Unjustified Hate/I Can't Stand People Like This......

[Kevin Lockard]

I just finished watching Lolita (1960) again and I love that film. But I've been interested in watching the 1997 version of it so I decided to check some reviews of it on Amazon and I read something that kinda pissed me off. The review is all of 5 lines but still, I've seen it and heard it so many times before (unjustified at that) and well, it pretty much says everything in it so yeah, here's the link:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00001IVFG/sr=1-1/qid=1155650551/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-9944654-5204944?ie=UTF8&s=dvd

Read the 5th review, the one who talks about the fact that anyone who defends Kubrick must be some kind of idiot. First off, I hate people like this, who try and pass off their opinion as Fact when they are upset about something they feel strongly about and it's obvious this guy feels strongly about this novel.

Okay, Stanley Kubrick is my favorite director. I'll come right out and admit that. But I understand his movies can be acquired tastes. His movies are sometimes films not for everybody. But firstly, how does Kubrick "steal" literary works? By his definition, anyone who chooses to adapt novels into films are "stealing" literary works and making it their own. I think I'm missing his point BIG TIME here. What Kubrick does is take a novel and instead of trying to apply print logic to film, he lives by the rule of Movies are Movies and Books are Books and changes things up a bit. I wish all directors that adapted novels to the big screen did this more like Kubrick.

Next, suggesting that anyone who likes Kubrick's version of Lolita must have not read the novel. I hate this. Since when does one only get the privledge to like or hate a movie when they have read the book it's based on? Stupid. This seems just like the bitchfits on other forums about the difference between Clockwork Orange the movie and Clockwork Orange the book. It sounds like Stephen King complaining about Kubrick's version of The Shining not being like the book. And it also reminds me alike of people bitching about Christine the John Carpenter movie and Christine the Stephen King book being two different works, even though that has nothing to do with Kubrick.

Next, and I kinda mentioned this a bit already, but how can anyone call Kubrick medicore? Yes, everyone has their opinions but come on, look at Kubrick's track record. I personally think Dr. Strangelove and 2001: A Space Oddessy aren't as great as they are hailed often but still, they are both regarded as two of the most important film classics ever by both critics and film buffs alike and Kubrick made them back to back. Hell, he even went on to make ACO afterwards, one of the most controversial (and best, IMO) films of all time. Those three were all made back to back by the same guy. That alone should tell you something. Hell, he only made 13 full-length features and most of them are regarded as classics! If I was a Director (and hope to be one day), I'd like to be Quality over Quantity.

Anyhow, I guess that's about it. But I needed to get that off my chest.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Absolutely. I've read The Shining and I can tell you that Kubrick's version is hands down much better. Anybody who can take the original work of a master like Stephen King and make it even better is a genius.

Listen, you're always going to have some loudmouth with his opinions, and if they don't like Kubrick's films they will more than likely speak out. Here's the problem: they don't want to admit he's talented, because they're mainly just attacking his films. I know there are plenty of filmmakers out there whose films I cannot stand, but I try not to call them hacks since I know deep down they're much more talented than I am. Kubrick was a genius with photography, but chances are anyone who's a Kubrick detractor will not focus on that aspect and focus more on why they hate his films.

[jaw2929]

I'll admit that Kubrick is a good director with talent.... But I can't fucking stand "A Clockwork Orange"... Granted, I've never read the book, so I have no comparison judgement or anything.... I DO however like movies he's done with Full Metal Jacket, and The Shining.... I still need to see 2001: A Space Odyssey though :p

Overall, I agree with your rant.... It's a pain in the balls when you see some fucker bashing someone you've got great respect for.

[AWolfAtTheDoor]

Originally posted by God of Cinema
.

Next, and I kinda mentioned this a bit already, but how can anyone call Kubrick medicore? Yes, everyone has their opinions but come on, look at Kubrick's track record.

You think that's bad? I read a person describe Kubrick as a "one trick pony". Even worse is that the writer put him on a list with Uwe Boll and Michael Bay for unoriginality.
Disgusting eh?
I also understand that Kubrick may not be for everyone. And i usually try to respect other people's opinion's when they are ripping apart a movie/director that I like. But I just can't stand it when they bash a director like Kubrick with nothing more than complete bullshit about how they did not like ONE of his film's because it was different from the novel, and declare him mediocore at best. Or call him a "one trick pony" with nothing to back it up.

