Reviews (567)

More like A Clockwork Tangerine!
Some consider this to be Kubrick's masterpiece. In my opinion Dr. Strangelove was his masterpiece, but Orange is a master work, nonetheless. It's a dark tale of prophecy, a vision of a bleak future, violent and vicious in the extreme, which some might also say we're living in today, judging by the headlines.

So this is a great movie, but this DVD is a great disappointment! Despite what the details above say and what it says on the disc snap-case, the film is not in widescreen letterbox format, but is in full screen format! And the image quality is only fair-to-good. The sound is OK on my mono TV speaker but evidently is not Dolby multi-channel. And the theatrical trailer freezes at various points during playback. There's a chapter index and a list of awards the movie won or was nominated for, and that's about it for bonus features! One can only hope that the next release of this movie on DVD will do it justice, and make it a true Kubrick collectible!

Substance and Style!
Perhaps the greatest irony in "A Clockwork Orange" occurs in the scene where Alex is reading the Bible in prison. He informs the viewer that he loves the violence and sex contained in the first part, but really has no use for the preaching in the latter half. I've come across a lot of folks who have seen this flick and it never fails- there are many out there who, like Alex and the Bible, love the brutality of the first hour of the film, and cannot abide the preachy second half. If you are one of those, stop reading this review.

"A Clockwork Orange" is an ingenious comparison of two theories of punishment- retributivism and utilitarianism. Debate has raged over the proper role of a criminal justice system. Is the goal to punish the criminal according to the old eye for an eye standard (retributivism) or to reform the criminal into a useful, law abiding citizen (utilitarianism)? At the outset, many people dismiss utilitarian values as a lot of liberal silliness: soft on crime. A more important question is whether we should reform criminals whether they desire to be reformed or not for the good of society. One of the more interesting aspects of this film is that is shows utilitarianism can be a far more brutal method than retributivism, contrary to popular thought.

Here we have the debate crystallized as if the proponents of both, Kant and Bentham, were debating the merits before our very eyes through the characters on screen. Alex is unquestionably rotten to the core; he maims and rapes helpless victims for laughs. The first hour of the film is dedicated to underscoring this point. When Alex is apprehended by the authorities, he is dealt with in the old fashioned Kantian way- punishment.

Alex then volunteers for a special treatment that will "cure" him, in exchange for freedom. The cure is a form of conditioning that causes Alex to become terribly ill whenever any inclination towards sex or violence surfaces- he now has a reflexive aversion toward evil, and "ceases to be a being capable of moral choice". The final act of the film deals with the consequences of being "cured" in such a way.

By now you probably get the idea- go see this film (but not as a "date"). To further entice you, it's one of the most visually exciting movies ever made, with vibrant images that will burn themselves into your mind. If you've never seen it on DVD, the transfer is great, and you will see things you've missed before. And as a final bonus, look for the guy who plays Darth Vader as a bodyguard.

I'm laughing at clouds
"A Clockwork Orange" is screenplay writer/director/producer Stanley Kubrick's interpretation of the book of the same name by Anthony Burgess. The dialog includes some of Burgess' made-up language from the book.

The plot revolves around Alex de Large and his group of friends who are very violent, and get their kicks by raping and assaulting people. After Alex and friends commit various crimes, Alex is finally arrested and put in prison with a sentence of 14 years. Eventually, his sentence is commuted in exchange for him undergoing experimental aversion therapy which makes him physically ill at the thought of sex or violence. However, it also makes him hate Beethoven's 9th Symphony which was played as background music to some aversion films during treatment. After an attempted suicide, Alex is re-treated with apologies by the government for inhuman treatment, and Alex appears he will resume his old ways.

This movie is highly stylized, including wardrobe, hairdo's (mom has purple hair, another woman had dark blue hair), set dressing, location and props. There is a fair amount of full frontal nudity of both sexes, and some stylized and slow-motion violence. Kubrick has made some good and bad movies, but this is his most stylized and over-the-top effort. Not for everyone.

DVD has chapters, English or French spoken language, several subtitle languages, a trailer and list of awards.

MUST SEE!!!
Amazing portrayal of the effects of a violent youth on society, and the effects of society on the violent youth in turn. Not enough can be said for Malcom McDowell's genious, artistic performance as the lead character "Alex". This character would be despised if played by any other actor, but Mr Mcdowell's rendition somehow finds us leaving the film with an almost endearing "fondness" for the boy.Fabulous must see art film, but definitely not for sissies!

gorgeousness and gorgeosity made flesh
With this provocative, amusing and beautiful tour-de-force Stanley Kubrick established himself as the most audacious and original directors of his time. Though the are thoses who despise it, no one can deny the power of this film to spark impassioned discussions on the film's sudject matter. And I for one feel this is an achievement all on its own. This stirring classic, I hope, will endure and inspire generations of young film enthusiasts like myself. ... Read more

Reviews (556)

Heeeere's Johnny! A modern horror classic on DVD
It's tough to believe that Stanley Kubrick received a Worst Director Razzie nomination for "The Shining." While "The Shining" may not be given the classic status of some of his other films like "Dr. Strangelove" and "2001", it's actually the least polarizing of this highly-praised and atypical filmmaker's work.

This atmospheric thriller is sure to creep you out with its pacing, eery editing and cinematography (those tracking shots are highly effective), and Jack Nicholson's powerful performance as Jack Torrance. Horror films often tend to divide audiences into genre fans who follow the gore and those who laugh in the face of so-called scares, insisting their own resiliancy to cheap thrills and lamebrain plotting.

Fortunately, "The Shining" doesn't make you take sides, because its chills come from plotting and character study as much as they do from odd sights that will make you jump. It may stray from Stephen King's book and not all of it may make sense, but "The Shining" has so much going for it that you won't mind. It's a gripping and satisfying film experience, and in my opinion, one of the best films of the '80s.

