miz.eerie

Alfred Hitchcock is the greatest director in my opinion, but Stanley even tho i don't like his style u can see talent. I vote Ed wood as the worst lmao

PopcornTreeCt

The correct answer is Jean-Luc Godard and Led Zeppelin.

naitram

genius

B5Erik

OR arguably the most overrated, overblown, pretentious, boring Sci Fi ever. Depends on your point of view.
Nah, not one of the scariest - one of the creepiest and unnerving. A great movie, period.
But not in a Ha-Ha kind of way. It isn't laugh out loud funny, but it's definitely sarcastic and scathing, and smart.
No argument there.
Not just a great anti-war movie, it's a great movie about war and the politics within the military.
One of the best Epics.
The Killing is a BRILLIANT film noir, while Killer's Kiss is basically an audition movie to show what he was capable of as a very young filmmaker. The story isn't great, but it isn't bad, either. He's already showing Kubrickian visuals with only his second film.

Well, I've heard more bad things than good about Eyes Wide Shut, and the subject matter doesn't interest me one bit so I'll probably never catch this one. Too bad it was his last film.

Kubrick was clearly a great filmmaker, but he would occsionally lapse into long winded pretentiousness. Ponderous is another good word to describe SOME of his movies. Then again, some people LOVE those films, so it's all a matter of taste.

For me, Kubrick IS a great filmmaker with a great visual style, but I find that some of his films are overrated and too damned slow for me. Others (The Killing, The Shining, Paths of Glory) are perfect the way they are, and I wouldn't change a thing about them.

I guess the best way to put it is that Kubrick's films weren't for everyone, and many people who liked some of his films disliked just as many of his films as they liked.

He was an artist. Instead of a canvas or a musical instrument his art was made with camera and film.

The Cow

You have that part covered, I think.

Other than that, I pretty much disagree with you.

project86

Personally, I don't really get why he's such a big deal. I can appreciate his art, but I have a feeling that a lot of people just say he's their favorite director just because its the intellectual and elitist thing to do. If you genuinely like his work, awesome, but if you don't, that's your opinion! People have different taste. Heck, I enjoy The Hot Chick, one of the worst movies of all time, but everyone has their horrible movies they like.


Personally, the only two movies I've really enjoyed of Kubrick's are Dr. Strangelove and A Clockwork Orange, and those took some time to get used to. I've probably seen them three different times in my life and the last time (a few months ago) was the first time I've actually appreciated them.

I do plan on buying the boxset of his movies because oddly, the movies I don't really like are the ones I watch the most to figure out why everyone thinks they're so special.

But anywho.

Skyclad01

Of the 3 movies of his that I have tried to watch and have liked was the 1st half of Full Metal Jacket. After they got out of boot camp, it all went downhill from there. But that may just be me as im not into the war movie genera.

The Shining I found too dull and slow to even make it through the first half

A Clockwork Orange - random ultraviolence followed with rehab by classical music just didnt do anything for me. Though when he was jumping up and down hitting the porcelian(sp?) penis with the lady gasping with great fear that he might break it with each hit was funny.

I have no interest in his older movies, but I would be willing to give Eyes Wide Shut a fair chance.

DeputyDave

OK, I think it's time to take a little heat off of my boy, Sigill. I am not going to deny that Kubrick was a great director, and I'll admit a genius in certain ways. I have to agree though that I think he was overrated.

Overrated in the sense that I think he was NOT the greatest director ever. Of course this all comes down to opinion. Like AndyA's opinion bellow:


The only statement I agree with (other than Spartacus being a great-not greatest epic film) is perhaps A Clockwork Orange. A Clockwork Orange is in my top 5 favorite movies of all time (and has been since I first saw it in 1984) but I may even go out on a limb and say that is more due to the source material that the quality of the actual film.

2001 is certainly not the best sci-fi movie I’ve seen, but considering the crapfest that infects normal sci-fi I’d put it in the top 5.

Shining wouldn’t even make it in the top 10. I can name at least a dozen other scarier and more effective.

