Comments on: Stanley Kubrick’s Unfinished Work May Get Finished

By: Alex

Alex — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 03:59:38 +0000

I’m fine with the idea of Ang Lee adapting a seperate film adaptation of Wartime Lies. But leave the Kubrick material alone, it’s better off left to are imaginations.

By: Axel Schreiter

Axel Schreiter — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 11:29:51 +0000

@irishscribe, Big Dentist.
You are right, there won´t be another Kubrick. My observation is that among those who consider him not just a good film director but one of the greatest ever – the minority – are a few who don´t find a comparison to daVinci inappropriate (about as many as daVinci admirers who see the richness of his work to the proper extent). To us an “adaptation” can work like Gus van Sants “Psycho”, not anything remarkble if it wasn´t to prove (to us few) how mediocre 99% of films really are.

By: The Big Dentist

The Big Dentist — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 00:36:49 +0000

LOL! You can’t make an omelette without breaking some eggs…

By: 790

790 — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 00:20:42 +0000

Obviously the Crying Critic has never watched LEXX,,,

790 was always negative. I’m trying to change that image.

By: will

will — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 23:19:20 +0000

oh that would be awesome, shcindler’s list, defiance, pianist, boy in stryped pajamas and even inglorious basterd were great films

By: The Big Dentist

The Big Dentist — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:22:26 +0000

Kubrick never had much luck with being beaten to the finishing line by other movies (even Full Metal Jacket had much of its thunder stolen by Platoon the previous year). I wouldn’t mind seeing what Kubrick was going to do with his movie about Napoleon, before he shelved it when Waterloo came out with Rod Steiger in the title role.

Without Kubrick’s unique mind and filming methods, what’s the point, though? As Irishscribe says about Elvis, it’s like colouring in a Da Vinci sketch: might be vaguely pleasant to the eye, but what is it now, exactly? A coloured-in Da Vinci sketch.

By: irishscribe

irishscribe — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 20:47:45 +0000

There was, and will for all time be, only one Kubrick. That’s it, the end. A.I. was a mawkish mess, and I doubt if it is anywhere near the movie the great man had in mind, with all due respect to Spielberg. Let’s leave it at that, ok? Certainly if there’s good source material then let someone have a go, but it will NEVER be a Kubrick movie. At best Kubrick’s involvement should amount to no more than a “Based on an idea by Stanley Kubrick” billing in the closing credits. To say this will be a “Kubrick” movie would be like taking a Vegas Elvis tribute act, record him singing some songs that maybe Elvis was considering recording before he died, and then saying that it is a new recording by the King!! No no no!!By all means make the movie, but it will NOT be a Stanley Kubrick production.

By: Axel Schreiter

Axel Schreiter — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 19:14:45 +0000

I agree with Heath that A.I. was a great film. Some said the ending was unbearably cheesy, but it reminded me of David Lynch, remember the scene in Blue Velvet, when Sandy talks about the Robins carrying love on their wings? Most of all, the heart-tearing love (or need to be loved) of David was explained as a “conditioning”, and nothing could be more thought-provoking and therefore Kubrick-like, imho.

A director needs to have artistic freedom, that was Kubricks conviction. So, of course, Ang Lee should definitely make his own movie.

Excuse my poor English.

By: 790

790 — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 19:13:17 +0000

A.I. Was my favorite film the year it came out.
A lot of people couldn’t grasp it.

Personally I couldn’t care less about this Holocaust project. That subject doesn’t interest me.

By: Heath McKnight

Heath McKnight — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 17:18:16 +0000

I remember reading about AI years before Kubrick even died and I thought the Spielberg film was very good. Ang Lee would be a superb choice and I’d be interested in seeing it. Of course, I hope Lee will put his own signature on it.

Heath