This Warner DVD re-release is definitely the version to get. The fullframe presentation comes at the wishes of Kubrick and the video and audio offer significant improvement over the drab initial release. (Unfortunately, the original Mono audio track has been dropped altogether in favor of an effective 5.1 remix. They could have included both with no problem.)

In the way of extras, there is an engaging half-hour on-set documentary, filmed by Kubrick's daughter Vivian. It provides a candid experience of the film's creation, and interviews with some of the actors. In addition, this DVD re-release includes an audio commentary on the documentary (sort of a "making-of the making-of") by Vivian Kubrick. There's also the spooky trailer, which shows how a movie preview can perfectly pique one's interest in a film, without spoiling (or even saying) much.

Possibly the Best Horror Movie Ever
This was a spectacular piece of work. It had a chilling soundtrack, and had some very good camera work. In the case of the Shining, a movie has finally exceeded the book upon which it was based. Things that would normally make a movie terrible have made the Shining a spellbinding movie. For example, the dialogue throughout the entire movie seems forced and unnatural. Another example is during an argument between Jack Nicholson (who performs incredibly well throughout the entire movie) and Shelley Duvall, after which Jack storms out of the room and glances at the camera as he goes by. If you're a horror fan, or just into movies, this is definetely one to see again and again and again.

A great horror movie..
This film slowley but shorley creepes you out, I don't think any one but Jack Nicholson could have played this role that well, and Krubrick has the best feal in the world, and the score is one of the best ever put in a movie. The movie is really scary.
It all starts off kinda slow thenwe see Dany talking to himself, and then there's a few images that are veary frightning, the holtel gives you a veary creepy isalated fealing, like if something were to happen there'de be no way out. Jack slowly starts going crazyer and crazer, and the hole time creepy images are appearing in the hotel, and the last half hour of the movie is trueley scary, a must see.

267
When i first saw this movie i was scared to death. realy it may have beeen the scariest movie i have ever seen. i also read the book but the movie was even scarier.
i realy recomend you this movie.
maby it had beeen the scariest movie i have ever seen...you are going to love this movie.

Another Kubrick Classic
I loved this movie. It freaked me out I must say. Jack Nicolson is the perfect crazy man in the movie. Another thing this movie possesed was great cinematography as any Kubrick film posses and great acting by all of the actors and actresses. Great movie deffinate buyer. ... Read more

Reviews (264)

Absolutely Brilliant, Yet Creepy Satire
Splendidly acted and brilliantly directed, Dr. Strangelove is Kubrick's satiric masterpiece about the insanity of the Cold War Era and the silliness of the infamous military-industrial complex--i.e., militaristic war machine-- that seems hell-bent on destroying the world with its overblown paranoia and jingoism. After rumors of a supposed Doomsday Machine that the "Commie Rats" are developing, a general, Jack D. Ripper (Sterling Hayden), tricks 34 U.S. Air Force bombers into nuking the U.S.S.R. without asking the President's permission (played by Peter Sellers in one of three roles). Not surprisingly, he's a little touched in the head, as he decides to bomb Russia not only because of this device, but because he's obsessed with the idea of preserving America's "precious bodily fluids." (It's a long story, folks.) Adding to the mess is Joint Chief of Staff, Turgidson (George C.Scott, in a brilliant performance), who's as paranoid as they come and wouldn't mind helping Ripper take out half of civilization to save America from the evil Russians. (One hilarious scene has Turgidson confronted with the possiblity of killing millions of people because of Ripper's stunt. "So what if we get our hair a little mussed?" he says.) Also mired in the madness is another military man, the veddy British Mandrake (Sellers) who works under Ripper and tries desperately to get the insane man to give him the code needed to turn the planes back, but alas to no avail. The star of the movie, however, is the weapons scientist, Dr. Strangelove (Sellers again), a very bizarre wheelchair-bound ex-Nazi with a "trick arm" that can't stop doing the Seig Heil salute. (For trivia buffs out there, this character may have been an allusion to the very real Wernher von Braun, the rocket scientist for Nazi Germany who was recruited by the U.S. after the war.) Also doing a wonderful turn is Slim Pickens, the tough-talking cowboy and man in charge of the only bomber that fails to get the recall from Washington; the scene in which he rides a falling nuke to its destination is a cinematic classic.

What makes Dr. Strangelove so brilliant is that is able to straddle that line between reality and absurdity without having each side cancel the other out. On one hand, the performances are so over the top that you not only laugh, you sigh with the relief that this is, after all, *just* a movie. (A weird cat like Dr. Strangelove could never exist in real life.) On the other hand, there's something about the way the film is directed where there's an eery and creepy feeling that something like this *could* happen-- not with these zany characters, of course, but with saner people in similar circumstances. In the end, no matter how crazy people like Turgidson and Ripper may act, the bottom line is that their underlying beliefs are shockingly similar to what a lot of U.S. military personnel in a position of power to push the button feel like. But then again, that was the point of the film-- on one hand to make people laugh, but on the other hand, to wake them up to the dangers of the Cold War and an entity like the military-industrial complex, that-- if not kept in check-- could one day feel itself powerful enough to perform certain reckless acts without consulting Congress or even the President himself. All in all, a terrific film, and a complete thumbs up from me.

A Kubrick Classic.
U.S. Air Force General Jack D. Ripper (Sterling Heyden) goes entire and Utterly Crazy and Sends his Bomber Wing to Destory the U.S.S.R. He distrust that the Communists are Noted to Contaminate the Expensive Carnal Liquids of the American People. The U.S. President (Peter Sellers) meets with his Advisors, where the Soviet Ambassador tells him if the U.S.S.R. is hit by Nuclear Weapons, it will trigger a Doomsday Decive. Which will Annihilate all Plant and Animal Life on Earth. British Captain Lionel Mandrake (Also Sellers), the only person with access to the Demented General Ripper. U.S. President Merkin Muffley, whose Best Effort to Avert Disaster depend on Placating a High Soviet Permier and the former Nazi genious Dr. Strangelove (Also Sellers), who concludes that such a decive would not be a Cognizant Deterrent for Reasons which at this moment must be all too obvious. Will the Bombers be Stopped in Time or will General Jack D. Ripper succeed in destroying the world?

