|
|
Post by Popeye Doyle on Jul 13, 2021 12:53:05 GMT
One of the first 25 films selected for The National Film Registry. Well, it’s good but far from my favorite Kubrick film. Rarely laugh out loud funny; I think amusing may be more apt. Much of it derives from scenes like Turgidson explaining to the President how Ripper exceeded his authority or said President speaking with the Russian Premier. Much praised is heaped on the three performances from Peter Sellers but just as good is George C. Scott. The Criterion Collection Blu-ray includes lots of good stuff for fans.
*** out of ****
|
|
|
|
Post by vegalyra on Jul 13, 2021 13:50:06 GMT
Obviously Peter Sellers is brilliant in this but for me anyways George C. Scott, Sterling Hayden and Slim Pickens carry the film so very well. I can’t imagine anyone else running their roles in the film.
I have the older 45th anniversary bluray in the “book” format. It looks beautiful and has a lot of nice extras. I thought about getting the criterion release but not sure if the transfer is the same or not. Regardless it’s a great film in my library.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mulder and Scully on Jul 13, 2021 14:44:18 GMT
I don't like Kubrick films. He mostly did painfully dull, pretentious, self-indulgent garbage.
Sellers and Scott give some decent performances though.
|
|
|
|
Post by kolchak92 on Jul 13, 2021 14:49:41 GMT
I don't think it was intended to be laugh-out-loud funny. If you watch it expecting something akin to There's Something About Mary, you're bound to be disappointed.
|
|
|
|
Post by marth on Jul 13, 2021 15:01:44 GMT
My 2nd favorite Kubrick after The Shining.
I think it´s a masterpiece.
|
|
|
|
Post by mortsahlfan on Jul 13, 2021 16:01:08 GMT
I didn't find it funny. I'm so sick of people mentioning "There's no fighting in the war room" which I don't think is very clever, anyway.
One of my least favorite Kubrick movies.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamesbamesy on Jul 13, 2021 16:18:23 GMT
I found it to be mostly amusing as well but still quite enjoyable. Sellers is legendary in this movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by wmcclain on Jul 13, 2021 21:24:46 GMT
Dr. Strangelove (1964), directed by Stanley Kubrick. Endlessly quotable dark satire filled with images that have become cultural icons. Pretty damn funny still, ranging from the very dry to the slapstick. It was more forceful at the time before the gut-wrenching fear of imminent nuclear war had faded. It's amazing what Kubrick can fit into 94 minutes. The fine cast includes Peter Sellers times three (great in each role -- I love the way Group Capt Mandrake's accent develops under stress), George C. Scott, Sterling Hayden and Slim Pickens, who would all be famous now for this movie alone. This time the bomber interior seemed a technocratic blizzard of switches, dials, indicator lights and mysterious self-destructing controls. I recall this being very important in the 1960s, all wrapped up with the space race and early computers -- the notion that we were finally getting some control over nature and could build clever electronic gizmos for any purpose. The missile attack on the bomber is very exciting and we have the disorienting impulse to cheer the crew and root for them as they struggle to complete their mission to start WW3. In a famous inadvertent bit you can see the Russian ambassador (Peter Bull) cracking up while watching Strangelove struggle with his limbs. Laurie Johnson score. Photographed by Gilbert Taylor. Available on Blu-ray. This is the first time I have noticed that the centerfold in Maj Kong's "Playboy" has an issue of "Foreign Affairs" draped across her backside. The Blu-ray has several history of the Cold War extras which I did not have time to watch. Hell, boy, I was there. 
|
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Jul 13, 2021 21:39:25 GMT
My #47 all-time.
|
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Jul 13, 2021 22:02:29 GMT
Scott is actually pretty funny in this movie. Somewhat surprising.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jul 13, 2021 22:07:12 GMT
It's good at poking fun at the absurdity of Cold War politics, but yeah it's not necessarily a barrel of laughs. More like chuckles. I was surprised that Strangelove himself actually had little screen-time.
|
|
|
|
Post by phantomparticle on Jul 13, 2021 22:48:14 GMT
Fail Safe was released at the same time, but Dr. Strangelove was such a blockbuster no one noticed.
Check them out, back to back, for polar opposite views on coping with the insanity of Cold War politics and nuclear Armageddon when it was still the center of global hysteria.
|
|
|
|
Post by wmcclain on Jul 13, 2021 23:04:36 GMT
Fail-Safe (1964), directed by Sidney Lumet. An intense Cold War thriller about an accidental nuclear attack on the Soviet Union, the scramble to figure out what's happening, how to stop it, and finally how to prevent World War III and nuclear annihilation. Starkly shot with no musical score. Simple sets as required by the low budget. Dan O'Herlihy has memorable opening and closing scenes: it begins with his recurrent nightmare, a bullfight and the kill. He can't see the matador's face, but it has something to do with his job as General on the Joint Chiefs. He and his wife begin their day by discussing plans, but we have the ominous feeling none of it will happen. In the last scene he learns what the dream means. Henry Fonda is the perfect film President: calm, folksy, the guy sitting where the buck stops. He has an orderly mind, thinks fast and does what's necessary. But I don't think a real president would adopt his solution to the crisis, threat of WW3 or no. The DVD has a commentary track by the director, watching the film for the first time in many years. He says: The movie is based on a best-selling novel of the same name, but before filming began they were sued for plagiarism by the author of Red Alert, Columbia Studios and Stanley Kubrick, who were making Dr. Strangelove (1964) based on that book. In an out of court settlement Columbia bought up the project and distributed both films. It released Strangelove first, which seems like an odd decision: wouldn't you want the drama first and then the satire? The military settings are purely imaginary, as they had no cooperation in discovering how the facilities actually looked. The aviation clips are a scrounged hodgepodge without any continuity. Walter Matthau's character was based on Herman Kahn. He says everyone working on the project was "political". I think I know what he means, but am less clear on the message. That nuclear war would be bad? Everyone already understood that. That we should guard against the risk of starting a war by accident? Agreed, and he notes that natural technological faults and complexity made accidents inevitable, a good point. That there was a political way out of the Cold War and nuclear standoff? That is not so clear. He seems to think it bold to present a General who is less warlike than the civilian consultant. 
|
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Jul 13, 2021 23:22:30 GMT
It’s not a laugh-out-loud funny movie, but satire doesn’t necessarily need to be like that. It has a point that it gets across well.
|
|
