He only became the legendary director after he died.
It really makes you think.
Shining was not particularly well received.
Full Metal Jacket either
Eyes Wide Shut, even after the fucker died right away, barely received any recognition
Even Barry Lyndon was never considered anything but a pretty picture.
Considering Clockwork Orange was widely controversial you could probably go back to 68 when he made a film that everyone liked and it was even a commercial success.
The point? Fuck opinions.
Other urls found in this thread:
boards.fireden.net
youtu.be
twitter.com
Barry Lyndon is the only good thing you've listed
kys
you have to be a big boy to post here, pee wee
>He only became the legendary director after he died.
Wut.
I remember that 2001 was considered one of the greatest films of all time before he died.
Yeah that's kinda bullshit, but OP is right that most of his post 60s movies took 5-10 years after their release to be considered modern classics.
>He only became the legendary director after he died.
Generally when an artist's work grows in stature after their death its attributed to them being ahead of their time
Academic consensus takes a long time to form, how a piece of art is received in its immediate aftermath tells you nothing of how it will be viewed by history
Remember when he tried to steal writing credits for Spartacus and was only stopped when based
Kirk Douglas intervened?
Remember the only Oscar he got was for special effects from 2001 when he directed nothing of it except for alien ink blots at the end, but still took all the credit?
Congrats on your (You), pic related.
Did I lie?
Are you offended by the truth?
He still is one of the greatest directer who ever lived, but he was still a complete spastic aspie and a thieving jew.
haha yeah the rest is so reddit xD
Oscars don't mean shit
No it isn't, you need to stop being a plebbitor and acknowledge that he has three patrician works.
It meant enough to him to lie to get one and keep it for himself ;^)
I didn't say that, if thats what you think and you're a fan of those pieces of trash then it's very clear that they are
Didn't he just offer to take the credit because nobody else wanted to because real scriptwriter was blacklisted as a communist?
>how to spot the contrarian 23 year old "kinophile"
Maybe, they could have given a fake name, but he prolly worked on it enough to deserve his own writing credit along side Trumbo.
>DA SHINING IS KINEO
>boards.fireden.net
The eternal Sup Forumsedditor strikes again
>mfw I was alive to know about Kube while he was still alive
damn, you newfags would never understand the feelling
There are SO SO many Shining videos on youtube, it's like every nut-job has to make a 50 minute video on it, what is it about that movie that attracts the mentally ill?
One day you'll realize that this "impressive" opinion of yours is moronic as fuck
He was box office actually, and only NYC kike critics hated him
>Playboy: Some prominent critics—including Renata Adler of The New York Times, John Simon of The New Leader, Judith Crist of New York magazine and Andrew Sarris of the Village Voice—apparently felt that 2001 should be among those films still exempted from the category of art; all four castigated it as dull, pretentious, and overlong. How do you account for their hostility?
>Kubrick: The four critics you mention all work for New York publications. The reviews across America and around the world have been ninety-five percent enthusiastic. Some were more perceptive than others, of course, but even those who praised the film on relatively superficial grounds were able to get something of its message. New York was the only really hostile city. Perhaps there is a certain element of the lumpen literati that is so dogmatically atheist and materialist and Earth-bound that is finds the grandeur of space and the myriad mysteries of cosmic intelligence anathema. But film critics, fortunately, rarely have any effect on the general public; houses everywhere are packed and the film is well on its way to becoming the greatest moneymaker in MGM’s history. Perhaps this sounds like a crass way to evaluate one’s work, but I think that, especially with a film that is so obviously different, record audience attendance means people are saying the right things to one another after they see it—and isn’t this really what it’s all about?
>Kubrick was 60's Micheal Bay
lol
But I agree, the same type of materialistic socialist dour fag mentality run the critics today, only more pathetic giving every nigger/Disney shite inflated scores.
what is it in his pictures that makes you come back to them over and over again... they're like an opiate
He put his life essence into his work, and he forced everyone who worked with him to do it too, even against their wishes.
It's pure autism at its finest.