Directed by Stanley Kubrick (Lolita, 2001:A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange) filmed a well made Black Comedy, feature an Impressive Cast including-George C. Scott, Slim Pickens and James Earl Jones. This film is Unique and It's gets better, every year. Oscar Nominated for Best Actor:Peter Sellers, Best Picture and Best Director:Stanley Kubrick and Best Adapted Screenplay by Peter George, Stanley Kubrick and Terry Southern. DVD has an clear Pan & Scan format and an Dolby Digital 1.0 Mono Sound. A well made that become a Classic. The Newest Edition from Columbia Home Video DVD has Many Extras. Grade:B+.

Oh for the days of the Cold War!
Every ideology that seems terribly important to one generation usually ends up seeming idiotic and even disturbingly naive to the following generation.

Think about it. The ideologies of the 18th century - dying for one's prince, duke or loot - seemed insane during the Napoleonic Wars, when nationalism became THE primary motivating factor.

"Pure" nationalism - like the extreme gung-ho attitudes at the beginning of World War I - seemed rather distasteful to the Allied forces in World War II, who fought to liberate peoples from Fascism.

The idea that Fascism would always endure, and was seriously in danger of taking over the world, seemed laughable during the Cold War.

How does the Cold War look to us today? The McCarthy era; Americans truly believing the USSR and the Communists were veritable Antichrists; truly believing that DESTROYING ALL LIFE ON THE PLANET was a feasible prediction about life in the near future; that the world was, always had been, and always would be, characterised by a fight between Communists and Capitalists.

*Sigh*

Dr Strangelove (or: how I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb) is actually MORE funny - and disturbing - in some ways now than it was before. Admittedly I can sort of understand the immense impact of this film - could ANY politial satire have been more timely - but the fact that the "better red than dead" ideology nowadays seems as ridiculous as fighting for your Duke, means that this film can be seen in a new light.

People actually believed that is was better to be dead than Red? (Yes they did). People actually believed fluoridation of water was a communist conspiracy??? (Yes, they did). The Russians actually contemplated building a Doomsday device? (Yes they did!!! Josef Stalin actually started research on such a device, which would have EXTERMINATED ALL LIFE ON THE PLANET for the sake of a politial dispute between Communist and capitalist that today seems absolutely laughable!)

The passing of the Cold War era means that this movie is seriously disturbing. To a new generation, the all-annihilating power of the superpowers of the 1960s appears to have been based on disputes that appear petty in the extreme. Truly this movie makes us wonder what future generations will think of our fixation on modern ideologies; in an era that began three years ago with the late unpleasantness - and which is already making Francis Fukuyama's ideas, from the happy days of the 1990s, seem obsolete. He claimed that history was over; that free market ideology was the ULTIMATE ideology that would finally bring about an end to all future historical events by making us all live in peace.
That is SO 1995...

History is not over. Each generation seriously believes its own era is the ultimate era - that their own era is THE era whose disputes TRULY matter.

Well, history changes, as Strangelove shows us. I seriously hope that this movie makes us moderns think a little further before considering annihilating the world again! At least over something like fluoridation of water...

Satire at its best!
There are excellent reviews here about this movie, most of them rate it highly, and rightly so. It is no accident that this DVD is on average (at the time of writing) around 4.5 stars.
I must confess I did not know about Peter Sellers before watching this movie. I was recommended the movie by an 'artsy' friend - you know, the type of guy that thinks Citizen Kane is the greatest movie ever made - so I wasn't expecting too much, knowing how these types prefer style over substance.

I was pleasantly surprised. This is the type of film anybody can enjoy, it's seriously funny. It will probably have more meaning if you are familiar with the Cold War and the arms race, but if you don't know too much about that, the extras are a great help. There is one extra that deals with the making of the film, and how at the time of its production there was some subtle opposition to its release. Subtle in that the Air force was unwilling to lend it's expertise in the design of the B-52 bomber used in the film, and there was fear that its release at the time of J.F.K's death might have been seen as unpatriotic.

Well that's all behind us now, and we don't have to worry about the bomb so we can enjoy it more as a comedy than as a political message presented as satire. I must say that Peter Sellers is a genius; I couldn't tell when I first watched it that he was playing three roles! There are so many funny parts in the film and I don't want to spoil it for you by mentioning any. George C. Scott is also excellent and has some very memorable lines.

A bonus for me was that there was a language soundtrack in five languages; German, Italian, French, Spanish and English (off course) plus there were subtitles in more languages which is great for anyone trying to learn a new language.

I would highly recommend this film to anyone who loves satire and who appreciates jokes that aren't always below the belt.

"I think you're some kind of deviated pre-vert."
Some films have a timeless quality intrinsically inherent with the story, allowing for them to maintain a certain amount of relevance, despite the subject matter, or when they were made. This aspect holds true for many of Stanley Kubrick's films, in my opinion, and is true with this film, Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.

Directed by Kubrick, written by Kubrick and Terry Southern (Easy Rider), based on the serious novel Red Alert aka Two Hours to Doom by Peter George, and starring Peter Sellers, George C. Scott, and Sterling Hayden, Dr. Strangelove deals in a highly farcical and satirical manner the subject of nuclear proliferation, and proposed responses devised by men of power to perceived threats, whether they be based on reality, or founded from paranoia.

