Read to the End

Пікірлер

@dopnai 3 күн бұрын

Didnt like the movie but I also dont like this sassy ass "we get it...racism once existed..5 years ago" -review. That "clued in" sarcastic tone suggests youre part of the most recent generation that understands interracial dynamics and is ready to move past them without any form of self-examination nor discussion for fear of jeopardizing your social media account.

@oophorror2251 4 күн бұрын

Gonna have to listen to this after I rewatch it. I really dug it but I’m also not the type to complain about Chloe Sevigny and Kstew nudity. God bless feminism! Mysandry is cute. Like watching your child throw a tantrum before you make ‘em clean their room.

@oophorror2251 4 күн бұрын

I read Stanley Kubrick by Vince Lobrutto as a teen. Even as a massive Kubrick Stan, I always felt the Shining sucked. It has no ending and is slow af.

@oophorror2251 4 күн бұрын

Ok. I’m gonna have to come back to this one too. Now I’m worried I got a bird brain.

@oophorror2251 4 күн бұрын

I’m gonna have to carve back to this one after my movie. Sounds interesting and I’m never gonna read Freddy Niche anyway.

@readtotheend 4 күн бұрын

Freddy is the GOAT

@oophorror2251 4 күн бұрын

I’m not listening to this but giving you the runtime while I watch movies. Just curious who’s your pfp?

@readtotheend 4 күн бұрын

Hahahaha much appreciated

@nevenneven8159 7 күн бұрын

Did this dude really just use the word ''incestphobic'' in his recent IT video then turn off the comments 😭

@readtotheend 4 күн бұрын

I didn't turn them off. Never would. Never will. When I uploaded the comments were turned off.

@colinqualm6422 8 күн бұрын

I think the 'lack of character' works especially well in The Shining because this movie deals with something bigger then humans, like in 2001 for example. The steady cam helps convey the idea of the story being told from an other entity, a ghost/god like figure. I think it makes sense that if the perspective is cold and objective as in The Shining, there would be a lack of character psychology. It's as if this entity is just floating around in this hotel and the Torrence family happens to be there too. Imagine if such an entity watches you, I think your choices also wouldn't make any sense, people are just very random in real world as well. It's a very realistic approach to the horror genre. I always feel like the Overlook hotel, or more like the entity within it -call it the shining, like the title, is the main character.

@readtotheend 4 күн бұрын

Awesome perspective on the movie. I like it a lot. *than when comparing.

@jojithehomie7809 9 күн бұрын

Gotta disagree about The Shining, but I think 2001 A Space Odyssey is an absolute nothing burger of a movie that people only say is good because of peer pressure

@readtotheend 4 күн бұрын

I love both but I get it. There is something cold at the center of 2001.

@nobodyepicz7538 9 күн бұрын

yeah thats why i got tired of it after a few runs. liked the ''cabin fever-ish'' thing with jack turning crazy and trying to kill his family but the supernatural things is not as satisfying. i like the raw realistic horror. like a dude killing his family after going crazy.

@readtotheend 4 күн бұрын

The supernatural is generally metaphorical for that psychological descent. But sometimes it makes it less accessible emotionally.

@mattc6018 9 күн бұрын

"Kubrick doesn't make movies the way they are supposed to be made" Ok, I'm sure yours are much better, please share them.

@readtotheend 4 күн бұрын

Obviously my movies would be vastly superior to anything Kubrick could muster. Or, in the alternative, I can point out a leaking faucet without having plumbed.

@mattc6018 4 күн бұрын

@readtotheend yes because objectively defective items and subjective art are exactly the same thing. 🙄 You're entitled to your own opinion, of course, but you didn't present it that way. It's fine if I say, "the Mona Lisa doesn't really do it for me." But if I say, "Leonardo da Vinci didn't really know how to paint," then I'm a truly asinine and ridiculous person.

