Ranking Kubrick Movies

[OldCorpse]

This is where every permutation of choices is on display

I join this pointless game ��

2001 Space Atrocity - a giant bore. A variation on the theme of “sure the story is a monumental fail, but did you see that great reverse angle?” only on steroids. Spectacular technical achievement, but so what - I’d call it a great reel for an engineer and sfx guy. But as art or entertainment, severely lacking (to me).

Barry Lyndon - see above, but also miscast and consequently poorly acted - but less pretentious.

Eyes Wide Shut - a comprehesive failure, miscalculated, directed by someone no longer at the peak of his talent, in fact by someone in noticeable decline.

The Shining - legit great, as is Clockwork Orange (the latter a bit dated); and even though it belongs to a different era I have a lot of biased fondness (i.e. I can’t defend it too much) for Killer’s Kiss.

 

[ahalpert]

No one likes fewer Kubrick movies than me.

You're breaking my heart, Fredo. I love Kubrick movies, perhaps because I'm a pretentious fart who swoons for compositional perfection.






Also - saying you dislike Kubrick is like saying you dislike the Beatles. They influenced everything that came after them. Kubrick practically saved sci-fi

 

[thefilmaddict]

The Shining is one of my favorite films. I know people get upset that it was a lot different than the King novel, but I loved it. I know that many people think that Jack is over the top and that Wendy is too weak, but I loved their performances. I just get sucked into that film every time I watch it. It's mesmerizing on so many levels. In interviews, Kubrick seemed pretty humble, but he was a genius. Somehow he could put so many deep layers into a movie. His work is fascinating and brilliant. It's also very cutting-edge, yet classic at the same time.

This is good stuff: https://youtu.be/8o-n6vZvqjQ

 

[Batutta]

I love damn near every Kubrick film except Eyes Wide Shut, and even that one I don't hate. They all get better with repeated viewing. As I get older, I find I am preferring to rewatch films where I can just groove on the vibe and turn off the analytical part of my brain. Once I've seen a film's plot play out once, I have little interest in it a second time, and since that's all many films have to offer I have zero interest in revisiting them. But something like 2001 or Barry Lyndon I can luxuriate in the mood and meditative pace. David Lynch's films are like that as well. If you watch Lost Highway for the plot you'll be incredibly bored and frustrated, but it conjures a palpable mood and a feeling and communicates its themes through these non narrative techniques. Both filmmakers aren't for everybody and when someone objects to their work I can understand why.

 

[ahalpert]

As I get older, I find I am preferring to rewatch films where I can just groove on the vibe and turn off the analytical part of my brain. Once I've seen a film's plot play out once, I have little interest in it a second time, and since that's all many films have to offer I have zero interest in revisiting them.

So glad I'm not the only one. Kubrick films can be an almost spiritual experience.

If we're comparing pure joy and entertainment, I think his films are not usually the pinnacle.

But if you compare Gravity to 2001 - I loved Gravity. It was thrilling and exciting. Expertly crafted. But it didn't leave me much to ponder or dwell on. I thought the themes were almost film student-like in their simplicity and how easy they were to grasp.

2001 on the other hand I have seen multiple times and still don't really get it. It's a humbling experience as a viewer to watch something and be so confused and have so much information withheld from you. There's a lot there to think about.

 

[combatentropy]

You're breaking my heart, Fredo.

Now there's another movie I don't get.

compositional perfection

I don't understand the esteem. If Hollywood movies provide anything reliably, it is good composition.

saying you dislike Kubrick is like saying you dislike the Beatles.

Weird. I was just thinking, you either like the Beatles or you like the Rolling Stones. I like the Beatles. People who like the Beatles don't like Stanley Kubrick.

Kubrick practically saved sci-fi

Come on.

----

Okay, I told myself I did not want to rain on your parade. No more comments from me.

 

[DLD]

The Shining is one of my favorite films. I know people get upset that it was a lot different than the King novel, but I loved it. I know that many people think that Jack is over the top and that Wendy is too weak, but I loved their performances...

Shelley Duvall was very uncomfortable with the film, as the shooting went on and on and on. Jack, on the other hand, was in his setting. Which fit both parts perfectly.

PS. The Beatles vs. the Stones is kind of an American phenomenon and even that was short lived.

PPS. The "Godfather", as a documentary on organized crime, has a zillion holes. But, scene per scene, it's the tops.

 

[ahalpert]

Now there's another movie I don't get.

I don't understand the esteem. If Hollywood movies provide anything reliably, it is good composition.

Weird. I was just thinking, you either like the Beatles or you like the Rolling Stones. I like the Beatles. People who like the Beatles don't like Stanley Kubrick.

