From Dr. No to Dr. Strangelove: Why Stanley Kubrick Was Never, Ever Allowed Near a James Bond Movie



Last time we delved deep into the heart of craziness by studying the penultimate badass, Klaus Kinski. Now we’re gonna go to another type of craziness by studying two major badasses in cinema history, one real, the other fictitious and by that I mean James Bond and Stanley Kubrick. Respectively.

“James Bond” is the code name for a highly unpopular cloning program being run by Her Majesty’s (Lady Gaga) Secret Service. These guys are dangerous, but easily killed. It’s like this. When the world is in need of rescuing, the HMSS dispatches one of these “James Bonds” to save it. The first and original James Bond was highly successful and resulted in six completed missions before being killed. Rather than hire some new schlub and train him, HMSS decided to cut costs and clone James Bond, albeit with some slight alterations, so it’s kinda like the Venture Bros. meets Doctor Who, but more on that later.

The second Bond proved to be a bit of a let down, only lasting one mission, but the third Bond was a bit of an improvement, going on for about six more missions. At the same time, a rival organization of the HMSS also made a clone of the original James Bond, but this one had no alterations except that by some ill luck it was bald, easily remedied with a bad toupee. This unauthorized clone lasted one mission however.

Eventually, authorized Bond #3 bit the dust, only to be replaced by #4. The Bond proved to be the most troublesome and went rogue, ending up with only two missions under its belt. The fifth Bond was created, and this one proved somewhat more popular and remained true to party doctrine, lasting five whole missions before its untimely demise, and now we have the current sixth James Bond clone, which has completed two highly successful missions with a third one in the works.

Now to the second part of this essay, the fictional director Stanley Kubrick. It’s a running gag in Hollywood to assign Kubrick a place among the “real” directors, but this is false. Stanley Kubrick never really existed. Look at his body of work. Horror, comedy, period, sci-fi, drama, eroticism, epic, satire, war? One man directed all those different types of movies across so many genres? I think not. Rubbish! Balderdash! I spit in your soup for even suggesting it! Even the mighty Alfredo Hitchcock stuck to one genre throughout his career – black comedy. Except for that one shower scene; that didn’t make me laugh, only roll my eyes. But I digress.

This is why Stanley Kubrick never directed a James Bond film. Because James Bond is real, or as real as a clone can get, and Stanley Kubrick is fake, the product of a warped, deluded mind. His name is like “Alan Smithee”, only its applied to good movies instead of bad ones. Yeah, when a director makes a movie that is SO GOOD no one would ever believe a mortal man could have created it, they affix the name “Stanley Kubrick” to the credits, lest they end up being worshiped as some sort of god, and that would never do. Not that they’re averse to being worshiped as a god, far from it, several of them long to be, but as directors this could be difficult. Example:

SOME DIRECTOR: Quiet on the set! Lights! Camera! Action!

ADORING FANS: Look! It’s the director of “A Clockwork Orange”! You are a GOD among MEN!

SOME DIRECTOR: NO! Damn you all! You’ve ruined this expensive shot! NO!!!!

(explosions go haywire and a car falls on the leading actress, killing her and, more importantly, ruining the shot)

So you see, it just will not do for a director to go around with all these worshiping fans tagging along behind him, worshiping him while he’s trying to direct a movie. Therefore, it was decided early on by a group of white men in black robes surrounded by skulls and standing around a pentagram to attribute certain great movies to this “Stanley Kubrick”, so that directors can go on with their very important lives without fear of being accidentally worshiped while in the middle of an important scene. It can be very, very taxing on a director who fails to affix the “Stanley Kubrick” pseudonym to their greatest movies, I kid you not. Just look at what happened to that one guy who didn’t!

Indeed, it takes its toll, so let this post be a warning to all young upstart directors thinking they can just create a great movie and get away with putting their name on it! Yeah! Says me!


Klaus Kinski: Madman or Just Faking It to Get Chicks?


, , ,

Hmm. Klaus Kinski was nuts. Yeah. Just check out this picture of him.

Dang, dude is crazy!

Yeah, he was nuts. I can’t think of anyone who was nuttier. I’m scared just writing this essay, and the guy is dead. He’s gonna come back and haunt me in my sleep. Talk about crazy.

Or…was he?

No, yeah, he was, but let’s face it, chicks dig the crazy dudes. How do I know this? Because as a card-carrying member of the non-crazies, I don’t get many chicks. Therefore, i.e., crazy dudes get the chicks. So he wasn’t faking it, and he was STILL getting the chicks.

My editor, i.e., my daughter, tells me there’s a logical fallacy somewhere in my essay. I concur (see, I could have easily used “agree” there, but I’m a film critic, I never use an easy word when a hard word would suffice (there again, I could have used “do” instead of “suffice”, I love my job, and when you achieve my status, you will too!)). The logical fallacy, whatever the hell that means, is in the person of Klaus “The Man” Kinski himself. His insanity was legendary, he was prone to fits of madness right on the movie set, yelling and screaming and waving his hands. One of his most prominent ┬ácollaborators, Werner Herzog, had to use a gun on him to get him to follow direction! Madness, madness. And I just got a note from my editor saying Herzog himself says that’s just a myth about using the gun. Well! Who (or is it whom?) am I to trust? Wikipedia or the guy who was actually there? Yeah, logically it would be the guy who was there, but truth be told, I think I’ll go with the fallacy and trust Wikipedia. Yeah, what’s it to you what I do with my life? What choices I make? Huh, huh? It ain’t up to you! It’s up to ME. Me, and Mr. Kinski.