@pilapila183 9 күн бұрын

I hate to be that guy but I'll power through it. I think people who love this movie just haven't read the book. The story in the movie is a mere shell of the story in the book. They feel like actual people. We see Jack's hopes and dreams, how they got crushed and what that's doing to him mentally. We see why he got fired, how his drinking problem developed, his relationship with his parents. Wendy went from a strong character who could defend herself, she pretty much killed Jack, to a tear delivery device. Don't get me started on the end reveal and how it undermines the rest of the movie. It makes no sense and is only there for shock value. That said, I still watching this frequently. It's visually interesting, but that's it.

@readtotheend 4 күн бұрын

Great perspective.

@hs4974 9 күн бұрын

WIth respect, i think you should stick to terminator 2 and marvel films. Like its one thing if you need to be spoonfed character background and motivation and you can't use your own noggin to work out which parts might be analogies to something else and which parts might be hinting at a deeper meaning (also there is literally endless amounts of theory and criticism around this very topic and a quick ten min dig will give you tons of info about interpretations of, for example, the maze), but to suggest that this isn't somehow your failing but is completely the failing of arguably one of the most important and intelligent directors of the 20th century is mindblowing. Like imagine Stanley watching this and slapping his forhead and going "UH-OH, SPAGHETTI-O'S! I FORGOT TO THINK ABOUT THE CHARACTERS! BOY IS MY FACE RED!" Never gonna happen buddy. There's loads of interesting characterisation and choices here that say all sorts about the (to use the word that you insist on repeating over and over) "psychology" of the film. There is tons about relationships to alcohol, relationships to spouses, child abuse, race relations, trauma, you name it. If you've seen this film multiple times and haven't been able to see ANY of that, that is 100% a you problem. That's not to say that Kubricks characters aren't often detatched and cold towards the audience- they definitely are. But thats a choice not an oversight. Its like watching a lynch movie and going "uurrrggghhh that was shit none of them can act, they were all so wooden"- its a stylistic choice you wally. And IMO it adds loads of depth to the characters and story- its not "bad storytelling", its a desicion to tell a story in a particular way. Sorry if I come across aggressive, but honestly, you need to wind your neck in and adjust your tone. Maybe if something doesn't work for you its not the fault of, say, one of the most important directors of all time- maybe you just don't get it. Which of course is fine, and we all have our own tastes and opinions. But to put up this smug little retort to your audience of less than 600 subscribers where you act like you've uncovered a major flaw in kubricks directing is not endearing, it makes you come across as kinda silly. And its not a fucking pig man, its a bear you fucking fuck.

@wrestledeep 9 күн бұрын

I agree with you 100% Glad that someone had to say it.👍 "UH-OH, SPAGHETTI-O'S! 😅🤣😂🤣🤣🤣🤣❤

@readtotheend 4 күн бұрын

I don't think you've seen my other videos. Projecting a frontier of complexity that isn't actually there doesn't rescue a film from itself. Yes, criticizing Kubrick for having little interest in psychology and emotion, directly or thematically, is like criticizing Kandinsky for not having more human figures in his paintings. But that doesn't mean that ignoring them makes a work of art better. In my estimation, Kubrick was more a painter and less a storyteller. That's fine. It's just less than what it could have been. Also, it's actually a dog in the book you fucking fucking fuck shit fuck. But I'm still calling it a pig.

@EricGray-zr2es 9 күн бұрын

The chatacters are props for Kubrick. He focuses on the medium of the film itself, the atmosphere, perspective, lighting framing, sound, and most of all. MOOD.

@readtotheend 4 күн бұрын

Facts. But that doesn't mean he would have been capable of doing otherwise if he wanted to.

@EricGray-zr2es 4 күн бұрын

@@readtotheend oh absolutely

@allenrubinstein3696 9 күн бұрын

I recently left this comment on another video with a much more detailed analysis of The Shining. I just watched it on the big screen a week ago, and it's clearer to me than ever that it's a subjective, expressionistic experience. As a standard, linear narrative, it makes very little sense, down to the time of day and the character names. The inter-titles throwing out days and hours don't relate to anything, the characters' behavior seems out of sequence, the geography is twisted all to hell, elements are thrown in without set up or pay off. Either Stanley freaking Kubrick suddenly turned into a hack who can't organize a narrative, or it's all wrong on purpose. It's about how abuse and American imperialism fucks with the human mind, dislocating time, space and cause and effect. Violence makes doors open themselves and the decades crash together. It's a mangled, traumatized memory/fever dream about the sheer terror of being trapped in complete isolation with a crazy person. (i.e. a woman married to an abuser or a people whose land has been invaded by genocidal monsters).

