11. Eyes Wide Shut (2.5)
Kubricks' final outing, and sadly, one that doesn't work all that much for me. I find the film to be a slog to get through, as the pacing really hurts what it could've been an intriguing look into......sex, I guess. Kubrick does succeed in creating a compelling enough atmosphere, and the production design is something that I do want to give credit to. Cruise is solid enough in the role as Dr. Hartford, as he goes on a journey of self-discovery..,,,.or something. Kidman I find to be even better, as she creates the most fascinating character in the film for me, and adds a great deal of energy, to the point where I wish she was in it more than she actually is. Not a film that I would honestly consider it bad, as it does have merit, but Kubrick doesn't really dig deep all that much into......sex......I guess.
10. Barry Lyndon (3)
*Sighs*...a film I truly wanted to like more than I did. Again, Kubrick succeeds in taking the viewer back to 1750s Ireland, as the films' production design, costumes and cinematography are all rather impressive. All of the sets in the film do grant a sense of "high-class" life, each of the costumes manage to be distinct in their own way as to how they correlate to each of the characters, and the cinematography...well, practically every shot in the film is a painting. Kubrick also does a great job in directing the battle scenes in the film, as he had successfully managed to do so in some of his films before this one, yet is adept enough at attuning it more to 1750s Ireland.
That said, my main problems with this films are two-fold: the titular role and...Kubrick actually. Ryan O'Neal doesn't really manage to convince as a charismatic con artist, as it's hard to believe he would maneuver through this world all the way to the top. The film lacks quite a bit of energy since it really needed a charismatic lead to make Lyndons' journey compelling (although I will give credit to the supporting cast for doing their best make their characters standout). In regards to Kubrick, I actually feel Kubricks' cold, detached direction makes the film more of a slog than it really needed to be, which can be a death sentence for a period costume drama (in my book anyways). Much of the film lacks a sense of life, and Kubricks work besides the actual technical elements gets in the way.
9. The Shining (3.5)
Once again, I will first focus on the positive. Once again, Kubrick proves why the technical elements of his films tend to get a lot of praise. Kubricks' direction on a technical level really succeeds in creating a downright scary atmosphere in the secluded Colorado hotel, and it does work in having a claustrophobic feel. There's a reason that the production design (plus the cinematography) have been mentioned/parodied in a lot of films, as one can instantly recall the hotel bar and the hallways, for example. I should also mention that the performances themselves can technically be considered good, as Shelley Duvall is great as the terrified mother trying to escape her demented husband.
That said, the last couple of words of that last sentence highlights a major problem within the crux of the film, as well as Kubricks' direction. One of these is the casting of Jack Nicholson himself. While Nicholson was one of the best working actors back when the film was made, many of those iconic performances were as "crazy" men (One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest), or men with a pure ID energy (The Last Detail, Chinatown, Five Easy Pieces). This resulted in there not really being a surprise when Jack Torrance goes (more) nuts at the end of the film. His performance is not technically bad, as it does create a visceral feeling, but it could've been so much more.
The other aspect of the major problem with the film isn't completely Nicholsons' fault however, as Kubrick makes the curious decision to have Torrance (as played and written) be a crazy guy at the beginning of the film to start with. It would've been much more interesting to cast a more "Average Joe" actor from the time, then break him down throughout the film as it would've resulted in a more dynamic transformation, instead of Jack Torrance already being crazy to begin with.
8. 2001: A Space Odyssey (4)
Oh 2001...so many masterful elements, yet it's somewhat hindered by elements that drag it down somewhat.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, yet again, there's a reason that 2001 is one of the most iconic films of the 1960s (plus all-time). Many of the scenes have been parodied for a reason, as one can instantly recognize many of its' settings (the planet, the spaceships, the journey through space), the use of music ("Also Sprach Zarathustra"), and of course, the quotes, especially "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that." Plus...you know...some of the best visual effects you'll see in ANY film.
