DanG
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2001
- Posts
- 4,796
- Likes
- 10
Quote:
I actually thought Full Metal Jacket was done really well -- but it was really two movies, not one. The boot camp part was just great -- perhaps a few shallow characters but still it felt very honest. Also I thought the filming itself -- the camerawork -- was masterfully done. But the second half simply wasn't anything special in my mind. It seemed like Kubrick felt obligated to have part of the movie describe what happens to the characters after boot camp, but it didn't seem a necessary part to me.
Eyes Wide Shut shouldn't be watched late at night -- if you're tired, that is. The first time I watched it was 1 or 2 when we started watching so it was quite late enough, but I thought it was great partly just because it did have that late night feel. It was all somewhat hazy, kind of like a long dream sequence. Tom Cruise was even convincing as an intelligent human being (difficult for a dolt). I remember reading one critique of the movie in the Boston Globe, I think. The critic said that the sex sequences didn't "turn him on." I wonder if some people think it was supposed to be a **** movie?
But again, I think the film went very smoothly with great camerawork, making it something like a piece of visual art as well as a great visual-literary achievement.
Clockwork Orange was okay, but I thought the book did a far better job of telling the story. Why make the movie if the book is already better? I think that when a movie is based on a book, it should either bring out something dormant in the book or else tell the story better than the book. This usually happens with very bad pulp-fiction novels, like Stephen King or Michael Crichton books.
| Originally posted by john_jcb Maybe I missed the point when I saw it. It was late at night and it just didn't make sense to me. I liked Full Metal Jacket, perhaps I recognized the characters from my own life. Clockwork Orange, I didn't like that one either. |
I actually thought Full Metal Jacket was done really well -- but it was really two movies, not one. The boot camp part was just great -- perhaps a few shallow characters but still it felt very honest. Also I thought the filming itself -- the camerawork -- was masterfully done. But the second half simply wasn't anything special in my mind. It seemed like Kubrick felt obligated to have part of the movie describe what happens to the characters after boot camp, but it didn't seem a necessary part to me.
Eyes Wide Shut shouldn't be watched late at night -- if you're tired, that is. The first time I watched it was 1 or 2 when we started watching so it was quite late enough, but I thought it was great partly just because it did have that late night feel. It was all somewhat hazy, kind of like a long dream sequence. Tom Cruise was even convincing as an intelligent human being (difficult for a dolt). I remember reading one critique of the movie in the Boston Globe, I think. The critic said that the sex sequences didn't "turn him on." I wonder if some people think it was supposed to be a **** movie?
Clockwork Orange was okay, but I thought the book did a far better job of telling the story. Why make the movie if the book is already better? I think that when a movie is based on a book, it should either bring out something dormant in the book or else tell the story better than the book. This usually happens with very bad pulp-fiction novels, like Stephen King or Michael Crichton books.