The Shinning is awful, mostly because it's a Stephen King story. The only good part of it it's its technical aspects
Barry Lyndon is great and his 3rd best easily
>there will never be another Kubrick kino
what sort of poor attempt at memery is this godawful picture
its not even funny
What's so awful about The Shining? Elaborate with more than just saying "it's a Stephen King story".
>That movie about Napoleon he planned will never be made
He did use all the research to make Barry Lyndon, so it wasn't a complete loss.
Essentially Barry was a tiny indie mumblecore version of the GRAND historical epic he had planned for Napoleon.
Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut are shit.
>Yeah that's kinda bullshit
Being considered a classic and being successful are two different things, you faggot.
They were all successful except Barry Lyndon. Some faggot reviewers may have taken shots at them, but they were all ultimately proved wrong.
Lyndon only got a second breath recently because of the fad for "unearthing forgotten classics" now that most movies have been quantified to death and critics are struggling for relevance in a world where everyone is a home-cooked film critic, and because BluRay actually allowed home viewers to see how good the visuals really were.
A guy who made flop after flop would never have been given the budgets or control or distribution deals he was given, fucking stupid cunt-for-brains shit eating faggot fuck
>Eyes Wide Shut
shite
>Full Metal Jacket
another soy faggot who can't understand true kino, what a surprise
Theatrical cut of BL is pretty lame, I always thought it was overrated until I saw the actual 3 hour cut.
Man, what a difference.
2bh I don't like him as much now as I used to. He's not even a top 3 American director.
>when based Kirk Douglas intervened?
What did he do? Give Stan the ol' Natalie Wood treatment?
NAME YOUR THREE
Best Kubrick shot
Welles
Griffith
Ford
Scorsese
Coppola (maybe)
not counting people born in other countries that made movies in USA
>Griffith
>Ford
BASED
you all didnt understand. Im saying the recognition he has today as one of the greatest directors of all time was in no way consensual before his death.
kinda.
2001 started to get major recognition in the 90's. you can see this through sight and sound top 10 through decades, where only in 92 it got recognition by the critics. but even then, the directors poll show no kubrick nor 2001.
10 years later, after he died, even dr. strangelove got recognized by the directors as one of the best ever.
2012? Directors put 2001 as the number 2.
Its undeniable his enormous legacy only got recognized after he died.
to be fair 2001 certainly isn't the second best movie ever made
my god, it's full of soybois
Kubrick is too problematic for modern values.
People are still watching his films today and finding new meanings and themes in them. Can't say that about any nearly any superhero or throwback film made in the past two decades.
>even mentioning capeshit in a kubrick thread
HARAM
from my personal experience, when you ask kubrick haters who their favorite directors are, they usually say wes anderson, pt anderson or tarantino. case closed
He also will never make that holocaust film. Say what you want about the holocaust, but if Kubrick did make a film about it, it would have been epic.
maybe. its certanly not my t2 but my point was just that Kubrick, whose legacy today is seen as extraordinary, took quite some time to get that recognition.
overrated
serious question, is there anyone both autistic and good that comes even close to kubrick today? i don't follow japan and korea much
fpbp
maybe PTA or Coens, not that they're similar though
for pure autism movies you could try Kitano
pta is light kubrick so he will never get the recognition.
but i think coens are a great suggestion. broad appeal, genre-defying, technical mastery.
its hard to find another Kubrick cause he was a great filmmaker, he work several genres and his films have quite a broad appeal, much bigger than niche arthouse.
not him but i think i get what he means. there's nothing awful about the shining, it's extremely well made. but there's not much to it, it's just a spooky story that ultimately adds up to nothing. whereas most kubrick movies at least aim for something deeper and actually insightful.
FMJ is garbage but EWS is his 2nd best
its a very well made spooky story though. he should get credit exactly for being able to play within such a simple scenario.
A big problem, tho not applying to all of them, is that post boomer directors too often only make movies about movies, not about life.
Kubrick grew up in a world with out TV & video, worked from his teens as a photographer for Look magazine shooting real shit that was happening in New York, and films about events, people and ideas, not about replicating movies they grew up on.