@LiMaking 9 күн бұрын

I always thought of the narrative being the representation of every character's deteriorating mind and emotional instability which goes up and down, and can switch in an instant. Now that I work with people that has dementia and think back to this movie, it adds to the story for me. The people I work with float in and out from reality, or from dream to dream and their emotional state can change in an instant. Nothing really makes sense to the patient or the nurse, and for some it creates a state of constant worry, anger and fear. Just like what I feel this movie is a lot about. And for people with dementia, or people who are loosing themselves from reality, days and names doesn't really matter anymore.

@allenrubinstein3696 9 күн бұрын

@@LiMaking Well, the same is true of abusers - normal one minute, a threat the next. That's the most harrowing thing, never knowing what to expect.

@readtotheend 4 күн бұрын

I think your description has more storytelling aesthetic merit than the movie. Recall it's based on a book by a whiny nerd gaslighting as a genre King. Sure Kubrick could have extracted an expressionistic scene from the crude layer cake he was served but there's a reason his movies fascinate but don't define or move eras. He's a cynical anthropologist pinning human wings to boards, not some avuncular figure trying to help us understand ourselves.

@allenrubinstein3696 4 күн бұрын

@@readtotheend Cynical anthropologist sounds about right. I don't think that makes his work any less magnificent, and for sure, Hollywood doesn't have much use for either his perspective or his creative technique in its business models. It makes for an interesting question - which post-Kubrick directors are the most Kubrickian? And hey, The Shining is not at all one of my favorites of his dozen or so films, and not finding it satisfying is perfectly legitimate. Kubrick wasn't much interested in audience satisfaction. I wouldn't say most (worthwhile) artists help us understand ourselves and much as they create to help understand their own bad selves. What the process of making The Shining contributed to Kubrick himself is another interesting question, but he wasn't much for gabbing about his inner life. I might compare Shining in particular, and perhaps some other stuff in his work to Hitchcock seeding movie after movie with his fears, themes and pre-occupations. None of that warns humanity to, say, avoid icy blondes or try not to be wrongly accused of a crime. It was just the shit on his mind when he made yet another suspense flick. You could say the windy hallways of the Overlook are the synapses of Kubrick's subconscious. It's what he finds scary, obviously. Or you could not say that. We all find meaning where we find it. Interesting world.

@OnHighway61 9 күн бұрын

What an awful take. Take up another hobby

@kingredbeard8383 9 күн бұрын

Hard disagree with you on the main characters. This film doesn't hold your hand and tell you every little thing about the characters. That's part of what makes it so eerie. What happened to make Jack lose his job and have to move across the country? How bad is his alcohol problem? Is Tony another entity, or a repressed personality? The list goes on and on. Think about the Sixth Sense. The final reveal is so satisfying, because we can tell something is wrong all along, even if it's subconscious. But what if they had never revealed that? The movie would have been panned critically (as The Shining was), and people would be trying to answer the question of why the psychologist never talks to anyone but the kid, or what's the deal with him and his wife, etc. What's somewhat irritating (even to me now) is that Kubrick never revealed whether there was an answer to all these mysteries, or if he was intentionally using a mode of storytelling that uses our innate human tendency to search for meaning. We see numbers and patterns, and we naturally come up with reasons. But we can also see things that aren't there, like the cords for the television or the furniture that's in one shot and missing in the next. Finally, to address one thing about the characters, most of them are not what they seem. There's plenty of indications that Jack's not the family man that he tells everyone (and himself) that he is. Charlie doesn't share everything about Tony with his parents. Dick says he's not afraid of the hotel, and there's nothing in room 237. It requires some effort on our part to see through these lies, and then we have to ask ourselves what else the movie is lying to us about.

