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”.

[–] aurisdb 8 years ago

Kubrick's films are artsy and very interesting/beautiful visually, he's no pretender on that count.

[–] inoe-1 8 years ago

In that regard he has few peers, But are they good stories, plain old good movies?

[–] Owlwise (1536) 4 years ago

To me they are. And I'm certainly not the only one who feels that way.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] inoe-1 8 years ago

That wasn't Kubrick; it was Richard Kelly.

[–] aidankost 8 years ago

You didn't even mention Lolita, Spartacus, Killer's Kiss, The Killing, Paths of Glory, or Fear and Desire. Are they simply overlooked because they're old? Because they're "Not as good as Stanley Kubrick's later films"?

[–] inoe-1 8 years ago

I'm not a fan of Kubrick in general.

[–] MoviemanCin 8 years ago

I respectfully disagree. Kubrick was the greatest director of all time IMHO.

Schrodinger's cat walks into a bar and doesn't.

[–] inoe-1 8 years ago

Your respectful reply is a breath of fresh air. Thank you.

[–] fleischwolf (294) 7 years ago

Look, you can say that you don't enjoy his movies and that's fine. But to say that Kubrick was a "hack" just shows that your a moron that knows nothing of film making. His movies where impeccably well crafted, shot and produced. Denying just makes you look like a idiot that knows nothing about the craft of making films.

[–] samoanjoes (57629) 5 years ago

You lost me at "hack".

[–] snepts (11123) 5 years ago

Yes, Paths Of Glory is a real acid trip (sarcasm alert).

[–] Adam60z (3774) 5 years ago

The line "what are you doing, Dave" is not in 2001. Anyway, that would be the one film where acid may help. When it was first in theaters in 1968 hippies used to go to the front row, drop acid and have their minds blown! But I believe it is a deep film and one of my favorites, even if I agree the ending was ridiculous. His other films I think are all great, but yes, they each have some flaws. Its best to overlook them because they're all worth seeing.

[–] Owlwise (1536) 4 years ago

I don't think the ending is ridiculous, but rather the natural & fitting endpoint of the entire film. It's been foreshadowed & presaged from the opening scenes.

[–] Adam60z (3774) 4 years ago

The issue with the ending is first of all, very few people knew what it was supposed to mean (and who could blame them). After having heard multiple explanations I still say it was done for one reason: to make viewers say what Rock Hudson was overheard saying at the premier "What the heck was that movie about?!" I just thought the whole duplicate aging Daves in that room and then the giant baby was yes, ridiculous. No other way to put it.

[–] Owlwise (1536) 4 years ago

Well, I'm not going to attack you as as "not getting it" or any of that nonsense. Either a film works for the viewer, or it doesn't. The ending works for me. It doesn't for you. Both responses are valid & honest.