Right. I was watching bits of "Andrei Rublev" this evening, and realised just how incredibly stunning the film truly was, and how much I wanted certain individuals to view certain scenes. Perhaps that's just because three-and-one-half-hour Russian movies fill me with an unbearably ugly sort of smugness - I don't know. Or perhaps I was just basking
(
Read more... )
Comments 8
Hah. It IS an impressive film. That's what I meant to say! Damn my intrepid devil-may-care post-away before reading-over attitude.
Reply
Reply
Don't you go much on Kubrick's version of "Lolita"? Must say that that's one of my own personal favourite films, though why that is I can't quite say (certainly the subject matter doesn't exactly appeal to me).
Reply
While I like "Lolita" well enough, I have to say that I have somewhat mixed feelings concerning it. It's not so much the film itself that I have my doubts about as it is Kubrick's own style. I'd still have to say that "Lolita" and "Paths of Glory" are both fine films in their own right, and to be fair it is probably Stanley's later period that I have my trouble with - "2001", "Clockwork Orange", "The Shining", and the like. Perhaps it's because I'm a prude, or something rather like that.
At any rate, give "Barry Lyndon" a try, if only for the sake of the camp butler from "Jonathan Creek".
(Though I think the one you'd appreciate most is "Monsignor Quixote".)
Reply
Good man.
Reply
Reply
Ah, the Ladykillers is wonderful. If I were less exhausted, I would start on Sir Alec's box set right now.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment