|
|
Post by Popeye Doyle on Nov 30, 2018 13:17:15 GMT
Yes, his name is on the film but only after replacing original director Anthony Mann. By no means a bad film at all, it still lacks the autonomy found in Kubrick's other films.
|
|
|
|
Post by Archelaus on Nov 30, 2018 16:17:00 GMT
No. Spartacus was his only film he didn't have creative control over. All the creative decisions had been made by then he replaced Anthony Mann so he was basically a director-for-hire.
|
|
|
|
Post by kolchak92 on Nov 30, 2018 17:22:59 GMT
Since it was directed by Stanley Kubrick, yes.
|
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Nov 30, 2018 17:33:12 GMT
If it says "A Stanley Kubrick film" then I treat it as such even if he was a hired gun for the film.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 30, 2018 17:33:45 GMT
Yes and no.
1. It is a movie directed by Stanley Kubrick and I think the movie is as great as it is because of Stanley Kubrick.
2. He didn't have full creative control and there are a couple scenes he didn't direct, so in this way it isn't a Stanley Kubrick film in the way you mean.
It's no surprise that Kubrick was such a pain in the ass while directing Spartacus that Kirk Douglas regretted firing Anthony Mann.
|
|
|
|
Post by OldAussie on Nov 30, 2018 18:51:10 GMT
I don't see Alan Smithee in the credits.
|
|
|
|
Post by OldAussie on Nov 30, 2018 18:55:05 GMT
Kubrick volunteered to also take the writing credit if there was a problem with the blacklisted Dalton Trumbo.
Of course this is a kubrick film - and one of his best.
|
|
|
|
Post by vegalyra on Dec 1, 2018 0:01:26 GMT
Kubrick volunteered to also take the writing credit if there was a problem with the blacklisted Dalton Trumbo. Of course this is a kubrick film - and one of his best. I agree, next to Dr. Strangelove it's my favorite of his repertoire. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2018 0:49:24 GMT
yes absolutely .
|
|
|
|
Post by anthonyrocks on Dec 3, 2018 12:35:18 GMT
If it says "A Stanley Kubrick film" then I treat it as such even if he was a hired gun for the film. Agreed! |
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Dec 3, 2018 18:47:59 GMT
He may or may not have had total creative control over it. He may not have directed every single shot in it. But it's still mostly his movie, still pretty damn good, even now, and still a valid entry in his oeuvre. The least Kubrickian film of Kubricks is still better than the whole list of some other directors.
|
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Dec 3, 2018 21:45:49 GMT
It's a Kirk Douglas film.
|
|
|
|
Post by Popeye Doyle on Dec 3, 2018 23:51:18 GMT
It's a Kirk Douglas film. His 102nd birthday is this week. |
|
|
|
Post by FridayOnElmStreet on Dec 4, 2018 0:07:14 GMT
I do. One of his weaker films in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sulla on Dec 4, 2018 0:45:31 GMT
Yes, I do. I'd like to know exactly which parts are Kubrick's and which are Mann's. The composition of the shots of the slow-moving Roman battle formations looks like something Kubrick would do.
|
|
