Black Cat Bone

Or so the reviewer in the Guardian posits.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmbl ... an-kubrick

As Mrs. F will shortly be visiting her family for the next month, I'll be spending quite a bit of time down at the local fleapit. Given that CN apparently manages to cover the whole story in 106-minutes rather than his usual 3-hours plus, this will almost certainly one of the films I'll be going to see.

Why do people keep mentioning Kubrick in relation to Nolan?

It does him no favours.

Emperor's new clothes as far as I'm concerned. Nolan isn't half as big and clever as his fans make out. His last few have been vastly overated and basically nonsense.

Looking forward to it, I read both the good and bad reviews and to be honest the bad reviews were hardly that damning.

bingo

He's done some good stuff (Memento, Dark Knight) but some have tried to elevate him to the level of "great" when he clearly isn't (so far anyway).

It's just a bit odd

Goat Boy wrote:He's done some good stuff (Memento, Dark Knight) but some have tried to elevate him to the level of "great" when he clearly isn't (so far anyway).

It's just a bit odd

I just like him as a director and writer. I guess I find his film interesting and more engaging than the usual film of the genre he's working in.

Goat Boy wrote:Why do people keep mentioning Kubrick in relation to Nolan?

It does him no favours.

I've never seen a Nolan film, probably never will, but I find Kubrick a director to avoid, a man totally without humour (NB not jokes or laffs, there's plenty of them in Strangelove, for instance, although I'm not sure he gets them) whose films are often overlong, and, in the case of 2001 at least, full of dreadful longueurs set to fucking Strauss waltzes.
Haddaway and shite you beardy gloomster

Rayge wrote:
in the case of 2001 at least, full of dreadful longueurs set to fucking Strauss waltzes.

I recorded 2001 to give it my 6th or 7th attempt to watch without giving up half way through.

The Great Defector wrote:

Rayge wrote:
in the case of 2001 at least, full of dreadful longueurs set to fucking Strauss waltzes.

I recorded 2001 to give it my 6th or 7th attempt to watch without giving up half way through.

Save yourself the time. There's nothing there.

Rayge wrote:

Goat Boy wrote:Why do people keep mentioning Kubrick in relation to Nolan?

It does him no favours.

I've never seen a Nolan film, probably never will, but I find Kubrick a director to avoid, a man totally without humour (NB not jokes or laffs, there's plenty of them in Strangelove, for instance, although I'm not sure he gets them) whose films are often overlong, and, in the case of 2001 at least, full of dreadful longueurs set to fucking Strauss waltzes.
Haddaway and shite you beardy gloomster

Well, he's no Mel Brooks. I think something like Barry Lyndon has a certain wry sense of humour about the absurd folly of man but it's not the kind of thing you laugh out loud at.

For years I never saw the appeal of 2001 and then I saw it on the big screen and it blew me away. I was enthralled and exhilarated for the whole thing. It's a cliché but seeing it on the big screen is a different experience to seeing it on yer telly.

Goat Boy wrote:

Rayge wrote:

Goat Boy wrote:Why do people keep mentioning Kubrick in relation to Nolan?

It does him no favours.

I've never seen a Nolan film, probably never will, but I find Kubrick a director to avoid, a man totally without humour (NB not jokes or laffs, there's plenty of them in Strangelove, for instance, although I'm not sure he gets them) whose films are often overlong, and, in the case of 2001 at least, full of dreadful longueurs set to fucking Strauss waltzes.
Haddaway and shite you beardy gloomster

Well, he's no Mel Brooks. I think something like Barry Lyndon has a certain wry sense of humour about the absurd folly of man but it's not the kind of thing you laugh out loud at.

For years I never saw the appeal of 2001 and then I saw it on the big screen and it blew me away. I was enthralled and exhilarated for the whole thing. It's a cliché but seeing it on the big screen is a different experience to seeing it on yer telly.

Full metal jacket has lot of humor. Dark as fuck, but still humor that makes you chuckle in it's context.

Yeah but I'm not sure Kubrick got that. Despite it being his film that he helped co write (like Strangelove)

Goat Boy wrote:Yeah but I'm not sure Kubrick got that. Despite it being his film that he helped co write (like Strangelove)

So he has Aspergers?

It was a reference to this:

I've never seen a Nolan film, probably never will, but I find Kubrick a director to avoid, a man totally without humour (NB not jokes or laffs, there's plenty of them in Strangelove, for instance, although I'm not sure he gets them

The Great Defector wrote:

Goat Boy wrote:Yeah but I'm not sure Kubrick got that. Despite it being his film that he helped co write (like Strangelove)

So he has Aspergers?

Not sure.

While a great director, SK was a total control freak who was even allowed to dictate the size and fonts on the ads for his films that ran in papers from places he'd never, ever get to go to. He was also notorious for getting hundreds and hundreds of takes of blink-and-you'll-miss-it stuff like Tom Cruise walking through a door and into a room.

If you really watch his films, you could make a pretty good argument that they're about control - be it the state in A Clockwork Orange, the army in Paths of Glory and Full Metal Jacket and sexual urges in Lolita and Eyes Wide Shut

There was a book about him a few years ago by an early collaborator on Eyes Wide Shit (easily the worst of his films - for me anyway) that implied he also had some form of chronic OCD. Could have been Derek Malcolm or Malcolm Bradbury who wrote the book but I'd have to check.

Whoever said you need to see 2001 on the big screen is bang on the money though. Even a 55" HD TV doesn't begin to do it justice.

Goat Boy wrote:For years I never saw the appeal of 2001 and then I saw it on the big screen and it blew me away. I was enthralled and exhilarated for the whole thing. It's a cliché but seeing it on the big screen is a different experience to seeing it on yer telly.

I never saw it on the telly. Two viewings on the big screen on the 60s were enough to tell me that I never wanted to see it again. The second time was by far and away the worst experience I( remember in a cinema that didn't involve physical illness

I remember after trying to watch it the first time thinking, that you could take different external shots of the enterprise orbiting a planet and put classical music to it and you'd have about a third of the 2001.

K wrote:The amazing story of Scatman Crothers.

He broke down in tears after Kubrick insisted on 40 takes of the scene where Torrance kills him. "What do you want me to do, Mr Kubrick?" He was 69 years old.
Kubrick had wanted to do more but Jack Nicholson convinced him to call it quits.

Crothers' next film is Eastwood's Bronco Billy. After the first take of his first scene Eastwood says, "OK. That'll do." Crothers broke down in tears of gratitude (or relief).

See, this thing of directors/actors doing 20 or 40 takes, I find it hard to believe that'd down to perfectionism. Rather, deep down, they don't have a fucking clue what they want and are too proud to admit it. I don't care how talented they are.

Rayge wrote:

Goat Boy wrote:For years I never saw the appeal of 2001 and then I saw it on the big screen and it blew me away. I was enthralled and exhilarated for the whole thing. It's a cliché but seeing it on the big screen is a different experience to seeing it on yer telly.

I never saw it on the telly. Two viewings on the big screen on the 60s were enough to tell me that I never wanted to see it again. The second time was by far and away the worst experience I( remember in a cinema that didn't involve physical illness