The film starts off with Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper (Hayden), commander of Burpelson Air Force Base, initiating Attack Plan R to his group, a plan created to allow someone other than the president to launch a nuclear counterattack in the event the enemy has managed to disrupt the normal chain of command, thereby preserving our response abilities despite significant loss of leadership. Only problem is, there has been no offensive put forth by enemies of America, and it turns out this issuance was completely unprovoked and the result of one who has basically lost his mind. Group Captain Lionel Mandrake (Seller, in one of three roles), a British officer participating in a officer exchange program, and, subsequently Rippers 2nd in command, realizes this, and must act before the B-52 bombers reach their destinations within the Soviet Union and deliver their atomic payloads, in turn setting off a new doomsday device conceived by the Soviets due to the fact that they were unable to keep up the United States in terms of arms proliferation, which, if activated, would cover the planet in a radioactive cloud for 100 years, destroying all life on Earth. Pretty heavy stuff, huh? One wouldn't think there'd be much humor to be found in a situation like this, but then one would be wrong...

The humor comes in the form of the absolute ludicrosity (it's not a word, as I just made it up) of the situation grown from the intense level of paranoia developed between democratic and communist powers after WWII and how, once things are set into motion, how safeguards meant to protect us basically work against that goal. It's really pretty funny to see what a mutated beast has been born of these fears, both perceived and real. Hayden Sterling is wonderful as the psychotic general with visions of communists infiltrating the very core of our democratic being, with his thoughts on 'precious bodily fluids', and conspiracies by the red menace to undermine and sap our strength. Peter Sellers is perhaps the standout in the film, playing three separate parts with such ability that I often unable to distinguish the actor from the characters within the film, seeing not an actor playing three separate parts, but only seeing three distinct characters in the British officer Mandrake, President Merkin Muffley "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room", and finally ex-German scientist Dr. Strangelove "Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world?", advisor to the President. One thing each of the characters does have in common is the Seller's comedic genius. His most memorable roles were those involving the bumbling Inspector Clouseau in the Pink Panther movies, but his skills shine through in his portrayal of three completely separate personalities, one straight-laced (Mandrake), another sort of bewildered but trying to maintain a sense of control (President Muffley), and a third hilariously over the top (Dr. Strangelove). Finally, there's George C. Scott's performance as the scheming, opportunistic, plotting and conniving, but all in the name of patriotism, General 'Buck' Turdigson "Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh, depending on the breaks". He completely reminds me of his lead role from the film Patton (1970), but in a very perverted, devolved manner. Great support roles include Slim Pickens Major T.J. 'King' Kong as the pilot of one of the B-52's, James Earl Jones as one of his crewmembers, and Colonel 'Bat' Guano as the leader of the force assigned to take control of Burpelson Air Force Base, and recover the recall codes from base commander General Ripper.

All in all, Kubrick has just an amazing style for relating a story to the audience. From his use of different formats of film to evoke a particular mood or convey a sense of feeling, i.e. the documentary style use for the actual fighting footage at the air force base, to the choice of music to enhance the tone set in the various scenes. It all works perfectly to create mock realism in spite of the comedic nature, presenting the essence of a black comedy.

The picture looks wonderful in this full screen format, and you will see that change from time to time as Kubrick used various aspect ratios in the film. As far as special features, there are quite a few of them, including a theatrical trailer, a featurette titled 'The Art of Stanley Kubrick: From Short Films to Strangelove', a documentary titled 'The Making of Dr. Strangelove', original split screen interviews with actors Scott and Sellers (this was done by having the actors answer pre-determined questions, and then local interviewers could be added in later asking said questions, making it look like they were interviewing the actors), promotional advertising gallery, and talent files. Some have called this 'The Greatest Black Comedy of All Time', and I would have little difficulty in arguing that...

(...) ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

When Stanley Kubrick recruited Arthur C. Clarke to collaborate on "the proverbial intelligent science fiction film," it's a safe bet neither the maverick auteur nor the great science fiction writer knew they would virtually redefine the parameters of the cinema experience.A daring experiment in unconventional narrative inspired by Clarke's short story "The Sentinel," 2001 is a visual tone poem (barely 40 minutes of dialogue in a 139-minute film) that charts a phenomenal history of human evolution. From the dawn-of-man discovery of crude but deadly tools in the film's opening sequence to the journey of the spaceship Discovery and metaphysical birth of the "star child" at film's end, Kubrick's vision is meticulous and precise. In keeping with the director's underlying theme of dehumanization by technology, the notorious, seemingly omniscient computer HAL 9000 has more warmth and personality than the human astronauts it supposedly is serving. (The director also leaves the meaning of the black, rectangular alien monoliths open for discussion.) This theme, in part, is what makes 2001 a film like no other, though dated now that its postmillennial space exploration has proven optimistic compared to reality. Still, the film is timelessly provocative in its pioneering exploration of inner- and outer-space consciousness. With spectacular, painstakingly authentic special effects that have stood the test of time, Kubrick's film is nothing less than a cinematic milestone--puzzling, provocative, and perfect. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (620)

The Ultimate
2001 is the ultimate cinematic experience. This movie has it all for fans of film. When i say this, I don't mean your casual film goer who thinks "2 fast 2 furious" is an instant classic, I mean those who appreciate film for what it is. For those pop culture movie goers, this film will bore them within five minutes. But, those who appreciate the art of film, will drool over the sheer awe that this movie has.
The story is a little more than simple. It starts in prehistoric africa where Moonwatcher the man-ape and his clan. A mysterious monolith appears and teaches them the use of crude, but usful tools in order to eat. It suddenly jumps (via on of the best jumps cuts ever) inot space in the year 2001 where a monolith has been discovered buried in the moons surface. When it is dug up it sends an ear peircing ringing through all of space, a sort of call letting the worlds know it is time. We then jump to the Jupiter mission in which the main story starts. This is where Hal 9000 makes his first appierence with Dave and Frank. We all should know what happens next.
This movie, released in 1968 but filmed before, was a technological phenomenon. Not even star wars can hold up to the power of 2001. The scene in which Dave enters the monolith could be one of the best in cinema. It is a filmed acid trip pretty much. Except it gave us a look at what other constalations might look like (remember we weren't even on the moon yet).
This is Kubricks best film, and by far and away one of the top five films ever made.

