kickaxerrr

I saw this movie expecting just another generic horror movie and it started out just that way. A group of girls going out on a weekend alone in a remote location.

But after 15 minutes or so it changed. It became a fascinating and terrifying exploration of claustrophobia and then transformed into a truly horrific and really scary experience, that not only included the claustrophobic aspect, but darkness and monsters and more.

I was surprised at how scary and interesting this movie was.

I haven't seen a horror movie that affected me so much in a long time. It is one of the best.

There were three seasons of this show and it changed dramatically from one season to the next, the third season being by far the best. This show evolved more in three seasons than probably any other show has in ten or more seasons. It is a remarkable thing. It is one of the best, if not the best, TV show I have ever seen.

It has been compared to "South Park" and "Davey and Goliath" and other shows and that is just ridiculous. It is not anything like them or any other show ever. It is not meant to be a parody or satire or even meant to be explicitly funny. It is not a comedy, though it is frequently humorous. It is not a drama, though it is just as frequently serious. There has never been another show like this.

I have read all of the reviews on IMDb about this show and I think almost all of them have it wrong, the good and the bad reviews both.

This show has as it's backbone, Christianity. But that is far from the point of the show. I believe the point of the show is to highlight our human failings, and obsessions or things that control our lives, whether that be a reliance on religion to run our lives or some other thing, such as eggs, which rules Francis Clara Censordoll's life (her initials are FCC, by the way) or cleaning, which controls Bloberta's life or sex which drives not only Reverend Putty's life, but also Coach Stopframe's life, among others. Others are controlled or obsessed by loss of a child, or by a lack of love or by drinking, etc.

It takes all of these themes to the extreme to see what would happen. Predominately the extreme is based on a religious theme, especially in season one, but it is in no way limited to religion. That is why I disagree with so many of the other reviews. They look at this show as a religious show, while I look at it as a human show. After all, most people believe in some religion or another. It just so happens that in America most people believe in Christianity so that is what the show is primarily about, but it is not about Christianity exclusively. It is about the human condition. Religion just happens to have the most powerful effect on human life and how people act than just about anything else, except perhaps for sex, and this show deals with both of those subjects almost equally.

There were several people reviewing this show that saw it as an attack on Christianity and said that they would not have dared to attack Islam or some other religion in the same way. I disagree. As I said, I don't think this show is specifically a show about religion, but is a show about humanity. If this show would have happened to, or been allowed to have been made in a country where Christianity was not the predominant religion, it would have been almost the exact same show.

It is about how an idea can be taken too far. Whether that be a religious idea or not. For example, Nurse Bendy's obsession with the loss of her child and subsequent preoccupation with dolls and her childish attitude have nothing to do with religion. Also, Ms. Papermouth. Her obsession is with zebra statues and a lack of self-esteem which also has nothing to do with religion. There are many more examples like that.

After the first season, most of the shows didn't have anything to do with religion, as a matter of fact. It dealt mainly with the relationships between a father and son and the relationships between different people in Moralton.

The third season especially is a deeply insightful exploration of human feelings and how people interact with each other. It has virtually nothing to do with religion in any way and is also very rarely funny, though that is done very much on purpose. It also happens to be one of the best explorations of human psychology that I have ever seen depicted on screen. It is so deep and thoughtful that I have seen this series three times or more in total and I am still finding new meanings and new things to think about.

It is an amazing show, and anyone who dismissed it after the first few shows should give it another look. They will be pleasantly surprised. It is not some one dimensional parody of religion or some other show. It is a unique insightful look at how humans act and why they do so. It is an amazing achievement that I have never seen equaled anywhere else.

"Moby Dick" is my favorite novel. I have read it many times. William Hurt and Ethan Hawke are two of my favorite actors. So I had high hopes for this movie version. My hopes were diminished slightly in the opening scene where Ishmael, the main character, saves Pip, the future cabin boy, from a beating on the way to Nantucket and brings him along. That scene never happened in the book. Pip doesn't show up until they are all on the ship, but I know that some liberties need to be taken in a translation from novel to movie, so I dismissed it. Then my hopes were completely dashed over the next 3 hours. In those 3 hours there were about 15 minutes worth of film that were actually taken from the book. It is as though the screenwriter read the back cover of the novel, where it says that it is the story of an obsessed captain chasing a white whale and wrote a completely new story based on nothing but that. One of the more obvious things is that, in the book, Ahab, the captain, doesn't even appear until days into the sea voyage when he finally emerges from his cabin. In the movie the first half hour or more involves him at home with his wife and son, neither of which are even in the book at all. Even the climactic ending has been changed a great deal. It would take up too much space to write about all the other things that are completely different from the novel. Basically this is not a film version of "Moby Dick" at all, it is an invention of the screenwriter, based on a similar idea.

