MovieChat Forums > Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) Discussion > Kubrick = Bad LSD Trip

Kubrick = Bad LSD Trip

posted 9 years ago by inoe-1
49 replies | jump to latest

Stanley Kubrick is an overrated hack kept in place by people wishing to appear artsy and deep without trying. Sincerely, almost every Kubrick movie leaves me wondering if it might have been good, or at least not bad, if I had dropped a tab, or two (or three). Hard upon that thought is the fear a Kubrick inspired bad trip would leave me scratching my eyes out, begging for deliverance.

I love movies; movies of all kinds, from all times, from all places. I enjoy the artistry of “Citizen Kane”, the strangeness of “Donnie Darko”, the lunacy of “Airplane”, the satire of “Blazing Saddles”, the incredible brilliance of “The Godfather”, the suspense in “Jaws”, and the performances of Tom Hanks and Denzel Washington in “Philadelphia” or the entire cast in “The Big Lebowski”. I’m not a snob. I love “The Avengers”, “Independence Day”, and “Transformers”. A good blockbuster, effects driven, romp is fun. But I’ve never seen a Kubrick movie I didn’t think was vastly over-rated.

“Dr. Strangelove” is a good movie, it’s not great, but it’s almost pretty good. This is solely based on the brilliant performances of one Peter Sellers; performances, I understand, that were mostly unscripted or barely so. I guess Kubrick was smart enough not to get in the way of one of the greatest comedic actors of the 20th Century.

“Full Metal Jacket” is lots of fun until “The Gunny” exits. “Barry Lyndon” and “A Clockwork Orange” always strike me as film school projects. I saw “2001: A Space Odyssey” in Hollywood, at the Cinerama Dome, with a bunch of “artsy” people and I cracked up as they fell over each other trying to find the deeper significance of this or that. Imagine their shocked looks when I said “What are you doing, Dave?” was one of the funniest lines I’d ever heard (from then on if I called one them I would say, in a deadpan, “What are you doing, ______?”).

I’ll be honest, I never saw “Eyes Wide Shut”. The troika of Kubrick, Kidman, and Kruise (I know, but the alliteration couldn’t be passed up) just proved to be too much for me. “The Shining”? How anyone could misunderstand a book so badly is beyond me. Clearly illustrated by the casting of Jack Nicholson in the role of ‘Jack Torrance’ it’s as if he hadn’t even read the book. It was very pretty, though, I guess that should count for something. That’s right, it does, it’s called cinematography.

Now, if everyone want to excoriate me for holding this opinion, fine. I’ll be watching “Morning Glory”.

[–] bastasch8647 9 years ago

But of course Strangelove is a great movie. It's a great war satire, a great political satire, and a great black comedy that even has a couple bits of slapstick.

[–] inoe-1 9 years ago

I agree, but I don't give credit to Kubrick. I give the glory to the genius that was Peter Sellers.
I recently caught one of the 'Pink Panther' movies and instead of being disappointed, as so often happens with idealized childhood memories, I still found myself smiling and chuckling. He was a truly unique talent.

[–] christomacin (4686) 4 years ago

The genius that was Peter Seller needed a strong guiding hand (such as Blake Edwards or Stanley Kubrick) to bring out his best work and tame his excesses.

[–] snepts (11123) 4 years ago

I'm sure this is up to debate, but I usually figure the strength of most movies are due the director's guiding hand.
This is his/her baby, it's a representation of what this person is artistically (supposedly) trying to convey. If a performance is sub-standard, this is what the director allowed it to be.
And if Sellers took what Kubrick gave him and ran with it, that's because this is what Kubrick wanted for the film.

[–] AndrewB686 9 years ago

Well, I think you're very wrong, but you're entitled to your opinion. Thanks for sharing it with the world, but I don't quite understand why "artsy" is a negative when classifying a movie, but oh well.

[–] !!!deleted!!! (49761343) 9 years ago

Well, I think you're very wrong, but you're entitled to your opinion.

He wasn't posting an opinion. He was just trolling. Note how he never came back to respond. A classic "cut and runner" troll.

---
Emojis=💩 Emoticons=

[–] GeneralBuck 9 years ago

He wasn't posting an opinion. He was just trolling. Note how he never came back to respond. A classic "cut and runner" troll.