Aside from that, I find the examination between humans and technology to be very fascinating, and this is best illustrated in the character (?) of the infamous HAL 9000. Both sides of how technology can be used for good can be seen here, as HAL 9000 is great help when it comes to the astronauts journey through space, yet is also shown as a warning tale when HAL 9000 becomes a little too advanced. This is the part of the film that I find the most fascinating, and I'm honestly amazed that the film was made in the late 1960s, as it honestly looks like it could've been made today.
The main reservation I have with the film is that it honestly didn't need to be as long as it is, since many of the sequences in the film seem to be there just for the sake of technically "showing off" without really advancing the plot or being an engine for the themes of the film. As a whole, I think it's a great directing achievement, and it's one of those films that it is interesting to discuss on the good ol' "objective/subjective" level.
7. Lolita (4.5)
A compelling film about the relationship between...ahem...a British professor, Humbert Humbert (James Mason) and an American teenage girl, the titular character (Sue Lyon).
Lolita as a film is more about the performances in the film rather than Kubricks' direct hand, though he does a deft job in handling the subject material as to not let it fall into bad taste. Anyways, James Mason delivers one of his best performances as he balances the tricky material on his own, which is quite a tightrope to walk. He creates enough sympathy for the character as to not become utterly hateful, while of course, falling apart at the seems as the film goes on due to his (very) unhealthy obsession. Peter Sellers is also a riot as the devious Quilty, as he makes quite the impression despite not being in the film all that much. Shelley Winters and Sue Lyon are also good as the female characters of the film, as they provide a great counterpoint to what Mason is doing in his performance.
That said, the last couple of words of that last sentence highlights a major problem within the crux of the film, as well as Kubricks' direction. One of these is the casting of Jack Nicholson himself. While Nicholson was one of the best working actors back when the film was made, many of those iconic performances were as "crazy" men (One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest), or men with a pure ID energy (The Last Detail, Chinatown, Five Easy Pieces). This resulted in there not really being a surprise when Jack Torrance goes (more) nuts at the end of the film. His performance is not technically bad, as it does create a visceral feeling, but it could've been so much more.
The other aspect of the major problem with the film isn't completely Nicholsons' fault however, as Kubrick makes the curious decision to have Torrance (as played and written) be a crazy guy at the beginning of the film to start with. It would've been much more interesting to cast a more "Average Joe" actor from the time, then break him down throughout the film as it would've resulted in a more dynamic transformation, instead of Jack Torrance already being crazy to begin with.
8. 2001: A Space Odyssey (4)
Oh 2001...so many masterful elements, yet it's somewhat hindered by elements that drag it down somewhat.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, yet again, there's a reason that 2001 is one of the most iconic films of the 1960s (plus all-time). Many of the scenes have been parodied for a reason, as one can instantly recognize many of its' settings (the planet, the spaceships, the journey through space), the use of music ("Also Sprach Zarathustra"), and of course, the quotes, especially "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that." Plus...you know...some of the best visual effects you'll see in ANY film.
Aside from that, I find the examination between humans and technology to be very fascinating, and this is best illustrated in the character (?) of the infamous HAL 9000. Both sides of how technology can be used for good can be seen here, as HAL 9000 is great help when it comes to the astronauts journey through space, yet is also shown as a warning tale when HAL 9000 becomes a little too advanced. This is the part of the film that I find the most fascinating, and I'm honestly amazed that the film was made in the late 1960s, as it honestly looks like it could've been made today.
The main reservation I have with the film is that it honestly didn't need to be as long as it is, since many of the sequences in the film seem to be there just for the sake of technically "showing off" without really advancing the plot or being an engine for the themes of the film. As a whole, I think it's a great directing achievement, and it's one of those films that it is interesting to discuss on the good ol' "objective/subjective" level.
7. Lolita (4.5)
A compelling film about the relationship between...ahem...a British professor, Humbert Humbert (James Mason) and an American teenage girl, the titular character (Sue Lyon).
