>> ^CrushBug:

What's the music in this? I used to remember the name.


"Lux Aeterna," from the soundtrack for Requiem for a Dream, by Clint Mansell.

Maybe he didn't use this shot in them? Been a

Damnit, now I have to go watch 2001, the Shining, Clockwork Orange and Full Metal Jacket again (not a big fan of Eyes Wide Shut or Barry Lyndon).

>> ^shuac:

Whither Strangelove and Lolita?

I like the Pink Floyd soundtracks ('La Vallee' and 'More'), mostly because it was music of an era and so unlike anything before or since...

(Little known 'rumour' is that the 23-minute epic on the B-side of the Meddle album, Echoes, was composed to serve as a soundtrack to the final sequence of Stanley Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey" -- entitled Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite. A different song was ultimately chosen for the film, but one can, if one was so inclined, cue up the song at the title card for this sequence and notice how nicely it fits with the psychedelic imagery of this portion of the movie.... Not so unlike Dark Side & the Wizard of Oz).

>> ^Payback:

My top five:
Ridley Scott - Alien, Blade Runner
Kubrick - 2001, Clockwork Orange, Dr Strangelove
Christopher Nolan - View video above
The Whedon - Firefly, Buffy (TV), the Avengers
Nicholas Meyer (Wrath of Khan, Undiscovered Country)
-Interesting tidbits
-I knew Nimoy Directed The Voyage Home, but didn't know he directed 3 Men and a Baby. - hmmph.
-I don't include Lucas, as he was a (3 movie) one hit wonder. Seriously, what else has he done thats's memorable?
-JJ Abrahms has WRITTEN and PRODUCED a ton of stuff I love, but he hasn't really directed anything.
-The Buffy episode "Hush" is the best, most original, scary, stand-alone story I have ever watched on television.


Whedon is amazing that goes without saying. You're right to not include Lucas, all you have to do is watch Indian Jones trilogy to see how he shouldn't direct and Spielberg should!

My top five:

Ridley Scott - Alien, Blade Runner
Kubrick - 2001, Clockwork Orange, Dr Strangelove
Christopher Nolan - View video above
The Whedon - Firefly, Buffy (TV), the Avengers
Nicholas Meyer (Wrath of Khan, Undiscovered Country)

-Interesting tidbits
-I knew Nimoy Directed The Voyage Home, but didn't know he directed 3 Men and a Baby. - hmmph.
-I don't include Lucas, as he was a (3 movie) one hit wonder. Seriously, what else has he done thats's memorable?
-JJ Abrahms has WRITTEN and PRODUCED a ton of stuff I love, but he hasn't really directed anything.
-The Buffy episode "Hush" is the best, most original, scary, stand-alone story I have ever watched on television.

I really just didn't get the point of making that movie. I fail to see what it added to an artwork that was perfectly fine in its original medium.

A truly visionary director, the likes of Terry Gilliam or Stanley Kubrick, might have revealed some new insight. Snyder just translated the pages onto screen and in a predictable manner at that, and the whole "graphic novel on screen" was already done by Rodriguez, so it wasn't even that technically impressive. The one part of the movie that worked was the title sequence

>> ^therealblankman:

Can you see the movie lights and the ghost of Stanley Kubrick in these photos? Neither can I.


I really wish someone put Pedobear hiding in a crater to mess with people.

Can you see the movie lights and the ghost of Stanley Kubrick in these photos? Neither can I.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^shuac:
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that I do not think Clint Eastwood as a director is any great, special thing. The last good movie he directed was The Unforgiven and maybe Million Dollar Baby. And even those films, in my opinion, could have been as successful if helmed by just about anyone else.
What's my big complaint? Well, for one thing he's renown for his one-take-and-done thing. In other words, Eastwood shoots the first take and he usually doesn't ask for successive takes. This has the effect of making him popular in Hollywood for being ahead of schedule all the time (as well as for being fairly prolific) but unless you've got talented actors, such a method cannot work.
Case in point: Gran Torino. Terrible, terrible direction and it's all because his asian actors cannot act. They need a couple dozen takes to get it right and it's the director's job to get the shot. Further, it's the director's job to know when he didn't get the shot.
And even when you do have talented actors, it's still problematic. Any director who's okie-dokie with accepting the very first take can't have a very specific point of view, style, or solid narrative; all the things a good film has. It's like, "Yeah, that's good enough. Let's set the next shot up."
Ever wonder why Kubrick films are so goddamn watchable? Because he had a super-specific vision and he didn't let anyone go home until that vision was sated. Sure, that made him a pain in the ass to work with, no doubt, but just look at the results.