Forgetting all that, the movie itself, as a movie, is just not that good. The direction is OK and the performances are all relatively good, except for Hurt, who is, as another reviewer said "hammy" and "cheesy". He should have played a sandwich instead of Ahab. The special effects are sub par, considering what can be done nowadays. The whales shown often don't even make a splash when they dive under. They just disappear. The plot is thin with none of the characters really developed in any way, except perhaps for Starbuck the first mate, who is the only one in the movie who seems to even realize what is going on. Two earlier versions, the 1956 version with Gregory Peck and the 1998 version with Patrick Stewart, despite their own flaws were much better movies and more faithful adaptations of the novel than this one. So watch those, or even better read the book.

I am a huge! Kubrick fan but I think that maybe this movie was less than some people think it was.

Yes it is an exploration of people's sexuality, and yes it is about a man's descent into depravity and even violence (indirectly), but I think it was also the last gasp of a man who wanted to make a film about sex when he was too old to grasp the actual facts of what it is like to be obsessed with sex. It seems to me to be more about the idea of sexuality than the realism of it.

A few graphic sex scenes do not make a good erotic film, which I believe this was supposed to be. A far better example of this would be "Last Tango in Paris.", which is about the most perfect erotic movie ever made. To me that is what it seems like Kubrick was trying to make. "Last Tango" in America or London.

Without a doubt, some of the scenes in "Eyes Wide Shut" are beautiful and well thought out and well shot, like the walk through the sex club, edited or not. That is magnificent.

Kubrick definitely had an eye for the camera, I don't think anyone would dispute that (least of all me), but all in all the story ,through dialogue or through visuals, is lacking. The raw, sexual power that could have been portrayed, just isn't. One of the best scenes, visually, is the scene where Cruise is asked to tend to a woman who had a drug overdose, but it just ends up being a naked woman who had a drug overdose. Not very sexy.

I hate to beat a dead horse but, in "Last Tango", the scene with the butter is far more realistic and erotic than anything in "EWS". Kubrick could have made the most erotic and most provocative film ever if he was 30 years younger. I would love to see what he would have done with this script then. Now, I think he was doing his best, but just didn't have the same intensity that was required for this film. It required a younger director to really bring the sexual parts of this movie to life.

As always, the scenes are meticulous and breathtaking. The lights in the club are just amazing. Cruise walking through the city is remarkable. But the sexual element is missing, and that is supposed to be the main theme of the film.

If you had given a camera to Kubrick when he was 18 and told him to make an erotic movie, it probably would have been one of the most amazing things seen on film, but now, it seems to be just an excercise that does not live up to it's potential.

So many people have tried to lump this movie into one of two categories. "Art" or "Science-fiction". It is actually neither of these in my opinion. It, to me is an explanation of where we come from and where we are going. Not necessarily the truth, but one of many possible explanations. It shows evolution, which is a slow process and which is depicted in the film by long slow shots of spaceships and Savannah's and so on, but also the rapidity of scientific advancement, shown by the quick edits from bone to spaceship and in the "relatively" quick advances from moon travel to planetary travel to travel to other universes.

"HAL" while being an unforgettable figure in the movie, seems to be almost unnecessary in the telling of this epic tale. The history of the human race does not need a protagonist, and seems to be put in only as a cinematic device so that people would have some sort of "connection" to this as a "movie", with a hero and villain.

It is to me only a vision on film. It is not art. It is not drama. It s not science fiction. It is one view of reality, and that is all. The world may or may not have developed this way and may or may not continue to develop this way. No one knows. That I think is the point of this movie. Who knows?

While I am a HUGE fan of Stanley Kubrick and I think this movie is quite good and quite provocative for it's time, there is just too much left out for me. I have read the book and I have seen this version and the Adrian Lyne version and both movie adaptations are well done, and although I think Kubrick's is a little better, neither one captures the essence of the book quite right. I don't fault the filmmakers in either case. This book is a masterpiece of literature, and like all masterpieces of the written word, it is nearly impossible to translate onto film. This book especially is extremely difficult, considering the subject matter. It would be difficult to be 100% faithful to the book without delving into child pornography.