Lolita as a film is more about the performances in the film rather than Kubricks' direct hand, though he does a deft job in handling the subject material as to not let it fall into bad taste. Anyways, James Mason delivers one of his best performances as he balances the tricky material on his own, which is quite a tightrope to walk. He creates enough sympathy for the character as to not become utterly hateful, while of course, falling apart at the seems as the film goes on due to his (very) unhealthy obsession. Peter Sellers is also a riot as the devious Quilty, as he makes quite the impression despite not being in the film all that much. Shelley Winters and Sue Lyon are also good as the female characters of the film, as they provide a great counterpoint to what Mason is doing in his performance.
Didn't think you were going to escape without another another stare from him, did you?
6. Full Metal Jacket (4.5)
I'll be brief on this one, as I'm essentially with the chorus on this one, so to speak, but in short:
-The first half of the film is terrific, as it has great moments of comedy (practically EVERYTHING Sergeant Hartman, impeccably performed by Mr. Lee Ermey), while also being great as a thematic study of the military sentiment at the time in regards to the Vietnam War (perfectly illustrated by Vincent D'Onofrios' performance as the slowly deteriorating Private Lawrence.)
-The second half of the film I feel it is a little bit less memorable than the first, though it would've been hard to live up to the unforgettable first. The battle scenes here are well-done, and the film does go out on a high note.
I'll be brief on this one, as I'm essentially with the chorus on this one, so to speak, but in short:
-The first half of the film is terrific, as it has great moments of comedy (practically EVERYTHING Sergeant Hartman, impeccably performed by Mr. Lee Ermey), while also being great as a thematic study of the military sentiment at the time in regards to the Vietnam War (perfectly illustrated by Vincent D'Onofrios' performance as the slowly deteriorating Private Lawrence.)
-The second half of the film I feel it is a little bit less memorable than the first, though it would've been hard to live up to the unforgettable first. The battle scenes here are well-done, and the film does go out on a high note.
5. Spartacus (4.5/5)
One of the best examples that the sword-and-sandals genre has to offer, though it's more of a "for hire" job on Kubricks' end. However, that shouldn't diminish what the film has to offer, as Kubrick is smart enough to not get in the way of the performances of the films' star-studded cast (Kirk Douglas, ol' Larry, Jean Simmons, Peter Ustinov, Charles Laughton, and Tony Curtis, among others).
With that in mind, the film itself is a very entertaining film about the good vs. bad angle that is commonly depicted in the genre. To start, Kirk Douglas is the proper anchor that the film needs, as he is great at being the hero the audience wants to succeed. Jean Simmons is very good as Spartacus's love, Varinia, while of course, ol' Larry gives a great performance as the villainous Crassus, as he makes for a terrific villain while also making him into a three-dimensional character.
Although the film of course has more in common with a Ben-Hur than later "KUBRICK" films, I do want to give honorable mention to the way Stanley Kubrick handles the battle scenes in the film. He succeeds in really placing you in the middle of the action, and these scenes are well-done, plus some of the more memorable in the film. Them and the film may not be the most KUBRICK in terms of his style, but given that the success of the film helped in securing Kubrick more leeway in show business, I'm content about the quality of the film, both on its own' and in the grand scheme of Kubricks' career.
One of the best examples that the sword-and-sandals genre has to offer, though it's more of a "for hire" job on Kubricks' end. However, that shouldn't diminish what the film has to offer, as Kubrick is smart enough to not get in the way of the performances of the films' star-studded cast (Kirk Douglas, ol' Larry, Jean Simmons, Peter Ustinov, Charles Laughton, and Tony Curtis, among others).
With that in mind, the film itself is a very entertaining film about the good vs. bad angle that is commonly depicted in the genre. To start, Kirk Douglas is the proper anchor that the film needs, as he is great at being the hero the audience wants to succeed. Jean Simmons is very good as Spartacus's love, Varinia, while of course, ol' Larry gives a great performance as the villainous Crassus, as he makes for a terrific villain while also making him into a three-dimensional character.