Anyway, I digress. Back to the subject at hand. I was digressing. Leaving the main topic. Straying off the path to some other interesting subject. Essays are like bucking broncos, you know? No, you didn’t? Well, now you do. Essays are like calm rivers. They’re always full of water. Where was I? Oh, yes, German Expressionism movement. Herzog was a master of using black and white to achieve his goals. Look at his work in “Nosferatu”. Heh, I just realized something, Herzog never directed “Nosferatu”. Somebody else did. I digress. It’s fun to digress, because it leads my mind to strange new places and ideas. Where was I? It wasn’t Herzog, hang on a second.

OH! Kinski! Natasha Kinski! Dang that chick is fiiiiine!NO! Wait! Dammit! I need a moment. Just gimme a moment. This essay shit is hard. Lemme just take a breather, get a cigarette, I’ll be right back.

Okay, had my cigarette, went to the bathroom, checked my Facebook status, still no friends but that’s certain to change ANY DAY NOW. Dammit, why won’t anyone friend me? Am I that repellent a personality? Am I that full of myself, so arrogant, so nasty, that people go out of their way to avoid me, even when I’m online? And why is Facebook underlined?! I CAPITALIZED IT! IT’S A GODDAMN PROPER N

I’m sorry, I’m sorry, this is totally unprofessional of me. I’m digressing, I’m digressing. Now I’m going to gress back to the proper theme of the essay. Madness. Yes, it wasn’t about Kinski at all! Or Herzog! But MADNESS! HA HA HA HA! Yes, I know, I know, I fooled you! Joke’s on you! YOU LOSERS! I am the master, YOU are the apprentice! HA HA HA HA HA!

My daughter just told me there’s a quicker way to convey my laughter instead of writing out HA HA HA HA HA. It’s “LOL”, which is common Internet shorthand for “laugh out loud”. That may be, but I don’t give two shits. I like writing out HA HA HA HA HA HA. You know who else would spit in the face of Internet convention, were he alive today to do so? You got it.

Klaus Kinski. You magnificent bastard. Insane? Yes. Chick magnet? Definitely. Scared you’ll visit me in the night? Oh, hell yes, yes, yes to the double, triple yes. You, you, you I can’t say “you” enough when it comes to you. You rock my socks, baby. Don’t ever change, Claus, I mean, Klaus. Don’t ever change.

Yeah! 2 Posts, 1 Day!


, ,

Yeah! Get it! Of course you do, because you’re on the Internet and you’re a pervert! Yeah!

I changed the appearance to Chateau! I like it. Chateau is underlined. WHY IS ONE OF THEIR APPEARANCES THEY ADVERTISE UNDERLINED?! Does it need that little thingy-doodle over the “u” at the end? What they called? Umlaut or whatever it is? Well, I’d GLADLY use an umlaut, but my keyboard doesn’t have an umlaut button on it! Damn, this is getting on my nerves. Anyway! Expect an actual review sometime soon! I’m still thinking about what I should review first! Something I love or something I hate. Oh, I know, I know, something I hate.

There’s nothing I love!

Hi! I’m Zeke Fahrenheit! Screw You!


, , , ,

Hi! I’m Zeke Fahrenheit! Don’t call me Ezekiel or I may have to inflict bodily harm upon you! Anyway, I don’t have a bloody clue what to do with this damned “blog” crap except post reviews of movies I hate, and I hate an awful lot of movies! If you like a movie I hate, that’s fine, we’re all entitled to our own opinions no matter how wrong they may be! Look, let’s just be clear about something here, I don’t like you and you don’t like me! Wazzat? You DO like me? Huh. What the hell is wrong with you?

Anyway, I know never to nothing about this blogging hooey. My kid set this all up for me. She’s the brains, sweetheart. I just typed “blogging” and it’s underlined meaning it isn’t in the computer’s dictionary. HOW CAN A BLOG NOT HAVE THE VERY WORD IT IS IN ITS OWN DICTIONARY? I’m so bloody, bloody confused, I want to vomit. Anyway! Like I said, they’ll be some stuff to spruce this place up, pictures and whatnot. Huh, now “whatnot” isn’t underlined, yet I could have sworn that isn’t a real word, just some high class hooey. And hooey isn’t underlined either! But “blogging”, that which I am doing, IS UNDERLINED. And yes, I double-checked to make sure it isn’t “bloging” with one “g” in the middle, that’s underlined too. I am so confused about this. Why did I have to lose my job with the newspaper. Shit. HEY! Shit isn’t underlined! It’s in the dictionary! HEY! I just realized I can type “shit” all I want and it won’t be censored! Neat! Screw the newspaper, this online stuff maybe okay after all! Whoa, wait a second, “online” is underlined now. SO, the TWO THINGS that most appertains to and they’re underlines. Is internet underlined? YES IT IS. Is “Internet” with a capital “I” underlined? No. Okay, so Internet is a proper noun. Huh. I did not know that.

Whoa, I am like totally going off the rail here. Uh, anyway! Movie reviews! Yes, I am a film critic, Armond White is my sage, and Roger Ebert can go to hell. He likes way too many things. I’m gonna be posting some shit here (gads, it’s SO liberating to use that word instead of a bunch of asterisks!), stuff I like, stuff I hate. Mostly stuff I hate. Okay, only stuff I hate. If I come across something I like, I’ll be sure to let you know right away!

Until then, I remain faithfully yours,


Mmm, should I end my stuff with an exclamation point? Yeah, why not? It’s my damn blog anyway!

There’s that damn underline again.