I think Kubrick walked that fine line better than Lyne. To me, the Kubrick version is more erotic, with its (probably forced by the times) less sexual scenes. Of course this subject should not be depicted erotically, necessarily, but that is one of the main themes of the book, so it can't be ignored.

That is why I think that both versions of the film fall short. Neither is allowed to express fully the plot of the book. The book is about a man who falls in love with an underage young woman, which is taboo in our times. He runs away with her, and whether it is voluntary or not is one of the plot points of the book.

The book is at times, disturbing and funny and dramatic, and Kubrick seems to capture that better than Lyne does, but as I said, neither can do it it's true justice as a work of art due to the restrictions of film. My recommendation is to read the book by Vladimir Nabokov and then watch the movies and decide for yourself.

As a stand alone work of art I do have to give the nod to Kubrick on this one, although the Adrian Lyne version is excellent as well. My final verdict is: Read the Book!!. It is better than both films and is a truly unique experience that will last longer in your mind and in our culture than either film will.

I realize that this is my own personal opinion, but I consider this to be the best movie I have ever seen.

I saw it first when I was 16, about the age of the main character, Alex, in the movie.

I first saw the movie, then I read the book. This is one of the few times that I ever thought a movie was better than the book. Not to take away anything from the book at all. It itself is a masterpiece, but this movie somehow made a remarkable book even more remarkable.

Everyone who has said that it is too disturbing or violent has completely missed the point. First of all, I have seen many more violent movies in my life, this is tame compared to some of them. Second of all, the sex and violence in this movie is an integral part. That is what it is about. It is about how sex and violence have been desensitized so much that it is the norm for young people.

Alex doesn't know that there is any other option. He is a product of his society. When he rapes and kills that woman, it is not because he is sick, but because society is sick, partly discerned by the fact that the woman is killed by him with a phallic statue that she has in her own home.

He is shown making love to some girls that he met in a record store, illustrating again that sex is a meaningless activity, only to be used for pleasure and not as an important part of life.

When he is arrested it seems to be more to set an example than to right a wrong. Society and the law seem to be more interested in making themselves look good, rather than justice.

He is arrested by his former cohorts, which only goes to show that the government is more interested in appearances than it is about what is right and wrong.

When society comes up with a solution to "fix" Alex, through mind control, which is one of the most memorable scenes in movie history, the scene with Alex's eyes pried open, it does fix him, at least temporarily, but it does not fix the society he lives in. He does not change at all, not because he can't or won't, but because society has not changed.

Maybe it never will.

This movie is a fable for our time, even though it was made 40 years ago. If we don't learn the lessons put forth in this film, we are destined to live it and suffer the consequences.

It is April fool's day and Adult Swim is showing "The Room" again. It debuted there a few years ago. They said they were going to show something else, I recorded it and the next day watched it and it wasn't what they claimed. Instead they played "The Room" as a joke. That is when I first saw it. They have showed it every year since then.

It is quite literally the worst movie ever made. It was written/directed/produced and stars Tommy Wiseau. The worst movie maker and actor ever to exist.

"Plan Nine From Outer Space" was often considered to be the worst movie ever made until this came along. "Plan" had the last performance of Bela Lugosi, playing a vampire. He died before the movie was finished and he was replaced by an actor that just lurked around with his cape covering his face. Their spaceship set was a desk with a curtain behind it. I think "The Room" easily and honestly wins the title. (By the way Ed Wood made "Plan" and some of the other worst movies ever made. Tim Burton made a movie about him called, of course, "Ed Wood" which is great, watch that if you haven't.)

You must see this movie. If you don't, your life will not be complete and you will die with a hole in your soul.

I have seen a lot of movies. Most of them I forget about unless they are something very special, like "A Clockwork Orange" or "Star Wars" or "Saving Private Ryan". I will never forget those movies and what they did to me. They changed my life. This movie did the same thing. It is unforgettable. It is a masterpiece of awfulness. I will remember it until I die.

There is just something special about it that lifts if from just plain bad, to something that is unbelievable. It is hypnotic. Every moment from beginning to end is like a test to see if you can withstand another second of it. If you can, you will reach a higher plane, a sort of nirvana. If you can do it you will become a different person with a greater understanding of yourself and the world around you. It is that bad. See it as soon as possible.