Dr. Strangelove wouldn’t crack the top 20 comedies for me.

Full Metal Jacket is great but certainly doesn’t rate in the top 5 war movies (if I thought about it might get bumped out of the top 10).

Paths of Glory is good (not great) and there are certainly better “anti-war movies” in my opinion.

I may even go for the ultimate blasphemy and state (again in my opinion) that Spielberg is the better director.

pro-bassoonist

First of all welcome to the forum.

Second, I don't exactly think that anyone could tag Kubrick over-rated. Perhaps misunderstood by many and most definitely worshiped by important people with a serious clout in the industry whose writings hardly reveal any thorough understanding of the director's style. This being said there is also plenty of controversy in Kubrick's legacy to begin with, and I don't mean explicitness, but work whose integrity is difficult to place next to greatness.

An important director, absolutely, yet great, I am not convinced. There are only a few truly great filmmakers (Fellini, Tarkovsky, etc) and Kubrick most certainly, in my opinion, isn't one of them.

Ciao,
Pro-B

toddly6666

ANDY A,
Ridley Scott is the master as well of doing different genres.


SIGILL, And no, Kubrick is not overrated. There is no way that he is overrated. If he is overrated, then who's a good director that's not overrated? Being overrated has to do with comparing and contrasting one to another. Just because Eyes Wide Shut sucked, it doesn't mean that Kubrick is overrated. Most famous good directors have done a couple bad films, it doesn't make them overrated then.

PRO-BASS,

What? haha. You are funny. Why is Kubrick not part of your great director list? I would take Tarkoffsky off your list and replace it with Kubrick!


But either way, there is only one director, considered great, whom is not only overrated, but just an awful director - and that's Wong Kar Wai....worst director in movie history - right up there with Uwe Boll.

Rad14

IMHO, Stanley Kubrick was one of maybe five true geniuses cinema has ever produced.

AndyA

[QUOTE=toddly6666]ANDY A,
Ridley Scott is the master as well of doing different genres.


With all due respect. I like Ridley Scott. But what other movie besides Blade Runner maybe Aliens (Sci-Fi), I might even give you Gladiator (Epic) but what other movies has he done what would qualify for the top ten of there genre? Some might say Black Hawk Down (War) but even that makes only 3 genres. Martin Scorsese may come close I loved After Hours, (Comedy) Goodfellas, (My favorite Gangster) Raging Bull, (Bio Pic?) Last Waltz, (concert) Age of Innocence (period drama) Frankly I have loved about everything he does.

Spielberg is right up there as well.

But IMHO All of the above directors have made some bad films a time or two while Kubrick has not made one bad film. (I have not seen Fear & Desire)

islandclaws

Genius.

He's responsible for some of the greatest films spanning different genres. 2001 is considered one of the finest sci-fi films ever made. The Shining is one of the greatest horror films. Spartacus is a masterpiece. Full Metal Jacket is one of the top war films I've ever seen. A Clockwork Orange is fucking amazing. The man made phenomenal films, and very few people of his caliber come around in a lifetime. There's a reason so many directors emulate his style and ape from his pictures, because he was that good.

Brian T

You didn't have to remove your signature. You might have taken some flack for it, including from me, but if Tarantino's a favorite, who cares what anyone else thinks? I like some of Tarantino's stuff, particularly Jackie Brown.

But I think Tarantino makes movies that tell you what other movies he's watched.

Kubrick made movies that resonate.

Tarantino's movies seem wildly original to people who are younger than 30 and/or very likely don't have first-hand experience—via grindhouses, drive-ins or early VHS & Beta—with the mountains of exploitation movies he constantly references.

Kubrick made originals.

As does Wong Kar-wai (excluding My Blueberry Nights). Wong's best films often resonate the same way Kubrick's best films do.

Though I found this rather amusing!

