The Killing (1956) review

(8/10)

Even for this film being one of Kubrick's early works, it still screams his essence in each scene, with a clever plot and iconic scenes together.

PLOT:Mastermind Johnny Clay (Sterling Hayden) has done some time in the past and is now home with his wife (Coleen Gray). However, he once again plans to commit a crime and knock off a horse track with the help of some fellow companions. The companions include the likes of the $5 bookie, George Peatty (Elisha Cook, Jr.), the track bartender, Mike O'Reilly (Joe Sawyer), gun salesman, Nikki Arane (Timothy Carey) and many others. It seems like the perfect crime, but George's wife, Sherry (Mary Windsor), and her lover (Vince Edwards) get involved and things get mixed up. It's a good plot idea executed brilliantly.



ACTING:The acting can get kind of basic in some parts, but overall it was pretty great. Sterling Hayden played a very sufficient lead as the mastermind; however, his part didn't get real good until the crime is committed. The other shiners would have to be Elisha Cook, Jr. as George Peatty, Timothy Carey as Nikki, Mary Windsor as Sherry, and Jay C. Flippen as Marvin Unger.

SCORE:The score was pretty basic as well, but it fit the mood very well and actually wasn't a generic burden as some other basic scores can be.

CAMERAWORK:Even though this is one of Kubrick's first films, his type of camerawork is present in here. He caught some very nice shots with a lot of his usual style present. For an early start, he did very well.



OTHER CONTENT:This is one of Kubrick's first films, but that doesn't mean it's one of his weaker films by far. The plot is very well thought-out, as every aspect of the crime is tied up cleverly. The script has some very nice dialogue in it, but it is Kubrick, so what can you expect? This film is also pretty iconic from the robbery scene, in which the lead puts on a clown mask to protect his identity, and from the finale in the airport with the suitcase. This is truly one of the best classic gangster films. However, it does have its faults. One thing I found kind of flawed with the film is the character development; there is little. What we find out is presented to us in a weak manner as we are just plunged into the whole robbery story. If there had been a bit more character development, the characters would have seemed more real to us. Also flawed with this film is that some of the way its filmed comes off as cheesy. It does include some typical gangster personalities and situations, including the narration, that cause it to come off as a bit cheesy: just a bit, not too much to be considered bad.

OVERALL,a great Kubrick film with a brilliantly-executed plot, basic and great acting, well-fitting score, Kubrick's usual camerawork, thought-out plot twists, a well-written script, and a few choice iconic scenes, but there is poor character development and a few cheesy aspects to the film.

Stanley Kubrick: A Life in Pictures (2001) review

 
(Just to let you know, I organize documentaries differently than I do regular films.)
(9/10)

To finish off the marathon, I take advantage of the bio disc.

SUBJECT:This is basically a biography on the great filmmaker Stanley Kubrick consisting of his child-life stories, his inspiration stories, and his life in film and family. They discuss the topic very well for a biography, but without his presence to secure his ideas and such, it just feels a bit empty.

PEOPLE:The people in here range from other filmmakers like Woody Allen and Steven Spielberg, to Kubrick's collaborators like Tom Cruise and Jack Nicholson. They all have interesting things to say about Kubrick that just glorify his name more than most would expect.



SCORE:The score in here ranges from the wonderful classical music played in his movies, to the themes he had made specifically for his movies, to themes used to set the emotion for his life and loss.

OTHER CONTENT:This is a pretty decent biography. The introduction and closing are both very powerful, and the body of the film is very thought-provoking, but I believe it misses some of the important points of Kubrick's life. Of course, he wasn't present to express them, but I guess that's one of the movies shortcomings.



OVERALL,an awesome biography with a well discussed subject, ranging people, beautifully mixed score, and a powerful introduction and closing, but without the presence of the man himself, it misses some important points.

The Stanley Kubrick Collection: Ranked from Worst to Best

I have watched all nine of Kubrick's best films in the collection and now I will rank them on how much I like them in descending order. Enjoy!


9. Eyes Wide Shut - This is Kubrick's least favored work to most and for me. It just has a whole different feel and goes way too far on the terms of art.


8. Dr. Strangelove or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb - I find this film hugely overrated. The jokes aren't that funny, but it still has some charm and ideas to laugh about.


7. Full Metal Jacket - It's a very good war film and an excellent movie by Kubrick, but without the brilliant first half, it would seem just like a generic 80's war film.