Come on.

----

Okay, I told myself I did not want to rain on your parade. No more comments from me.

I like both the Beatles and the Stones. I like rain on my parade, too - what joy in life exists without a spirited debate?

Ultimately, one likes what one likes. But if you don't see the difference between the balance of Kubrick's compositions versus virtually any other cameraman, we're not watching the same films. When people do a zoom, for example, I usually find that the beginning and end framings are good and then there's some stuff in the middle. Kubrick balances his compositions all the way through. Or there's a shot in Strangelove where a guy in the background is holding a cigar and eventually I realized he doesn't move the cigar. I infer that's because it was perfectly positioned in the frame. Detracts from the realism a bit but it helps the composition. Other cameramen are good but few are ever Kubrick good. Maybe they had it in them, but they can't necessarily take the time.

He also just has really iconic images. There's a genius kind of math to his arrangement of objects in the frame and what they mean symbolically

As for Kubrick saving scifi - my understanding is that it was a very pulpy genre before 2001, short on realism and full of crappy sets, silly costumes and campy aliens. Kubrick single handedly elevated the genre

"Star Wars creator Lucas described 2001 as "the first time people really took science-fiction seriously"."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theregister.com/AMP/2018/04/04/2001_space_odyssey_anniversary/

 

[ahalpert]

Shelley Duvall was very uncomfortable with the film, as the shooting went on and on and on. Jack, on the other hand, was in his setting. Which fit both parts perfectly.

That's because Kubrick was nice to Jack and borderline abusive of Shelley. ("Don't sympathize with Shelley!") Did it elevate her performance? Perhaps. Was it right? Probably not.

 

[puredrifting]

That's because Kubrick was nice to Jack and borderline abusive of Shelley. ("Don't sympathize with Shelley!") Did it elevate her performance? Perhaps. Was it right? Probably not.

I love Kubrick's work, he was a kind of genius.

I produced several documentaries for Warner Brothers about John Ford. Kubrick wasn't even in the same league as Ford as far as actor and crew abuse, yet everyone is Ford's filmmaking company worshipped him, it was a very
dysfunctional and weird relationship. I interviewed actors who had been directed by him (Maureen O'Hara was one who had some interesting stories from the filming of The Quiet Man), Peter Bogdanovich who was friends with Ford
and interviewed him many times as well as Ford's Grandson.

Ford was a true tyrant and reveled in psychological mind games with his actors, especially John Wayne, but you cannot argue with the the end results, Ford may have been an a-hole in real life but he made some incredible films.
From what I have read and watched, Kubrick was the same way, kind of a jerk to many but he was an artist, had a vision that many of us still find obsessively compelling to this day.

 

[DLD]

Ah, the "hairdryer treatment".

https://www.goal.com/en-us/news/wha...football-managers-/1q0preziqtpch1bbkx1nhnvxfk

Different manager rant in different ways. Alex Ferguson once kicked a shoe in disgust and it hit David Beckham in the face - not intentionally but soccer shoes do have spikes - with Beckham emerging from the half-time break with a taped gash over his eye. Louis van Gaal, however, went even further at Bayern. In his meeting with the players, he dropped his pants and then laid his nuggets on the table. The message to the club Type A personalities was, "He's got big balls and he's got big balls but I've got the biggest balls of them all".

 

[ahalpert]

Well it's not necessarily motivational abuse. A lot of times the director can be cold or hostile to instill sadness or hostility in the actor. Like Oliver Stone being mean to Michael Douglas on Wall street. It wasn't to motivate him, just to put him in a state of mind. And that's why Duvall and Nicholson got such different treatments

 

[Mitch Gross]

My taste. Your mileage may vary.


1. Dr. Strangelove (1964)
I love black comedy, and the tone was pitch perfect.
2. 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
A film that ponders our own existence & hubris; a near religious experience and stunningly beautiful.
3. A Clockwork Orange (1971)
Again, I love black comedy. A different vein, but nasty/funny & cruel.
4. Paths of Glory (1957)
The first true Kubrick film and one that's simultaneously heartbreaking, thrilling, frustrating, and gorgeously photographed.
5. Full Metal Jacket (1987)
Two movies in one, the first more Kubrick than the second. Part 1 is Paths of Glory-ish and Part 2 is more Clockwork Orange.
6. The Shining (1980)
True to the purity of horror, it disturbing and scary as hell. It doesn't make sense, which is kinda the point.
7. Barry Lyndon (1975)
The gorgeousness of Kubrick's studied filmmaking, laid onto a fairly mediocre story. I can appreciate it for the considerable craft.
8. Lolita (1962)
Pretty to look at, but suffers all the shortcomings of the Nabokov source material.
9. Eyes Wide Shut (1999)
The dreamlike obsessiveness ultimately doesn't go anywhere meaningful or satisfying.
10. Spartacus (1960)
Basically a standard Hollywood swords & sandals epic. Most of his quirky touches were excised or weakened.

