Simply put: You're an idiot. It certainly wasn't fantastic, but it wasn't "at all bad", which, given the expectations of Kubrick "does suck", but by most directors' standards makes it a Great Film.
Certainly Kubrick had done far, far better -- Kubrick peaked from A Clockwork Orange to The Shining (Barry Lindon is a gorgeous picture postcard, and although it lacks substance, it's still cinematographically brilliant).
To classify any Kubrick film as having "sucked" suggests a love for brilliant filmmaking efforts such as "The Love Bug" (note to the clueless -- the previous comment was dripping with sarcasm)
In answer to the original question -- if you have to ask "if there is any nudity?" before seeing it with your parents... No, this is not a picture for *your* parents (no sarcasm or derision intended -- some people are uptight about sex, some aren't, and that is not a value judgement by any means)
More critically, this film is *about* a man who was quite relaxed with his own sexuality (too much so, some would argue, not necessarily incorrectly), so there are scenes even *without* nudity that would be unpleasant for those who are not fairly relaxed about sex or nudity.
As far as Autofocus itself, it seems overrated. It's ok, but they never make you -care- that much about Crane (Kinnear's acting is, as usual, top notch, though -- it is a failure of scripting and direction, not acting). He flaunts his sexuality (ummm, in more ways than one... LOL) to his own detriment. There is no reason to believe he cannot see how he steps outside the bounds of propriety in some places, even given his own relaxation with sex, and thus creates many of his own problems. What happened to him is sad, but as much his own fault as anyone's.
reply
share
Nocgirl72
19 years ago
Ha! Chasing Amy was flippin awesome! Not a movie to watch with anyone's parents though lol.
reply
share
alamay
19 years ago
That was a windy response to a simple question. You make some interesting points, to be sure, but blaming a person's murder on himself?? That's just plain wrong. Mr. Crane hardly deserved to be murdered, no matter how perverse his actions.......your concluding statement makes my blood boil. I'm guessing you're one of those "she-had-it-coming" types when you hear a woman got her throat cut outside a convenience store at 2:00 a.m. because she "shouldn't have been there at that hour."
reply
share
maatmouse-1
18 years ago
From photos I've seen of Auto Focus, it suggests that there is nudity and unless your parents are very liberal and not mindful of watching nudity, not one to watch with them.
If you want stuff you can watch with your parents, try any childrens film.
reply
share
mattchanning
18 years ago
Is it necessary to call people names in the process of making your point?
I think that Kubrick peaked well before "the Shining". Does that mean I'm an idiot?
I feel that while the film looks great (I get chilly just looking at the hotel lobby with all that winter light shafting in), the script handles Jack Torrance's transition from man in recovery to man in the grip of madness (or something else) in an unsubtle way.
In the book, and subsequent miniseries, the transition is gradual. In the film, it feels like a deus ex machina. In other words, in the film, it feels as if Jack goes crazy because the plot requires him to do so, rather than showing his madness as the gradual outgrowth of a disintrigration of his personality. The devices to illustrate this (including the scrapbook found in the boiler room) are left out of the movie entirely.
In short, I don't like Kubrick's film of "The Shining" because in it plot dictates character rather than the other way around.
I think that Kubrick's post-"Clockwork" films are problematic, but that the best of them is "Eyes Wide Shut". It does not have the disparity between it's first half and it's second that makes "Full Metal Jacket" such a dissapointment for me (I think the entire film should have been about the events at Parris Island. This portion of the film has a narrative force that the subsequent hour lacks). It has none of the vacuity of "Barrie Lyndon". It makes its point much more succinctly, and silly as it is, it actually HAS one. It shares none of the forementioned mechanical problems with "The Shining".
Is "Eyes Wide Shut" a good film when measured against such movies as "2001:A Space Oddyssey", "Paths of Glory" or "Doctor Strangelove"?. Not in my opinion, no. Is it better than most of his output post-"Clockwork"? In my opinion, yes.
Tell me, is everyone who does not share your opinion an idiot?
reply
share
mightyman
18 years ago
I'm a Kubrik fan (but I haven't seen all his films, no real early stuff, no EWS no Barry Lyndon), but let me just say that I think he was SLIGHTLY overrated. Dr. Strangelove, is arguably his best film, and my personal favorite. One thing I have to say about him is that I think a lot of his films are uneven. 2001, the first half has a good plot, the second half has good visual and audio effects, but never the two shall meet. Full Metal Jacket, uneven but this was less his fault because he was trying to show the duality of man, but it is still noticable it's like two seperate films boot camp, and Vietnam. Clockwork had a much more subtle split which made it one of his best. And the Shining I have nothing bad to say about the shining, except its just further proof that Kubrik was an auter. He took a book adapted it, and it's so different from the book it's almost an original work, much like what he did with... EVERY OTHER FILM. I don't mean that as a bad thing, but it's not always a good thing.
reply
share
Snowwman
11 years ago
Why do people put Stanley Kubrick on a pedestal? Movies can be art, entertainment, informative or narrative. Most Kubrick I've seen tries to be all of these and falls short in every way. Full Metal Jacket was, by far, the best, as it was quite entertaining while being a relevant narrative of the human condition and the effect of war on the individual.
Eyes Wide Shut. Was it art? Not by any definition I'd care to hear. The writing was lazy, the plot was drivel, and the acting was terrible. I suppose it was well shot, but nothing spectacular. Entertaining? Only while boobs were on screen. Was it informative? No. Was it narrative? Perhaps slightly. The message of this movie seems to be immorality breeds immorality - obvious, and hardly worth the cost of admission/rental, let alone the pay checks of its stars.
Honestly, if you think EWS was brilliant, check out anything labelled "Erotic Thriller." You'll get better writing, a more believable plot, better looking stars, and a far more enjoyable couple of hours. I'd recommend anything with Angie Everhart. As it happens, I watched Sexual Predator the same night as I watched EWS and I remember being stunned how much better the "B-grade trash" was than the "Cinema Classic"
reply
share