[Kevin Lockard]

I wonder if those people really know the definition of a "one trick pony." Don't know if anybody's ever ventured over to tarantino.info forums ever before but the Administrator over there seems to think Kubrick is medicore as well. When asked why, two of his main reasons were:

A. Kubrick shot all his films in a certain ratio which annoys him and B. ACO was great with it's use of classical music but without Beethoven, that wouldn't have even been possible so........

WTF? How can you say something so stupid? It takes a genius to take classical music and use it in a way like ACO did, and the only excuse to down on the film was that without it's original composer, it wouldn't have been possible to use in such a way. That's a rant onto itself but it's not even worth going into as it kinda speask for itself.

[CHANCE]

The man made movies that have a place in history...not many directors can say that.

His work is his work, nothing can be comparred to it.
So all these experts are putting Kubrick down not because of his films but because once he got starteed on a movie he had a vision of the project that he would never let go...even at the cost of his crew.

He is no big mouth Eli Roth or Tarintino, who like to talk about movies more than they make time...they are pop culture figures.

Kubrick had nothing to do with pop culture only the mussings in his brain.

So all the anti-Kubricks can rant what they want...your opinion is wasted on me...

[BigSugar]

The biggest prolem, and I'll bet all the money in my pockets against all the money in yours on it, is that you find out the asshole bashing kubrick is some asshole who thinks the literary world is where the work in question belongs, not in some cheap, dirty film. I love those guys because they rattle so easily. Make like you're gonna crack 'em across the noggin with that Pinot Nior bottle and they clam right the fuck up....but I digress. Thing is they mostly don't like movies to start with, so a genius like kubrick threatens their egos like porn stars. That said, you would be literally shocked to find out how often Kubrick got hammered by the maistream press over his films. The same pole-smokers who eulogized the man as a genius, something we already knew.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

This reminds me of that part in Manhattan when the Diane Keaton character starts going on this pretentious diatribe on why she thinks Ingmar Bergman is overrated even though it's obvious she doesn't know what the fuck she's talking about.

[TheJupiterCrash]

I don't like a movie adaptation of a novel to be anything like the novel.

It's adaptation, not a translation.

Granted there are a few novels, like 'Lord of the Rings' that really need to be closer to a translation than an adaptation. I honestly don't think that's because of the genius of Tolkien; I think it's the fans that make it that way.

I think people forget that it's not really the screenwriter or director’s job to honour the book, regardless of what people think. They bought the rights, so fuck the author and anyone else that doesn't like 'what's going on'.

And a lot of the shittiest novels make amazing movies.

Now, I'm not saying don't prefer one or the other. Just keep in mind: it’s an adaptation.

And as for Kubrick stealing from literature; he's said he couldn't produce material based on his own experiences and that's why he adapted novels, and he usually had a working-relationship with the novelist themselves and other authors... although they seemed to have ended badly.

[Undead Fish]

Kubrick is very hit and miss with me...

- The Shining - magnificent; will watch it at least twice a year, if not more.

- A Clockwork Orange - wasn't for me; I've tried watching this film multiple times and I only get about 1/2 way through (yes, I have watched it all the way through) before I cut it off and watch something else.

- Full Metal Jacket - amazing; the epitome of excellent war-film making, and better than every other Vietnam flick I've seen, Including Apocalypse Now.

- 2001: A Space Odyssey - call me an idiot or short-sighted, but I just didn't understand what this film was about; I haven't read the book, and I'm sure the overall message of the film isn't overly difficult to pick out, but it's just one of those films that shoots over my head everytime I try to watch it.

I could go on, listing off films I love and dislike from Kubrick, and even though quite a few of these unmentioned flicks would fall in the dislike category, I still recognize the man as being a legend of filmmaking.

So, that's my simple 2 cents. As far as Lolita, I haven't seen it, so I'll reserve judgement until I've had a chance to take it in.

[TheJupiterCrash]

Kubrick from a technical aspect is perfect (which everyone says, and is very true)

He was always on top of the game when it came to camera work, sound and even his employment of pop music (‘Eyes Wide Shut’ being a perfect example of perfect)

Some of his movies are pretty cold and distant (everyone says that, but it’s true). They don't feel like they've got heart: although, there are several scenes in several movies that contradict what I just said.

I don't know. I fucking love the guy. But, I was never big on 'A Clockwork Orange', 'Barry Lyndon', or '2001: A Space Odyssey'. And 'The Shining' really had to grow on me before I liked it... a lot of people say that about that particular movie.

I like 'Apocalypse Now' more than 'Full Metal Jacket', but 'Apocalypse Now' takes more effort to watch. I've got to be in the mood for it, but when I am, it's something magical.