I call it a drive-by.

[–] inoe-1 8 years ago

Stunning.

[–] inoe-1 8 years ago

I suppose you couldn't even post a cogent response.

[–] inoe-1 8 years ago

'Artsy' is, to me, an affectation; it has negative connotations to me. It's a term to describe something trying to be art as opposed just existing and classified as art.

[–] !!!deleted!!! (49761343) 9 years ago

Stanley Kubrick is an overrated hack kept in place by people wishing to appear artsy and deep without trying.

Funny, because I feel the same way about people who trash him. Sometimes when an artist is universally acclaimed, there are always pretentious hipsters screaming about how "overrated" he was. They do that because they think that standing apart from the crowd makes them "independent thinkers" and therefore smarter than everyone else. The ironic thing is that these "independent thinkers" come a dime a dozen. Go to any board of any famous director, and you'll see at least one thread from these types ranting about how overrated he is.

---
Emojis=💩 Emoticons=

[–] inoe-1 8 years ago

Thank you for proving my point; a better illustration doesn't exist.

[–] Squeeth2 9 years ago

Good troll but too many words to be convincing.

Marlon, Claudia and Dimby the cats 1989-2005, 2007 and 2010.

[–] eweland 9 years ago

Don't you just love these trolls who insist on PROVING how stupid they really are, to the entire planet?
_

Kubrick's film - will always be the definitive version of THE SHINING.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] inoe-1 8 years ago

I wonder who would be a better judge? Would that be you or Stephen King?

Stephen King said, 'The character of Jack Torrance has no arc in that movie. Absolutely no arc at all. When we first see Jack Nicholson, he’s in the office of Mr. Ullman, the manager of the hotel, and you know, then, he’s crazy as a *beep* house rat. All he does is get crazier. In the book, he’s a guy who’s struggling with his sanity and finally loses it. To me, that’s a tragedy. In the movie, there’s no tragedy because there’s no real change.'

He described the movie as 'a big beautiful Cadillac without an engine.'

[–] inoe-1 8 years ago

Did you have to find your dictionary?

[–] rker-07724 8 years ago

No.

[–] inoe-1 8 years ago

Brevity is the soul of wit.

[–] snepts (11123) 4 years ago

Thoughtful, protracted discussion is the bane of the witless !

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] inoe-1 8 years ago

I love 'Strangelove', but I think it's about Peter Sellers instead of Kubrick. 'Jacket' is great until 'The Gunny' is killed.

[–] mtocm-139-588081 8 years ago

So before writing this topic you gotta experience the LSD first?

[–] inoe-1 8 years ago

I'm not recommending anyone take LSD; it's more of a euphemism than anything else.

[–] kkhausman-23745 8 years ago

Does anyone know what this film spoofs?

[–] inoe-1 8 years ago

I don't know if that was its intent, but I could see it spoofing the whole man/machine interface. Something that is now confronting us. Hawking, Gates, and Musk have all stated the danger we might be in from AI.

[–] H_i_the_2nd 8 years ago

Imagine their shocked looks when I said “What are you doing, Dave?” was one of the funniest lines I’d ever heard

I think that definitely qualifies as a funny line, and I can't help but feel it was intended to be, too.

[–] inoe-1 8 years ago

I see your point, but just based on Kubrick I don't know. Cracked me up then, still does now.

[–] H_i_the_2nd 8 years ago

"Based on Kubrick"?
Lolita, Strangelove, Full Metal Jacket, even The Shining all have plenty of funny stuff in there, particular the first two. And don't forget Leonard Rossiter in Barry Lyndon.
You make it sound like Kubrick was a humourless git.

[–] inoe-1 8 years ago

Excellent point. I guess I just don't think of him that way. I hate The Shining because it completely destroyed the story with poor casting. I'm also prejudiced because I've read quite a lot of Stephen King non-fiction work and he sees Kubrick dreadfully.

You're point is certainly valid.

[–] H_i_the_2nd 8 years ago

Yes, I think people who dislike The Shining most are those who are fans of the novel.
On the other hand, did you see the King-produced mini-series from the 90s? Pretty smelly.