MovieChat Forums > pazuzu9 > Replies
pazuzu9's Replies
Could you maybe share it?
How do you know he loved it?
Is there a clip somewhere of Johnny being asked this question?
I think the planet difference is a minor one as far as story or style goes.
The big difference is the movie leaves it wide open to interpretation and the book explains it carefully.
Clarke and Kubrick disagreed a lot on how to tell the story. That's why he wrote his own version. One example is Clarke wanted a narrator. He wanted everything explained in detail just as he does as an author. Kubrick wanted more of a visual story.
Damn good thing Clarke didn't have the last say.
The book is not a novelization. It's not meant to be a guide. It is Clarke's story. The movie is Kubrick's
"Marisa Berenson is - and I know not all will agree - pretty wooden in it, in my opinion"
I think that's more Kubricks style. The emotion in Barry Lyndon come mostly from the visuals and the score.
Gorgeous movie, IMO.
Here's a good video of the Joker statue scene. It starts with a short scene about the surgical shears:
[url]https://youtu.be/MngJShRWV3U?t=16[/url]
One of my all time favorite shows and Ed was fantastic.
So sad how it ended for him.
He was really underappreciated.
One of the best, I think.
These days I prefer Pale Rider.
I used to love HPD back in the day but now I think the story for PR is more interesting.
Which do you prefer?
Another interesting scene is when Kinderman is in Dr. Temple's office.
Behind Kinderman on the right is a pic (X-Ray) that's looks a lot like the Pazuzu amulet from the first film.
Temples office: [url]https://orspectral.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/aos-1.jpg[/url]
Pazuzu amulet: [url]https://www.brianamartini.com/amuletopazuzu[/url]
It may just be another skull X-Ray like on the left of Kinderman but it looks quite a bit different...so who knows.
Edit: Forgot to mention the toilet in Temples bathroom: [url]http://www.scifimoviezone.com/cpthowdy02.jpg[/url]
Sometimes crashing into a planet at full speed is the best medicine.
I love the magic egg.
But how is it flawed?
I'm not a huge fan of it,mainly because of Nicholson, but I've always thought it was well made...
"I AGREE.I ALWAYS FELT THE SHINING WAS DEEPLY FLAWED AND MOSTLY BORING.."
I think it may be time for you to watch 2001 and Barry Lyndon back to back...with no break...;)
But, Probably not.
Conway was great in the She Creature. The MST version.
Who are these "liars"?
And who is asking them these questions?
Why do you think there should be a 180 or 360 pan?
Thank you.
This isn't my favorite Kubrick movie but I'm just curious why you were disappointed.
It's true that later cameras were designed to handle exposure to direct sunlight but those types of shots were avoided for obvious reasons. They did not produce good shots (Lens Flares) and long exposure could still damage the camera.
Over 400,000 people worked on the Apollo program. That's a lot of people that kept their mouths shut for 50 years ;)