Still a masterpiece
Regardless of how "bored" some (probably adolescent) viewers may become (forced to maintain their attention span over vast minutes of time on something other than sex, car chases and dripping blood), this is obviously a great movie. At least for the rest of us. Rated in the top 250 (#66) at IMDb, and the subject of innumerable articles and reviews, Stanley Kubrick's much studied and admired visual, artistic and thematic masterpiece, based on the novel by Arthur C. Clarke, is still--remarkably, after all these years--a mesmerizing motion picture experience even on a television screen.

This is no mean accomplishment when you realize that Kubrick made his film before humans actually walked on the moon in 1969, and furthermore, when you consider how much more we now know about space travel and how much more advanced special effects have become. What I think contemporary movie makers might learn from Kubrick's work is (1) special effects without rhyme or reason may titillate first time viewers and the very young, but quickly grow meaningless; and (2) even in a movie that relies heavily upon special effects and ideas--which 2001: A Space Odyssey certainly does--it helps a whole lot to have a story to tell.

The story begins in the prehistory and ends in the future. It begins with a pre-human consciousness and ends in mystery. (Note that the last sequence in the movie is labeled in part as being "beyond the infinite"--whatever that metaphysical notion may mean.) Along the way we have a creditable hero (Astronaut Dave Bowman played by Keir Dullea, whom I also recall from David and Lisa, 1962) and a very cold and merciless villain (HAL 9000, the computer as megalomaniac--apparently his makers never heard of Issac Asimov's rules for robots!).

Today we know more about pre-humans and more about computers, artificial intelligence and space exploration, and with such knowledge today's movie makers would avoid some of Kubrick's mistakes. For example, the space craft was far too roomy (ask the astronauts!). Real space ships must be as small as possible to save fuel and they are incredibly cramped. Also, the year 2001 has come and passed, and we are nowhere near the practical capability of providing artificial gravity in space. And of course computers (or robots) don't have emotions unless such emotions are built or programmed into them.

Yet the visual sense of space and the terrible isolation of being alone in the vast vacuum has never been conveyed so well. Using music synchronized with visual effects laden with meaning for our earth-bound minds and bodies, Kubrick managed to depict the Pythagorean "music of the spheres" in a most splendiferous and awe-inspiring way.

However, the opening sequence with the hairy apes is probably what Kubrick would most like to redo if he had the opportunity. In the first place, the terrain, which is semi-arid, is all wrong. No hairy, long-armed, bent-legged creature would occupy such a landscape. The "foraging" they were supposed to be doing was ludicrous since there was obviously next to nothing to forage. The tapirs (forest-dwelling animals native to South America and Southeast Asia, by the way, and not to the savannas of Africa, which should have been the terrain depicted) were almost comedically fat for the ecosystem. And the apes themselves, looking and acting a lot like chimpanzees (no doubt the model that Kubrick used), are in conflict with the fossil record as we know it. Our primordial ancestors, the australopithecines, were upright walking apes and probably not exceedingly hairy since they needed to sweat as they walked and ran over the savannas and grasslands of East Africa.

As for using bones as weapons, yes, there can be little doubt that that is what our ancestors learned to do, followed by using hard wood and stones and then shaped stones. And the idea that a bone tool is a proto-type for all the tools to come is also correct, most saliently in the form of the space ship and HAL.

An interpretation of the ending would necessarily include the idea of time as being something other than we think it is. We see Dave as an astronaut in his thirties, and then as a middle-aged man dining in something like a very expensive Parisian apartment, and then on his death bed, and finally as a soon-to-be-born fetus returning to earth. I think it was wise of Kubrick not to attempt to explain what he clearly points to as unexplainable, as "beyond the infinite."

Perhaps the most haunting image of all, at least for me, is the red and yellow "eye" of the HAL 9000 computer as it coldly viewed the two astronauts talking. Therein was expressed, long before it became fashionable, the coming inexorable conflict between us and our machines, between our culture and our biological nature, between natural and artificial intelligence. Never in the history of cinema has that tension been so concisely conveyed as in that scene and in this movie.

See this for Stanley Kubrick, one of the greatest film makers of all time.

the movie that set the standard in sci fi
in 68,this movie was the best sci fi film ever.in it there is this force referred to as the monolith.it shows up at different points in time.finaly,a space crew goes to check it out.it is too intellectual for children.stanley kubrik directs so you know-since hes the greatest directer ever and all-that this movie is a classic!it is better than the sequel.thinkers will like it.in 68 there wasnt a computer paranoia like today.in this film,kubrik explores what would happen if the computer decided to just take the hell over.an idea not toyed with for years to come.he was a visionary.the music in it is very good too.for you wrestling fans,ric flairs theme song begins it.an abselute must for sci fi fans.

One of the greatest sci-fi movies ever made.
This was a brilliant movie. It never ceased to make interesting theories concerning life other than ours, whether or not we should be in space, and how exploration of the ether will affect our lives.

The film opens up with pre-historic man. They are shaggy, ape-like creatures who fight in loud blasts of sound, calls, etc. But at one point, they discover an immense slab of rock that is so finely crafted, they conclude it was made by "something." And with that, they discover they can use left-over bones as weapons, furthering their standing on the planet.

That is the not only the opening for the film itself, but also for its mood and thesis. It makes the case that knowledge of greater beings will propel us into greatness ourselves, using advanced artifacts as motivation and example. But the movie will eventually take a darker turn you'll have to explore for yourselves. If I went into any of the symbolism, I would be writing an essay, not a review, and could potentially ruin your experience.

As a film, it is not traditional by any means. I've heard of people walking out at the premier muttering furiously about how there was no story, or that they had no idea what Kubrick was trying to say and that his obsession with imagery and perfection led to the demise of what could have been a masterpiece. But to those who stayed and to those who see it now, it is apparent Kubrick meant to be challenging and intelligent: this is not for the light-hearted or the impatient. For instance, many of the sequences are realistically slow, such as an early docking sequence. But the images are so engrossing, I doubt you'll turn away.