Although the film of course has more in common with a Ben-Hur than later "KUBRICK" films, I do want to give honorable mention to the way Stanley Kubrick handles the battle scenes in the film. He succeeds in really placing you in the middle of the action, and these scenes are well-done, plus some of the more memorable in the film. Them and the film may not be the most KUBRICK in terms of his style, but given that the success of the film helped in securing Kubrick more leeway in show business, I'm content about the quality of the film, both on its own' and in the grand scheme of Kubricks' career.
4. The Killing (5)
A very entertaining heist film, and one that I definitely enjoyed even more than I was expecting to. The film has a solid cast all-around, with particular mention to Sterling Hayden as the crook who of course wants to make off with one last score before retiring, and Elisha Cook Jr. as the meek bank teller George, who tells his fiancee Sherrie (Marie Windsor) about the planned heist. Of course, the heist doesn't go entirely as planned...
(Timothy Carey, Ted de Corsia, and Joe Sawyer are also good as the other members of the heist crew.)
Anyways, the films moves at quite the brisk pace, as it gives the film the right type of energy that heist films need. Kubrick is also adept at realizing the slightly darker moments of the film, as they really fit with the tone of the film. Overall, a film that shows Kubrick could definitely entertain when he really wanted to, as it's a stark contrast to his later clinical films.
P.S. What's with all the narration?
A very entertaining heist film, and one that I definitely enjoyed even more than I was expecting to. The film has a solid cast all-around, with particular mention to Sterling Hayden as the crook who of course wants to make off with one last score before retiring, and Elisha Cook Jr. as the meek bank teller George, who tells his fiancee Sherrie (Marie Windsor) about the planned heist. Of course, the heist doesn't go entirely as planned...
(Timothy Carey, Ted de Corsia, and Joe Sawyer are also good as the other members of the heist crew.)
Anyways, the films moves at quite the brisk pace, as it gives the film the right type of energy that heist films need. Kubrick is also adept at realizing the slightly darker moments of the film, as they really fit with the tone of the film. Overall, a film that shows Kubrick could definitely entertain when he really wanted to, as it's a stark contrast to his later clinical films.
P.S. What's with all the narration?
3. A Clockwork Orange
A most delightful ride through the mind of the young, strapping, bright lad known as Alex DeLarge...
Ok, ok. One of Kubricks' most iconic films which is anchored by perhaps one of his most iconic characters, A Clockwork Orange follows the mischievous Alex DeLarge in a futuristic Britain, as he wreaks havoc amongst the lives of many people and society, all while bellowing "Dancin' in The Rain". McDowell is perhaps the best aspect of the film, as the whole film would've fallen apart if he didn't make DeLarge compelling enough to watch during his several "adventures". There's a reason this film created its fair share of controversy back in the day.
Kubrick himself also delivers on the technical side, as like 2001, many of the sets are rather memorable, such as the club where Alex hangs out with his cronies, many of the houses where he wreaks havoc, the prison, and the theater. Kubricks' direction and the performance also adds a lot of darkly comic energy, such as "Singin' in The Rain", "I was cured all right!", the theater, and the barking prison authority figures. Both the direction and the performances (especially McDowell) work in tandem to make the film a unique one, as the subject material could've fallen flat or off the rails with different people behind the helm.
A most delightful ride through the mind of the young, strapping, bright lad known as Alex DeLarge...
Ok, ok. One of Kubricks' most iconic films which is anchored by perhaps one of his most iconic characters, A Clockwork Orange follows the mischievous Alex DeLarge in a futuristic Britain, as he wreaks havoc amongst the lives of many people and society, all while bellowing "Dancin' in The Rain". McDowell is perhaps the best aspect of the film, as the whole film would've fallen apart if he didn't make DeLarge compelling enough to watch during his several "adventures". There's a reason this film created its fair share of controversy back in the day.