I saw these last three many, many years ago and I recall not being impressed with them in any particular way.
11. The Killing (1956)
12. Fear and Desire (1953)
13. Killer's Kiss (1955)

 

[Tom Roper]

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

"Okay, I'm gonna get your money for ya. But if you don't get the President of the United States on that phone, you know what's gonna happen to you? . . . You're gonna have to answer to the Coca-Cola company."

 

[ahalpert]

My taste. Your mileage may vary.


1. Dr. Strangelove (1964)
I love black comedy, and the tone was pitch perfect.
2. 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
A film that ponders our own existence & hubris; a near religious experience and stunningly beautiful.
3. A Clockwork Orange (1971)
Again, I love black comedy. A different vein, but nasty/funny & cruel.
4. Paths of Glory (1957)
The first true Kubrick film and one that's simultaneously heartbreaking, thrilling, frustrating, and gorgeously photographed.
5. Full Metal Jacket (1987)
Two movies in one, the first more Kubrick than the second. Part 1 is Paths of Glory-ish and Part 2 is more Clockwork Orange.
6. The Shining (1980)
True to the purity of horror, it disturbing and scary as hell. It doesn't make sense, which is kinda the point.
7. Barry Lyndon (1975)
The gorgeousness of Kubrick's studied filmmaking, laid onto a fairly mediocre story. I can appreciate it for the considerable craft.
8. Lolita (1962)
Pretty to look at, but suffers all the shortcomings of the Nabokov source material.
9. Eyes Wide Shut (1999)
The dreamlike obsessiveness ultimately doesn't go anywhere meaningful or satisfying.
10. Spartacus (1960)
Basically a standard Hollywood swords & sandals epic. Most of his quirky touches were excised or weakened.

I saw these last three many, many years ago and I recall not being impressed with them in any particular way.
11. The Killing (1956)
12. Fear and Desire (1953)
13. Killer's Kiss (1955)

Dang. Mitch writes awesome one-sentence movie reviews. You should start a twitter feed with these. I largely agree with your list but I think I'd go:

1. 2001
2. Dr. Strangelove
3. Clockwork Orange

Those 3 are pretty damn near perfect for what they are.

4. Shining
5. Barry lyndon
6. Full metal jacket

FMJ and Barry Lyndon are less well-rounded than my top 3 IMO, and the Shining is pretty damn near perfect for what it is but also hews pretty closely to genre form IMO and is less innovative and inspiring than the rest of my top 6.

I agree with the order of the bottom half of your list. The Killing was well done for an anatomy of a heist movie I thought, like a lesser oceans eleven. Killer's kiss still managed to have some of Kubrick's striking photography:

 

[JimS2]

I haven't seen them all yet, but here is my order so far:

7. A Clockwork Orange
6. Full Metal Jacket
5. The Shining
4. Paths of Glory
3. Eyes Wide Shut
2. 2001: A Space Odyssey
1. Dr. Strangelove

 

[Mitch Gross]

Dang. Mitch writes awesome one-sentence movie reviews. You should start a twitter feed with these.

30-odd years ago I essentially did just this. I wrote full-length movie reviews in college, plus thumbnail review lists for whatever was currently playing in theaters as well as at the school's film screenings. Anyone else remember those pre-internet, pre-streaming days when the only way you could catch a Bergman or Fellini film was at a college or art house film series?

I do recall Sterling Hayden being pretty good in The Killing. Kubrick's early films definitely saw the influence of his still photography days at Life and Look magazines.

 

[lambert]

Yep Mitch definitely remember how tough it was to see certain art film (although The vcr was making Underground/art/film more accessible . In the 90s the Austin Film Society was my super cheap / pretty much free grad school. Lived around the corner from les amis close to ut student union.

 

[DLD]

Most video chains in the mid-80's had a reasonable Top 20 selection but art films were few and far in between. Art-house theaters, thus, had a near monopoly on them. And they seem to have been fairly successful, as the movie studio share was very low - ~ 10% - by the point these films was shown. Plus, the attendance was often quite robust.

 

[ahalpert]

apparently Terry Gilliam is making a movie from a Kubrick treatment: https://nofilmschool.com/Gilliam-Kubrick

hopefully he does a better job than Spielberg did...