Very few people agree with you...have you considered the possibility that you could be wrong?


Of course not, don't be silly. Surely, you know how subjectivity works, yes?

>> ^shuac:

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that I do not think Clint Eastwood as a director is any great, special thing. The last good movie he directed was The Unforgiven and maybe Million Dollar Baby. And even those films, in my opinion, could have been as successful if helmed by just about anyone else.
What's my big complaint? Well, for one thing he's renown for his one-take-and-done thing. In other words, Eastwood shoots the first take and he usually doesn't ask for successive takes. This has the effect of making him popular in Hollywood for being ahead of schedule all the time (as well as for being fairly prolific) but unless you've got talented actors, such a method cannot work.
Case in point: Gran Torino. Terrible, terrible direction and it's all because his asian actors cannot act. They need a couple dozen takes to get it right and it's the director's job to get the shot. Further, it's the director's job to know when he didn't get the shot.
And even when you do have talented actors, it's still problematic. Any director who's okie-dokie with accepting the very first take can't have a very specific point of view, style, or solid narrative; all the things a good film has. It's like, "Yeah, that's good enough. Let's set the next shot up."
Ever wonder why Kubrick films are so goddamn watchable? Because he had a super-specific vision and he didn't let anyone go home until that vision was sated. Sure, that made him a pain in the ass to work with, no doubt, but just look at the results.


Very few people agree with you...have you considered the possibility that you could be wrong?

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that I do not think Clint Eastwood as a director is any great, special thing. The last good movie he directed was The Unforgiven and maybe Million Dollar Baby. And even those films, in my opinion, could have been as successful if helmed by just about anyone else.

What's my big complaint? Well, for one thing he's renown for his one-take-and-done thing. In other words, Eastwood shoots the first take and he usually doesn't ask for successive takes. This has the effect of making him popular in Hollywood for being ahead of schedule all the time (as well as for being fairly prolific) but unless you've got talented actors, such a method cannot work.

Case in point: Gran Torino. Terrible, terrible direction and it's all because his asian actors cannot act. They need a couple dozen takes to get it right and it's the director's job to get the shot. Further, it's the director's job to know when he didn't get the shot.

And even when you do have talented actors, it's still problematic. Any director who's okie-dokie with accepting the very first take can't have a very specific point of view, style, or solid narrative; all the things a good film has. It's like, "Yeah, that's good enough. Let's set the next shot up."

Ever wonder why Kubrick films are so goddamn watchable? Because he had a super-specific vision and he didn't let anyone go home until that vision was sated. Sure, that made him a pain in the ass to work with, no doubt, but just look at the results.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'shining, kubrick, twins, creepy' to 'shining, kubrick, twins, creepy, come and play with us, forever, and ever' - edited by Issykitty

Watching the movie now.

That drill sergeant is something else, reading on some background on Kubrick working with him, he came up with most all the insults off the cuff. Whats that word when you go off script ?

Absolutely wonderful film. Lots of really interesting things about it: one in particular is that Stanley retrofitted special NASA developed cameras so that he could film night-scenes with nothing but natural light, which for the 1700s is candles, moon, and other very very low-light sources.

Some people think the movie is slow-moving, but you really have to watch it in the context of Kubrick's style as well as the fact that it was the 70s and movies could have more artsy "still life" montages than they do now.

But yeah, if you are a Kubrick fan, go watch it now!

How did a Stanley Kubrick film slip by me? I've got to see this.