@readtotheend 4 күн бұрын

I don't mind a lone walk but not only do I think the movie doesn't tell you the answers, I don't think it much cares. I don't think it cares if Jack is a hypocrite or characters lie or violence erupts for some or no reason. From the perspective of the hotel, or Kubrick-the-all-seeing, people simply click in and out of place in an alluring grotesquery.

@mxmxpr 9 күн бұрын

I disagree with you about Stephen King, but what he said about the movie is spot-on, that it's a shiny top-of-the-line new car with nothing under the hood. There's no question that it's visually compelling and that there's some indefinable undercurrent that makes it feel like a puzzle that needs solving, but what's on the surface is shallow and disconnected.

@Artemis-z2k 10 күн бұрын

I actually agree with you that the devolvement of Jack's character was jarring. Perhaps it was cut for time, but the nuance was lost.

@AWSVids 10 күн бұрын

There's long been a lot of discussion as to just how much meaning in Kubrick's films was intentional or people just reading their own ideas into abstract works of otherwise relatively shallow art that Kubrick just intended as the simple films they appear to be on the surface. He was surely considering and playing with a lot of ideas in his films, but to what level those ideas ever connected into some grand unifying theory or even any graspable point... has always been debatable. Was he a genuine genius that's just above most of our heads... or does the emperor have no clothes? I think it's some mix of both. I believe he had a lot more going on in his mind as to the subtext of the films that probably doesn't come across as much as he either thought, or had at least hoped people would figure out. And maybe some have... but most of the theories about the "genius" or secret scandalous meaning behind a film like The Shining are probably a lot of overthinking and projection. When you listen to Kurbrick talk about the movie, he doesn't sound like he's thinking about a lot of really deep and serious stuff... he just says he wants to give the audience a scare and play with creepy ideas and imagery, etc... and the ending result doesn't really have any intentional specific meaning, it's just like a rorshach test for the audience. People ascribe a lot of meaning to the upside down door shot of Jack hovering over the camera, etc... "oh, this is such a unique and interesting shot... it must be really meaningful, the upside down nature of it representing the inverse nature of reality.. him towering over the camera is representing the authoritarianism of the patriarchy and the white supremacist oppression of the Native Americans, because there's a lot of native inspired production design in the movie, and Jack says "white man's burden"..." ... In reality, you watch the behind the scenes and it shows Kubrick coming up with that shot on-the-fly because he was bored with normal camera angles, and he didn't think too deeply about it... he just lied down on the floor with his viewfinder and said, "oh, this looks good.". The produciton design was probably just an aesthetic choice because it fit with the hotel style and it's location. He probably didn't think that deeply about it. Jack Nicholson just improvised the "white man's burden" line. As far as Jack going crazy and how deep the psychology of it goes... it does seem the same, and Kubrick was pretty much just thinking about it on the basic level of "Hotel getting to him... possessed by the spirit of his dead previous life." and that's about it. It's not him representing Kubrick's guilt and madness over having faked the moon landing. It's not white man's guilt about the Native Americans. It's not some deep spiritual commentary or Satanist symbology or whatever else people want to theorize about it. It's just a movie about a guy getting possessed and unleashing his worst self while isolated at a hotel, which is the basic story that Kubrick found creepy from the book, and sought to simplify it as much as possible for a streamlined yet abstractly creepy horror movie, and that's as deep as it went in Kubrick's mind. He just left the rest of it as blank as possible, while focusing on striking visuals that inspire a feeling in the audience, and then just lets the rest of it be a rorshach test. Which is interesting and cool, but it's not necessarily as highly genius as a lot of people make Kubrick out to be. He was a smart guy for sure, and very talented at filmmaking... but as a storyteller, I think he was more about messy musings of scattered ideas that vaguely fit a certain theme... than he was genius theories or hidden messages. 2001 is just the bare bones, simplified arc of human evolution that it appears to be. No deeper meaning than that. A Clockwork Orange is just a relatively simple adaptation of the book, made cinematically striking with Kubrick's visuals and McDowell's performance. What depth there is to it comes mostly from the book in terms of what makes it through Kubrick's simplifying progress intact... and the rest is, again, a rorshach test. He spends a lot of screentime doing things like just having Alex hit his friend in the balls in slow motion. There's no deeper meaning to this, it's just that Kubrick wanted to do a cool slow motion shot and the hitting in the balls was funny. There's wasn't some grand plan to making Dr. Strangelove a comedy... it was originally a serious drama and Kubrick, almost on a whim, thought "What if we just made it funny? The whole nuclear arms race is a big bad joke anyway." That's it. Full Metal Jacket... just a basic "war turns men into monsters" story and not much more. He just has an unconventional structure to it, probably because he wasn't concerned with story structure at all... he just wanted feeling. Eyes Wide Shut is just a creepy musing about a popular conspiracy theory of hidden sex cults... or he just knew about Epstein... and wanted to do a film about a couple struggling with their sex life, and that's as deep as it goes. His films aren't necessarily stories, they're just musings on a collection of vague ideas, that he really just seems to use as an excuse to do interesting visual shots and scenes that he likes for almost purely aesthetic reasons. For instance, he seemed to love just doing long shots of following characters walking through corridors as the camera follows behind, or in front, in a symmetrical centered framing. For whatever reason, he just liked the aesthetic of it, so he did it a lot to fill time and do something he liked visually in a visual medium. That's as deep as it goes. He was interested in some big ideas and was clever enough to make striking and entertaining visual films with some good acting in them... but he wasn't some deep hidden-meaning style genius that only people with a 180 IQ can truly understand. His filmmaking was just so striking visually and so unconventional and abstractly dealt with some big ideas... that it inspires people to WANT there to be more intended meaing to it than there actually is. There HAS to be some deep meaning to how striking the visuals feel.... but there might not be. Though, it is fun to theorize about stuff and link meaning together of your own accord... that's part of what good art can be. I wouldn't say there's any harm to it. But occasionally, it's grounding to remember that even a supposed great untouchable genius like Kubrick... MAY have just been as confused yet curious, and/or shallow as the rest of us. And that's okay. The films are still great for what they are. Visual works of art that inspire interesting ideas and powerful feelings in the audience. That's all a good movie needs to be.