And to top off Kubrick's obvious genius, there is an unforgettable soundtrack of famous classical music that complements the imagery so well, Kubrick left it in over an underscore that was being prepared. It often conveys the mood very well, expressing wonderment, curiosity and fright with incredible power. If you can't take the movie, if you can't take its themes and its slow-moving plot, if you can't take the sparse dialog (this is essentially a silent movie), at least sit back, close your eyes and watch the film through the tones and moods the music evokes: it matches Kubrick's imagination with every moment from the opening shot of an orb to the end shot of a star-child floating among the nebular and the giant.

Quick-Buck artists ruin a classic.
The video detail and special effects are great. The aspect ratio is good, but the sound track has been trashed. No bass, garbled treble and a dolby 5.1 remastering that sounds as if it was recorded off a small radio in another room. The producers of this remake should be ashamed. The original sound track would blow you away. I was very dissapointed to say the least. What a waste! I wish I could talk to their sound people. ... Read more

Reviews (107)

Excellent movie, very bad DVD
I watched "Barry Lyndon" in a movie theater many years ago and expected the DVD version anxiously. What a delusion! It looks like a pirated DVD! If Kubrick were alive, he would allow this kind of "crime" against his masterpiece? "A clockwork orange" is better, but still another dellusion. What happened? I feel deceived by Warner, whose DVDs used to be so good.

Excellent film, questionable DVD
Other writers have commented on the flim's sumptuous gorgeousness, its meticulous production values, its ground-breaking technical achievements in lighting--all true. What's been almost completely ignored is the uniform excellence of the supporting performaces (from many of the same actors who appearred in "A Clockwork Orange"). A chapter of biographical sketches of actors and technicians would have been greatly appreciated. As for Ryan O'Neal, well.... he is sort of the black hole at the center of the movie's universe, but that's the idea, too. Everyone else does a warm, rich job, every other performance is as believeable as every shot. You can practically smell the scenes, whether they take place on the battlefield, in the country, or the gambling parlor.

Granted, the movie does begin to drag a bit near the end--a real problem for a piquaresque tale--but then it picks up steam again and ironically seems to end too quickly. One of the longest scenes (the duel near the end) is absolutley compelling.

Slow-paced, but richly detailed adventure.
The rise and fall of Redmond Barry (taken from Thackeray's novel) is a slow-paced, but richly detailed period piece. Over three hours long with an intermission, this movie certainly won't be to everyones' taste, but I found it mesmerizing.

It was fascinating how Kubrick took our young, naive hero, and as the film progressed, made him less than likable. By the time the film winds down, you actual dislike this unfeeling rogue who is out only to worm his way up the political ladder and doesn't care who he steps on or hurts in the process. Yet, surprisingly, when Barry does fall, Kubrick allows us to feel the pain, leaving the viewer wishing things had turned out differently.

Between 1 and 10, this lavish production with near-perfect cinematography, gets a 9. This is a Kubrick film. Nothing more needs to be said. It is one-of-a-kind. Kubrick's cold, dispassionate filmaking, somehow makes the viewer feel a myriad of emotions, which is the legacy this great filmaker left behind.

Great Movie! Lousy film transfer on DVD.
The actual film version is breathtaking. Warner has done a terrible job with the transfer to DVD. The image (viewed on a a Sony DVD player) is very jittery and lacks proper contrast and color balance. One of the worst DVD presentations I've seen. Apparently they digitized it at a low bit rate to cram the long film into one disk. I can't explain why. Try "A Clockwork Orange" or "Lolita" for better (though not great) transfers.

Good movie, a good look at how a life can go bad
Barry Lyndon was a movie I originally rented becuase I had seen all of Kubricks other movies. SO I saw the two tape set and thought what the heck. I loved this movie. I was suprised and amazed at how this little boy Barry grew up and became such a egomanical jerk. He was sneaky, thrifty, and evil, and watching him manipulate his way into the rich lifestyle was a pleasure. This movie was great ... Read more

Reviews (74)

Appropriate adaptation
When asked what he thought of Kubrick's film of Lolita, Vladimir Nabokov said it was a "first-rate" film by an "artist." Even though only about twenty percent of his script made it into the final movie product, Nabokov was obviously impressed. The theatrical trailers ask the question, "How did they ever make a film of Lolita?" The only way, in 1962, a movie could be made about such a controversial subject was if it was presented as a comedy. James Mason as Humbert Humbert is excellent--speaks volumes with his eyes. Perhaps Sue Lyon as Lolita is a bit too old--she certainly doesn't fit the strict definition of a nymphet (aged 9-14, as the book mentions), although she was, I believe, 13 when the filming started. Maybe Peter Sellers as Quilty isn't as serious as his character may warrant, and may steal some scenes with his impersonations. But so what? We're talking about a movie made in the early sixties--the theatre audience has certain expectations.

Girls Mature Faster than James Mason
From the moment Humbert Humbert (James Mason) sees Lolita (Sue Lyons) lounging on the grass in her backyard in bikini and sunglasses, he's befuddled. Ain't no way he's gonna pass up renting a room from Lolita's mom, Mrs. Charlotte Haze (Shelley Winters) now. So the emigre spends the summer mooning after the 13-year-old nymphette while holding off the advances of the amorous landlady, as author Clare Quilty (Peter Sellers) and his beatnik girlfriend make a big splash at the local dance.

I enjoyed "Lolita" immensely, much more than I thought I would, although I didn't expect the movie to take the plot twists it did, some of which are quite jarring.

Still, the actors are all first-rate. James Mason does a great job as Humbert, appropriately out of it for some scenes, conveying a certain nonconversance with the English language without feigning any sort of accent different from his own famous one. Sue Lyons does the bored teenager quite well, very naturalistic. The real startler, though, is Peter Sellers, whose American accent is right on the money, and who manages to contrive several subcharacters within Clare Quilty. It's a pity, really, that he got so bogged down with Inspector Clousseau and didn't display the full range he might have more often.

