perhaps Mindhead or another member can explain to me what I "didn't get"?

The Killing is thematically very similar to Kubrick's later films.

I suggest you definitely give The Killing another chance. I agree that Killer's Kiss is pretty much a throw away....and I have not seen Fear and Desire myself....and may never since it will probably never be available on dvd (Kubrick pretty much disowned the film).

So I take it no one considers "A.I." as one of Kubrick's films?

He didn't write the script and didn't direct. He didn't even really produce, even though he got an honorary credit. So I would say a conditional NO.

Hope folks got to see 2001 in the theater. If you EVER get the chance, you have to see that one in a cinema. On the big screen it looks totally real and it's very easy to get caught up in it.

I definitely don't consider A.I. a Kubrick film, but it is a semi-bastard child with many many Kubrick influences, both techincally and in the story itself. I don't really like the movie but as a Kubrick nut I find it a facinating experiment.

I just watched Eyes Wide Shut for the first time, and I don't know what all the ruckus was about, because I didn't think it was that hard to *get*. Since no one else blatantly laid it out for the people that think this is a movie about sex:



If I want to see a sex movie, I'll whip out a Jenna Jameson (no pun intended). A huge orgy at the sex house would have added absolutely nothing for me.

For those interested:

Eyes Wide Shut - A Critical Reevaluation

I would've liked to have seen what Kubrick would have edited out or into Eyes Wide Shut had he lived longer.

That is if he wasn't done yet as some have speculated.

Also, wondering if there will ever be a widescreen dvd of this...kinda ridiculous i think.

If that last line is a joke, pardon me for answering. But Kubrick framed his movies for 4:3 aspect ratio, also with an eye for 1:85.1 presentation so the film could be matted in the theatrical presentation. But the 4:3 is his intended composition, so I don't expect to see widescreen versions for any of his films (save for 2001), because 4:3 is the OAR.

this thread reminds me, I have to watch Paths of Glory tonight for my film class. I almost forgot!

Good read, really interesting.

I'm definitely in the "subtler psychological interpretation" camp, but I usually just totally ignore all the symbolism in films - haven't really seen enough to go back and sort through it all with multiple viewings.

The problem with I have with this (the intended?) interpretation is that it basically says, "here's our culture, you've seen it before," yet expects the viewer to "open it's eyes" and somehow realize how just horribly wrong everything in this world is, how we're all "****ed."

I'd really rather have gone without thinking of this film as cultural satire. Humans are immoral? No...get out of town. Powerful people buy and sell ordinary people? Wow, what a relevation. Consumerism and no-strings-attached sex are prevelant in society? Again, wow, never whudda thunk it. It's just that so many philosophers have called for higher ethical standards in the past 2500 years that the soap-box is a tad trite at this point...What am I supposed to do? "Open my eyes" to the evils of the rich and then pump my fist in the air while sitting in my room in front of my television?

I don't need some multi-millionaire director making a multi-million dollar movie with multi-millionaire actors telling me about the evils of multi-millionaires. It's really kind of comical if you ask me me...

Although I will agree that pound for pound Barry Lyndon is probably his best-made film all-around, I would never watch it repeatedly and as many times as I do The Killing, Paths of Glory, Dr. Strangelove, Clockwork and 2001. Funny, huh?

Not really funny. I find myself watching Barry Lyndon quite a number of times. I think it has something do with that score. Although I recognize 2001 as a masterpiece, I find it a chore to sit through more than half of the movie. The other films get frequent viewings.

Just a question here about the EWS aspect ratio. I know that it was shot 1.33:1, and the only available version on DVD (as far as I know), is that ratio, but was that how it was in the theatres? I ask this because I'm watching it again, and I really can't see this film having any other AR.

Theatrically it was shown at 1.85:1

Ok, how did EWS look, was it better, worse, or just different? And do you know any place where I could see the comparisons? I'm assuming you saw it.

If i am not mistaken Kubrick made the oar for his movies(full metal jacket and eyes wide shut) 4:3 because he did'nt like the way his movies like 2001 looked on tv when they where leterboxed,now that everyone is getting widescreen tv's do you think he might have changed his mind if he would have lived?

In answer to NEUMANN, I think he would have. Kubrick always seemed to support new technologies, he would certainly use anything that would help him get his vision over.

Actually I think the better question would be is if he would abandon film for digital. That one is a really hard question and I don't think any could say for sure. BUT if I had to guess I would say he would.

Check this out :
http://www.dvdweb.co.uk/new/review.asp?mainID=21

His films gets better with age...IMHO :)