6. Barry Lyndon - This movie is a little underrated, though very excellent. The only problem is that the trick Kubrick was trying to pull off didn't agree with my mindset.


5. The Shining - The movie is a top-notch horror, but it apparently doesn't stand up to the book and it could be done so much better.


4. Spartacus - Spartacus is a fine historical drama and action film, but it isn't the best movie I've ever seen.


3. Lolita - Lolita is a great boundary-pushing film for its time. It's not as out there as Eyes Wide Shut, and it's very dramatic and interesting, but it can get draggy and has a few character problems.


2. A Clockwork Orange - It's entertaining, artsy in the way of seeing a point, psychological, harrowing, and just a fine film, but the book tops it by a slice.

AND NOW, THE MOMENT YOU'VE BEEN WAITING FOR...




.......................................................................................................





1. 2001: A Space Odyssey - The film may be painfully slow, but it's beautiful, unique, epic, futuristic, mysterious, possible, and a whole set of other things.

Now you know how my Kubrick marathon went. I'll watch his bio and then move on to...smaller?...things.
R.I.P. Stanley Kubrick

Eyes Wide Shut (1999) review

 
(7/10)

SEX-The ninth and final of the favorite subjects of Stanley Kubrick as listed in the DVD booklet.

PLOT:Doctor William Hartford (Tom Cruise) and his wife Alice (Nicole Kidman) have been married a long time. When they're invited to a party by fellow friend Victor Ziegler (Sydney Pollack), they both reach a feeling of seduction toward other people. Nothing happens, but they confess their thoughts one night and it sends them on a wild trip into sexual desire and temptation, mainly William, who stumbles upon an erotic nightmare like nothing else. It's a very great and somewhat difficult idea to act upon, and Kubrick does a very good job of it, but it's not really the best.



ACTING:The actors must all have some kind of bravery to be in this movie considering all of the sex, so I give them credit for that already. But in performance, everyone was pretty good. Cruise played a convincing part of a man in uncharted want and struck some thought within me. Kidman also did a good job getting emotions across accurately. Pollack did a very convincing job as well. The only other true shiner was Julienne Davis as Mandy, though Rade Serbedzija did a decent job of Milich the costume shop owner.

SCORE:The score mainly contained one haunting piano theme that sent chills of mystery and anticipation down my spine. It's very distinguishing.

CAMERAWORK:This being Kubrick's last work, especially being on the edge of the modern world, it was still pretty detailed in the camerawork. It was not as detailed as his usual stuff, but it still managed to come off as visually pleasing.

OTHER CONTENT:This really is a close for Kubrick. It was almost like fate ended his career right at the perfect timing. What I believe is that Kubrick tried to go with something new and unique that has never been done before, but I don't think he really succeeded. Kubrick threw a stone into new territory, but it landed too far out of his reach. He wanted to be different and exotic, but this just ended up crossing the line between art and trash. The movie isn't complete trash though, for it is an interesting story, compelling mystery, and it kept me on the tips of toes to figure out what was happening and why. Sex is a delicate issue to film; it only takes so much to get it right. Kubrick tried his best and nearly succeeded all the way. Not only that, but Kubrick's works have his own feel to it. This one had a completely different mood and atmosphere that changed everything. It's almost like it has a mind of its own.



OVERALL,a good Kubrick film with well executed plot, very good acting, haunting score, and visually pleasing camerawork, but it goes to far to be considered true art and changes the feel of everything. This was a sufficient end for Kubrick, though he would've probably made more masterpieces if he had lived.

Full Metal Jacket (1987) review

 
(8/10)

WAR-The eighth of Kubrick's favorite subjects as foretold by the DVD booklet.

PLOT:This takes place during the drafts of the Vietnamese War. We see the conditions troops are faced with in boot camp and on the battlefield and how war turns into hell, but mainly we follow the squadron of Private Joker (Matthew Modine) and how he tries to keep his buddy Private Pyle (Vincent D'Onofrio) alive in boot camp, and then serving his duty as journalist in the war. The plot is pretty basic for a war film, but it's executed greatly, though the first half is way better.


ACTING:The acting is awesome. Modine does a great job as Joker and D'Onofrio does a brilliant job of Pyle. I can feel the change that takes place in Pyle during his boot camp days. Other great performances were R. Lee Ermey as Sgt. Hartman, Adam Baldwin as Animal Mother, and Kevin Howard as Rafterman.
SCORE:The score was mainly cheesy 80s music and military songs, but they seemed to fit the moods just well.