Make a date soon to find out "How did they ever make a movie out of Lolita?" and see if you are as helpless as poor James Mason.

Nice movie, but it's not Nabokov's "Lolita"
If ever the statement that the movie is not as good as the book is true, it applies to Kubrick's "Lolita". I really like the movie on its own, but it bears little resemblance to the novel (my favorite) other than young girl/old man, the names, and the broadest structure of the story.

Problem areas:

1. Age - by Humbert's definition, a nymphet is between 9 and 14 years old. Sue Lyons was too old, and looked even older. Mason was about 10 years too old as well, and not really the "glamor man" Lo would be attracted to (as in the book).
2. Disregard for the content of the novel - by ignoring the screenplay written by the original author and making up other scenes that were not part of the book, it makes one wonder what story was being told.
3. Location - in the novel, Humbert and Lolita travel 27,000 miles in the course of a couple years, and geography plays a substantial part in the book. Filming in England provides little geography and motel-hopping lifestyle that was so prevalent in the novel.
4. The same three things in both versions of the movie bother me, as I feel it robs Humbert of some nuance to his character:
A. No mention of his pre-Lolita first wife, Valeria. He was not always just into nymphets.
B. No mention of his post-Lolita second wife, Rita, (and taping a goodbye note to her navel so she would find it as he goes off to track down Lo).
C. The last page-and-a-half from the book was left out. This is possibly the most moving passage of the novel - when Humbert offers his apology for all his nastiness, and his admonition to Lolita, and the revelation that neither Lolita nor Humbert are alive as we read the book, and his pathetic summation..."I am thinking of aurochs and angels, the secret of durable pigments, prophetic sonnets, the refuge of art. And this is the only immortality you and I may share, my Lolita." It ties everything together and completes the circle.

Strengths:

1. Acting - this was good by the 4 prime characters - Lolita (Sue Lyons), Humbert (James Mason), Charlotte (Shelley Winters) and Quilty (Peter Sellers).
2. Cinematography - nicely filmed, in black-and-white.

This is a good movie - but it certainly is not Nabokov's "Lolita".

The Remake is a Better Film
I was surprised, after seeing both versions of Lolita back to back, that again and again people were calling the original a classic, even a masterpiece, while never having seen the 1997 version.

The original is drab, lacking in sensuality, atmosphere and character depth. Yes, the first hour is devoted to the household of Lo with her mother and more time is devoted to Quilty, who is distractingly entertaining in a number of unnecessary scenes.

Yes, Kubrick is regarded as one of the best filmmakers of all time. But this film is proof that even artists have their limitations when it comes to theme and mood. Kubrick has never been sexy or warm, not even perverse, as Humbert must be explored in all of these contexts as an adult in love with a child.

The story is about the exchange of power and affection between two individuals who should not be indulging in such an unhealthy intimacy. It is not about Charlotte getting drunk at a party, or how many accents Sellers can provide, it is about a human connection and the audiences' judgement of that connection.

It is interesting that Nabakov wrote the screenplay- when he had created such a lusty, colorful novel as Lolita. All color, literally, is lost in the 2 act film adaptation. Lyne made a film with vision, beauty and disturbing performances that do the novel justice. It gives a lot for an artist to think about when the best choices for a film is other than one of the world's most renowned directors and the novel's own author . . .

Pretty great
Do yourself a favor-and see this version of Lolita before you, or if you ever do get around to watching the 1997 film.This movie captures the novel's essence a whole lot more; not to mention, it's superbly acted and written, and feautures an array of great scenes.

James Mason is wonderful as Humbert Humbert. Stiff and charming and doomed all at the same time, he conveys his characters' feelings perfectly.Shelly Winters is an absolute riot and adds all the spunk and humor to the first part of the film.Peter Sellers works in some great lines as the pathetic Quilty, and Sue Lyons; well, she's not much of an actress, and she's a tad too old for the part.But the age gap is hardly noticeable, and one doesn't need to be much of an actress in order to convey the part of Lolita-she's more like a backdrop to the movie than an actual character. Yes, things get a bit drab in the end-the movie is certainly a whole lot more fun and irresistable in the beginning,due partly to the presence of Shelly Winters. And this film lacks the emotional impact, although I'm pretty sure it was intended as more of a dark comedy than a drama.

I don't think this movie is worthy of classic status or anything, but it's quite a great film.It's got great performances, and the script is absolute perfection,a marvel, I can't tell you how good it is(written by Nabokov himself).It's definately worth a watch, whatever your tastes.Don't expect to be blown away, but do expect to be fairly pleased, as all in all, this is a fine film.And if you're really,really curious, well then read the novel, which is more dense and difficult than one would imagine. ... Read more

Amazon.com

2001: A Space Odyssey
When Stanley Kubrick recruited Arthur C. Clarke to collaborate on "the proverbial intelligent science fiction film," it's a safe bet neither the maverick auteur nor the great science fiction writer knew they would virtually redefine the parameters of the cinema experience. A daring experiment in unconventional narrative inspired by Clarke's short story "The Sentinel," 2001 is a visual tone poem (barely 40 minutes of dialogue in a 139-minute film) that charts a phenomenal history of human evolution. From the dawn-of-man discovery of crude but deadly tools in the film's opening sequence to the journey of the spaceship Discovery and metaphysical birth of the "star child" at film's end, Kubrick's vision is meticulous and precise. In keeping with the director's underlying theme of dehumanization by technology, the notorious, seemingly omniscient computer HAL 9000 has more warmth and personality than the human astronauts it supposedly is serving. (The director also leaves the meaning of the black, rectangular alien monoliths open for discussion.) This theme, in part, is what makes 2001 a film like no other, though dated now that its postmillennial space exploration has proven optimistic compared to reality. Still, the film is timelessly provocative in its pioneering exploration of inner- and outer-space consciousness. With spectacular, painstakingly authentic special effects that have stood the test of time, Kubrick's film is nothing less than a cinematic milestone--puzzling, provocative, and perfect. --Jeff Shannon

