Overly technical autist

>overly technical autist
>never even directed his own actors
>gave Shelley Duvall schizophrenia

Fuck this prick

Attached: Stanley-Kubrick.jpg (792x612, 51.42K)

he worked with great artists in 2001. the rest of movies dont really work for me.

>never even directed his own actors
wut

He did take after take until he was satisfied. When his actors asked what he wanted he just shrugged his shoulders.

>Couldn't adapt a book without Uwe Boll level retardation of the plot
>John Alcott was the real genius behind the lense for most of his films

yeah kind of a prick, but a great director nonetheless

he got fairly flat performances out of legendary scenery chewers like jack nicholson, malcolm mcdowell and kirk douglas. must have been an alien

Oh, well that's still directing. Autistically speaking.

at the third take i would've walked off yelling profanities

who here Barry Lyndon?

should i ?

Attached: bly.png (345x21, 2.05K)

You wouldn't have poked him in the eyes like Moe from The Three Stooges?

Attached: Moe_Howard.jpg (900x750, 77.42K)

You're making shit up. There's literally The Shining behind the scenes footage where you see him going over the script with Shelley and telling her what he wants. She was just a spoiled bitch who didn't want to put in any effort

He should've made Shelley Duvall drink from a dog dish, bitch almost ruined a classic.

The film was a flop until autists and retards started making up bullshit about it that helped build up the Kubrick Myth.

>overly technical
Compared to who? Clint Eastwood?

by that logic marvel movies are peak cinema

Literally everything you said is wrong.

that's one hell of an assumptive leap. The film was a flop because it's a basic bitch horror movie with some shitty jumpscares, a plot that goes nowhere and one-dimensional characters. Add to that a portion of the audience expecting a layered horror drama with character development and an actual story...it's just lucky Wendy Carlos scored it and Alcott provided his usual cinematography genius that Kubrick always gets credit for.

You're a flop. Put a wide angle lens on and zoom in.

You mean Walter Carlos hon

The guy was a genius, and like most geniuses, he was lacking in certain areas. He's definitely more of a "crew" director than an "actor" director, but he still managed to make some all time films, 2001 especially.

>Walter Carlos
Please troon back in user, you’ve trooned out.

but the characters aren't one dimensional

Right. Movie was shot in 3D. Also checked, that scene where he drinks the evil ghost liquor always makes me pee my pants with fear.

that's just him pretending for the audience
>meds
I did take them, thank you very much

Kubrick was a film autist. He believed films should use visual story telling and not just plainly state things like plays.

also most of the music is not original score?? fuck, this is amazing bait

If you want to be literal which you'd have to be to argue this point, Jack is at best two dimensional.

Zack Snyder

>He's definitely more of a "crew" director than an "actor" director
And that’s all that really matters at the end of the day. People criticize the acting in Kubrick’s movies but I think that there’s good acting in all of his late era films. And some are genuinely great.

Oh no I've triggered some sensitive types

Well that's kind of a problem when that results in almost no actual story...

I wouldn't say that's necessarily true. I'm perfectly satisfied with Kubrick's body of work but if every director was like Kubrick we'd have missed out on some beautiful films. "Actor directors" can shine in their own way.

Troon back in, you’ve trooned out.

Finally truth was revealed.

Attached: Chud as a Thor painting slaying trannies 4chan.jpg (1398x2048, 511.15K)

I heard Kubrick respawned in 2001 so you might need to give him a few years before he's ready to direct a film with as shitty a title as that

His movies are the best though. Perfect medium between pretentious art-shite and low iq normiecore

Good point.

>Well that's kind of a problem when that results in almost no actual story...
But there is a story, albeit a straightforward one. Why don't you try describing it in your own words?

Jack's not one dimensional. How do you explain his genuine horror and puzzlement when he wakes from his nightmare to discover a bruised danny?

>Why don't you try describing it in your own words?
Mango cray Z on V K shon, try keel heem family

You're full of shit, user.

>almost no actual story
Reading comprehension is key

>user didn’t read de post
Do the stupid bumboklaat reading user

See for a hot tip

>If you want to be literal which you'd have to be to argue this point, Jack is at best two dimensional.

Kek but that's wrong too. There is a completely discernible story.

Jews making up so many lies about him
Fuck off the mans the greatest after tarkovsky

This, see this post:
Heh, I win.

The man was more concerned with ideas than he was about people, and his films reflect that.

I liked it. I've personally had a reoccurring dream throughout my life where Im in a big mansion and I feel a malicious, omnipotent presence messing with me so I found The Shining really creepy for that reason. I also enjoyed the cinematography and the way everything unfolded. Maybe it's just not for you. I have "classics" that I think are way overrated too.
Also, don't judge Kubrick just by The Shining and 2001. He has a real variety. Dr. Strangelove is actually pretty funny and Barry Lyndon is very sentimental. Don't write him off too quick