>scorcese or coppola over kubrick
nah. Coppola only made like 3 great movies, come on. Ford is the GOAT though for sure
That's better than most painting of the time
It's literal copy, dingus
i agree. i forgot the guy you replied to actually said awful
All his movies are too old, they look like jokes, dialogue too.
They were great for their times, but have severely become dated since.
>King got so butthurt he made his own faithful version
lel
can you imagine making a book, thinking its great then comes someone else, adapts it and makes it 100 times better?
must hurt a lot.
extreme pleb detected. probably only seen The Searchers because it's on every great movies list. Ford is pure poetry, nobody's made as many great films
of what?
Fort Apache was pure cringe, fake story, fake injuns, Wayne ruins almost every serious movie he comes out in and it just even a liberal agitprop when it came out.
they took inspirations form old paintings, but not as direct copies, even though some people claim it
felt like making a more constructive reply, if i was right in my assumption that you haven't seen much John Ford stuff because something put you off, I really encourage you to try again. The Searchers is a weird one, great, but significant largely in relation to other John Ford movies--weird to a newcomer. I recommend starting with Stagecoach (a perfect film) and watching whatever strikes your fancy from then on. if you're like me you'll get to a point where you have trouble justifying watching anything else. it's just great movie after great movie. and I haven't even gotten to the 30s and 20s stuff yet, some of which is supposed to be great. not even Hitchcock was so consistent and prolific.
it meant so much to him that he showed up to the ceremony. Oh wait...
youtu.be
>Stagecoach (a perfect film)
This is the correct opinion.
Good to see Sup Forums still has some true kinobites.
it wasn't trying to portray historical fact user. it's about examining our culture and values and trying to understand why people did the things they did. most if his movies are basically mythological. I liked Fort Apache but not as much as the other two from the cavalry trilogy. John Wayne really came into his own in those though he always had a great presence imo. Fort Apache did have 19-year-old Shirley Temple who's about the cutest thing i've ever seen in a movie. and some fantastic shots like every John Ford film (the one near the end where the indians disappear into the dust comes to mind)
not a lot of films you can watch and say, "oh, so that's where that entire genre came from."
This.
What would he even make a movie about now in the 21st century?
>2001
>dr strangelove
>lolita
>spartacus
>other movies before Spartacus made him famous
you are just an ignorant asshole
Nice try, but that's a deleted scene from Limitless
teen instagram sluts
Ford is sappy and sentimental, most of his pictures shot like stageplays. Kubrick is more dark and existential, exacting.
Yorgos Lanthimos doesn't come close in terms of quality, but there are parallels with Kubrick's work that might appeal to you.
I'm pretty sure people had already re-evaluated most if not all of his movies by the time he died.
When i first saw this scene it hit me like a kick in the nuts, fucking beautiful shot
kino quote
>Eyes Wide Shut and Barry Lyndon are his only kino
>Everyone reveres his bad movies
I don't get it.
2001 blows, watch Solaris.
>sappy
>most of his pictures shot like stageplays
very poor opinions desu. i could see the unabashed sentiment being off-putting to someone raised in our soulless era but there's no denying he made some of the most beautiful movies ever, with extensive work on location. when you say shot like stageplays i'm assuming you mean on sets with plenty of lighting and basic composition. that's just not true. he didn't move the camera much outside of action sequences, like david lean and others, as a stylistic choice.
Solaris is a deeply emotional human story in a scifi setting. 2001 is a cerebral meditation on human existence and relationship with technology. I don't get why it has to be one or the other. also 2001 is more impressive visually though solaris is certainly beautiful
>reminder that Full Metal Jacket is Kubrick's best, the Shining his most overrated, and Dr Strangelove is better than 2001
Reading is for faggots.
The Oscars were just as insufferable back then as they are today.
What are pleb opinions for $500, Alex?
>if u dun liek wat i liek ur a pleb
Why are Kubrick fanboys so insufferable?
bro to be honest you got blown the fuck out by
Full Metal Jacket was shit