Kubrick himself also delivers on the technical side, as like 2001, many of the sets are rather memorable, such as the club where Alex hangs out with his cronies, many of the houses where he wreaks havoc, the prison, and the theater. Kubricks' direction and the performance also adds a lot of darkly comic energy, such as "Singin' in The Rain", "I was cured all right!", the theater, and the barking prison authority figures. Both the direction and the performances (especially McDowell) work in tandem to make the film a unique one, as the subject material could've fallen flat or off the rails with different people behind the helm.
2. Paths of Glory
A very powerful film, and one that makes one wonder what the rest of Kubricks' career would've turned out like if he hadn't given up on humans later in his career.
The film follows Colonel Dax (Kirk Douglas in one of his best performances) as he leads a group of soldiers on a mission that has little to no chance of succeeding in the French trenches of World War I.
Some of Kubricks' moments as a director can be found in this film, such as the aforementioned failed battle scene. Kubricks' direction manages to simply place you right in the middle of the battle (yeah, I know I said that with Spartacus), and it truly creates a visceral feeling.
An argument can be made that Paths of Glory is Kubricks' most thematically rich, and it's an argument that I wouldn't object to. Kubricks co-written screenplay adds a lot of sympathy for many of its characters, as well as intelligently examining the type of system that enabled nonsensical decisions to take place in World War I. In a sense, it actually reminds me of another war film: Apocalypse Now. Both films aren't directly anti-war, but both relate mans' inhumanity and flaws as to how war makes them act (in this case, the system that allows war to happen in the first place).
Overall, a great film, and one that I feel should be more remembered than it is.
1. Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
Possibly one of the funniest films of all-time, Dr. Strangelove of course follows the mischief of what goes wrong when the people in charge of weapons of destruction go nuts...and it is all played for glorious laughs.
Every single character in this film is memorable, and the performances behind them are instrumental in making the films' satire truly bite. For example, Jack D. Ripper (Sterling Hayden) is hilarious in a delusional way as he truly believes the Soviets are poisoning the bodily fluids of Americans, but what takes his character a bit further is that he's warm & jovial when interacting with Mandrake (more on him in a bit).
Another example is General Buck Turgidson (George C. Scott, in a performance that generated arguments with Mr. Kubrick). Scott is also hilarious in his own way as the maniacal general who shows no reservations when discussing nuclear warfare, yet is ever a bit more meek when he talks to a secretary that he's having an affair with. He brings a lot of comic life to the War Room scenes, as he stands out in comparison to the other more suited generals in the room. Slim Pickens is a hoot as Major Kong, who just haves the time of his life whilst he delivers the bomb, and Keenan Wynn is amusing in his more deadpan reactions to the craziness of everyone else (his reactions to a character's crucial phone call are gold.)
Ah, but any appraisal of the film would be incomplete without highlighting the crucial actor at the middle of it all, Mr. Peter Sellers. He completely aces each and every moment as all his characters: the proper RAF Group Captain Lionel Mandrake, the juuuuuuust-competent-enough President Merkin Ruffley, and of course, the titular character.) Sellers delivers as each of these, as he plays each character just differently enough to make them distinct, yet enough to make the satire of the film shine, while of course, just being very funny.
As great as the films' ensemble is, what really brings the film together is Mr. Stanley Kubrick. His direction works on many layers: letting the performances of the film shine, knowing how to cut & stage a scene a certain way, all while being great at the technical elements as per usual. The War Room is of course widely remembered, yet many other sets in the film have their own life to it, such as the plane dropping off the bomb and the air force base.
Everything in the film has become iconic, and there's a reason it's usually considered one of the best comedy films of all-time, and one of the best period.
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room."
What would be your favorite Stanley Kubrick film? Your least favorite? Answer off in the comments below.