@Ruffwun 10 күн бұрын

Excellent review.

@Tolstoy111 11 күн бұрын

His films are more about ideas than people. That's fine. In the case of this film, it's from the POV of the hotel. Not the people.

@runarvollan 10 күн бұрын

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. - Eleanor Roosevelt

@readtotheend 10 күн бұрын

True. I think I said that at some point during the discussion.

@henrywallacesghost5883 10 күн бұрын

The hotel is the character.

@runarvollan 10 күн бұрын

@@henrywallacesghost5883 The music, camera and lighting too.

@Blackdiamondprod. 13 күн бұрын

7:08 No, there’s not. The Manson Family clearly stated their motive; to start a race war.

@readtotheend 10 күн бұрын

That was the position of the prosecutor and what the family said, but it was actually more complicated. For example the message they left on the door about "Pigs" was in aid of one of their members who had been arrested for a murder with the same message so they could get him sprung. Also, Manson had a number of strange ties to the CIA and a research facility with ties to American intelligence and was protected by local law enforcement until the Tate murders. There was speculation he was tied to an extortion scheme using girls in the family to seduce powerful people, including music executives.

@Blackdiamondprod. 13 күн бұрын

6:30 They did have a clear motive. They wanted to start a race war. That’s well established.

@oophorror2251 13 күн бұрын

All I remember is her little booty shorts and it was a solid thriller. Saw KPAX in theaters. It sucked. American Beauty ruined Spacey’s career because it bumped him up into leading man roles when he’s best as a character actor. Pay It Forward, Beyond the Sea, that death penalty movie. Spacey’s imbd went to crap.

@kcharles8857 14 күн бұрын

Saw this film. Have never forgotten it.

@readtotheend 10 күн бұрын

Resonant movie.