Uwe Boll? Please . . .

sigill

I have to agree with everything you have said there. I understand that Tarantino references other movies almost constantly. I may be slightly biased due to my age but i just feel that his films combine multiple genres so well. Kill Bill for example was essentially a martial arts film crossed with a multitude of other genre styles. I also think his use of music in movies is excellent. He just seems to be able to find the perfect scene with the perfect piece of music and that combination leaves a lasting mark in your memory.
But you are right, kubrick definatly made original films that were all his own vision.

Brian T

Taratino most definitely has a knack for repackaging old material in a new wrapper. He clearly has the technical chops to make films, but I'm still waiting for him to make one that's more than just "cool" dialogue fronting a pastiche of things I've seen before, enjoyable though they often are.

I own more of his soundtracks than I do his films. Of course, I also own (or have owned, before switching everything to Itunes) a great many of the original soundtracks and pop albums he took his cues from, since they were worth getting the first time around. Of course, Tarantino's soundtracks are nice distillations for road trips.

Kubrick digs deeper, I think. And while his films are often slower, as you say, I find that when many of them are watched in the right frame of mind (perhaps less so his early studio pictures), and perhaps even at the right age, they are more psychologically rewarding. I find my appreciation for Kubrick's films has increased as I've gotten older, and I consciously avoided many of them in my teens and 20's, partly because his stories didn't appeal to me then, and partly because I knew I'd appreciate them better later on. Weird, I know.

B5Erik

For all the adulation that Kubrick gets as an, "Artist," (and I agree that he was an artist - with film as his medium), I'd have to say that Kurosawa probably deserves more. From strong early works like Drunk Angel and Stray Dog to the mid period classics Rashomon, Seven Samurai, The Bad Sleep Well, Yojimbo, High and Low, etc, to his later epics like Kagemusha and Ran, Kurosawa combined many different elements in his films, and yet all of his films had his stamp all over them. He had an amazing visual flair, with an eye for detail, and a brilliant grasp of story and characters.

When it comes to directors there are lists of favorites. Some of those lists are diguised as "Best Directors" lists, but in the end most of them are just variations of the lists of favorites.

Kubrick tops many of those lists. He wouldn't top mine, or be in the top 10. Kurosawa tops my list - because I think he was the best at what he did (my opinion), and because I love his movies.

I respect Kubrick, but have mixed feelings about his films. I respect Kurosawa and LOVE his films.

Off the top of my head here are some of my favorite directors: Akira Kurosawa, Anthony Mann (talk about mastering different genres!), John Ford, John Huston, Howard Hawks, James Cameron, Ridley Scott, Don Siegel, Clint Eastwood, Edward Dmytryk, Steven Speilberg, Kinji Fukasaku... I could probably list another ten directors whose work I enjoy more than Kubrick's. But,as I said, I still have a lot of respect for Kubrick - and I do like SOME of his films a hell of a lot.

Kubrick, like Kurosawa, brought something new to the table. His visual flair, his sense of pacing, his overall style - he definitely knew what he was doing and had a lot of talent. His style and his films weren't for everyone, but something tells me that was by design.

Brian T

I guess those are some of the crucial qualities of any director whose works ultimately stand and surpass the test of time, such as virtually all the ones you've mentioned, and quite a few more: the strength of their talent to mark their films as the works of auteurs or near-auteurs (meaning films that often weren't for everyone) and the strength of their convictions (or egos ) to make sure those visions remained largely intact. I'd put several of the ones in your random list ahead of Kubrick as well on a personal level, and all of them deserve the status afforded them, either by academia or the fans. I'm still not convinced we'll look back on Tarantino's oeuvre thirty years from now and see him in the same light as the others you list, but one never knows!

Nick Danger

I've said it in this forum before: Kubrick's films suffer terribly when reduced to home video.

A few months ago, I saw "Once Upon A Time in the West" and "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" in the theater, and the movies were certainly better in its original format. But they were pretty much the same movie.

When I saw "2001" in the theater, I was surprised to discover that it was a completely different movie. Maybe it was the better resolution and color, maybe it was the 45° of visual field, or maybe it was something else I didn't consciously notice. I was sucked into the movie from the first shot, and stayed inside it until the end.