A Clockwork Orange
Stanley Kubrick's striking visual interpretation of Anthony Burgess's famous novel is a masterpiece. Malcolm McDowell delivers a clever, tongue-in-cheek performance as Alex, the leader of a quartet of droogs, a vicious group of young hoodlums who spend their nights stealing cars, fighting rival gangs, breaking into people's homes, and raping women. While other directors would simply exploit the violent elements of such a film without subtext, Kubrick maintains Burgess's dark, satirical social commentary. We watch Alex transform from a free-roaming miscreant into a convict used in a government experiment that attempts to reform criminals through an unorthodox new medical treatment. The catch, of course, is that this therapy may be nothing better than a quick cure-all for a society plagued by rampant crime. A Clockwork Orange works on many levels--visual, social, political, and sexual--and is one of the few films that hold up under repeated viewings. Kubrick not only presents colorfully arresting images, he also stylizes the film by utilizing classical music (and Wendy Carlos's electronic classical work) to underscore the violent scenes, which even today are disturbing in their display of sheer nihilism. Ironically, many fans of the film have missed that point, sadly being entertained by its brutality rather than being repulsed by it. --Bryan Reesman ... Read more

Reviews (317)

Kubrick Had His Duds, Too
...and this is one of them. People wouldn't defend this film so zealously if it had been made by someone other than Kubrick, but his cult of enigmatic personality drives many to believe that he could do no wrong. You'll see a similar blind loyalty to Kubrick's "Eyes Wide Shut."

This is NOT "one of the best war movies of all time"...that's silly. It doesn't even approach "Patton" in terms of character, nor does it rival "Tora Tora Tora" in scope. "The Deer Hunter" and "Apocalypse Now" are both superior psychological dramas, and "Saving Private Ryan" does a better job of portraying the simultaneous heroism/obscenity of battle. What you do get with "Full Metal Jacket" that you don't get with those other films is Kubrick's trademark pessimism about human beings, which is neither insightful nor particularly interesting. But then most people these days think that good art expresses only one thing--nihilism. At his worst, Kubrick fed that mistaken belief.

short & sweet
don't worry, this is not another one of those long, boring, meaningless not so desriptive reviews.....instead, i'm gonna make this short & sweet and to the point.....i own this DVD, and a big part about being a succcessful dvd collector's is determaining which movies are worth buying and keeping and trust me when i say this people....."FULL METAL JACKET" is definitely worth keeping....to my own personal opinion, FULL METAL JACKET has got to be the greatest war movie ever made, but don't get me wrong, there has been quite a few really great one's just recently released....Pearl Harbor....Black Hawk Down...We Were Soldiers....and i'm almost positive that the upcoming WINDTALKERS directed by the famous renound action super director Jon Whoo starring Nicholas Cage will be one of the best this decade.....but all these movies lack ONE major ingredient, "the roots" of war....all great soldiers come from SOMEWHERE, and "fullt metal jacket" shows you exactly where to find them, this movie is my all time favortie and would recommend it to ANYONE.....whether your a collector or not, and even if it's not the LIMITED EDITION COLLECTOR'S SET, the movie stands on it's own...a solid 5 star rating! without a doubt...WHOA!

Do you talk the talk?
Another great war movie, they even let us watch this in Marine bootcamp for Christmas. Skipping past that, it really brings out the madness of war, getting radio commands from someone far away that make no sense to those on the ground and under fire. How quickly civilians could turn into VC, the boredom between chaos, lots of aspects of war are covered here that you'll never find in the Bruckheimer-Simpson garbage. Moving flick, no Platoon, or Apocalypse Now, but one of the great war films.

The violence feels real, both physically and mentally
Directed by Stanley Kubrick, this 1987 film packs a terrific wallop as it follows the dehumanization of marine recruits as they are first prepared for Vietnam and later sent there. As in other Kubrick films which deal with the dark side of human nature, there's a voice-over narrator and some extreme closeups, particular one called "the glare" in which a character tilts his head slightly down with his eyes looking up. The title itself refers to a shell casing, a metaphor for the tough hollow fighters that these men will eventually turn into. And from the first scene, which is that of an off-camera barber shaving the heads of the recruits, we see their depersonalization as their hair, which once made them unique individuals, is shaved off.

Boot camp takes up more than half of the film, with R. Lee Emery, a former marine sergeant himself, cast in the role of the drill sergeant. His creativity in insults and curses is amazing as he prods the weak spots of the men under his command, especially the chubby misfit he labels "Private Gomer Pyle", played brilliantly by Vincent D'Onofrio who won a Golden Globe award for his performance. Aggression is glorified, with serial killers used as examples of excellent marksmanship as the men are taught to worship their rifles, which they treat as objects of love and recite scripted allegiances to them. It's not surprising when this training results in an act of violence.

The scenes that follow in Vietnam are not as strong as the earlier ones, but clearly show how the training both saves the men's lives and dehumanizes them. Short, episodic scenes set the stage for the final one, where we see the men have come full circle from the recruits they used to be. And when they are finished with the battle, war weary and left with the visions of some hard choices they have had to make, they march back to base singing a popular child's song, in which they spell out the words "Mickey Mouse" to a familiar tune. The resulting effect is chilling.

The video moved fast, holding my attention in an iron grip. I was fascinated and horrified and couldn't keep my eyes off the screen as it bolted along. I felt the agony of the boot camp experience, especially for the misfit, and the horror of Vietnam, including what it must have been like for the Vietnamese. The film made a statement about inhumanity loud and strong. Clearly, it was one of the best war films I've ever seen. The violence is real, both physically and mentally. Highly recommended, but be prepared for discomfort.

Waste of time
Ugh i was so mad! I thought it was going to be a good funny yet serious movie, but it was horrible. First when i was watching it i thought it was about the fat guy then all the sudden its about the journalist, what the heck i didnt follow that story. It should have just ended right when boot camp was over. ... Read more