CAMERAWORK:This had some of Kubrick's famous camerawork in it, but not much.

OTHER CONTENT:This had most of Kubrick's best perks and feels in it, but I can tell what people mean when they say that it's overrated. You can't feel Kubrick's presence in here as much as some of his other works; in fact, if not for the first half of the film, it would have been just another war movie that no one would've acknowledged as anything more than generic, Oscar-bait. It's still a great film, but it just doesn't live up to the potential Kubrick had.

OVERALL,a great Kubrick film with a greatly executed plot, awesome acting, fitting score, classic Kubrick camerawork, and a great first half, but without the first half, the movie would've been pretty bland.

The Shining (1980) review

 
(8/10)

SUPERNATURAL-The seventh of the favorite subjects of Stanley Kubrick, as the booklet foretells.

PLOT:Jack Torrance (Jack Nicholson) is an ex-alcoholic writer who just wants some peace and quiet with his work. When he gets a job offer to look after the Overlook Hotel for it's off-season, he willingly accepts and his family move there and make themselves comfortable. But with the snow keeping them in, will the thoughts of isolation get to them? Not to mention, that the last caretaker had gone insane and murdered his whole family. The son, Danny (Danny Lloyd), finds out he has a power to predict the future and talk with other powered people in his head called "shining" and he uses it to contact his new friend, the black cook (Scatman Crothers) to help. Is there really supernatural happenings in this hotel, or are the family just getting a severe case of cabin fever? It's a great plot executed to almost the absolute best.

ACTING:The acting in here is quite awesome. Nicholson takes his roll as Jack and makes it his. No one could've done it as well as he did. Shelley Duvall as Wendy Torrance did a great job to. You could really see the fear in her eyes. Lloyd, though being a child actor, did a great job and made his scariest scenes unnerving. Every other actor did a more-than-decent job.

SCORE:The score for this is an unsettiling marvel; it hightens your senses to the point where you just feel disturbed.

CAMERAWORK:Kubrick shines again with his trademark camerawork. He uses the camera in such a way that you can feel the isolation and disturbia.

OTHER CONTENT:This film is where Kubrick starts to fall from his best works. I docked this one rating because I haven't read the book, and most have said it falls from it. I docked it another because though you can feel Kubrick intently in this, you can see that its greatness doesn't match up to some of his past works. But moving on, Kubrick crafts this to where the suspense is like something you can cut with a knife. Every moment is painstaking to the moment you don't know what will happen next. When something does happen, it's like you snap back to reality to such a point where it's disturbing and actually scary.

OVERALL,a great Kubrick film with a great plot, awesome acting, unsettling score, camerawork you can feel, well-crafted suspense, and disturbing scares, but the book is rumored to be fell from and you can tell in the feel that this is where Kubrick's dying out.

Barry Lyndon (1975) review

 

(8/10)

IDENTITY-The sixth of Kubrick's favorite subjects as forementioned by the booklet.

PLOT:Redmond Barry (Ryan O'Neal) is a simple, poor Irishman that lives with his aunt in 1700s Ireland and is in love with his cousin, Nora. When he gets in a duel over her with a British trooper, he's forced to flee his home; changing names and going through many hard events. Along the chain of events, he marries a rich lady named Lyndon (Marisa Berenson) and becomes a rich Irishman, but this is where the troubles of now-named Barry Lyndon rev up. All through his life, he tries to be a pampered gentlemen, but is that really what he's supposed to be? It is a simple plot executed to the finest degree of unpredictability.

ACTING:The acting is top quality. O'Neal does a brilliant job of Redmond. There wasn't a sour actor in here. The shiners were Gay Hamilton as Nora, Leonard Rossiter as Capt. Quin, Leon Vitali as Lord Bullingdon, and of coures Berenson as Lady Lyndon.

SCORE:The score is mainly Irish music, but it's very well done throughout; even if it doesn't always fit the mood.

CAMERAWORK:Like 2001, this Kubrick classic contains some of the finest, most beautiful camerawork as he captures the landscapes, emotions, and action. Even during the fast scenes, any shaky cam goes down not as mistakes, but nostalgia.


OTHER CONTENT:Now, it is said in the booklet that Kubrick uses reverse psychology to make the audience wonder why Barry Lyndon is so important since there is a three-hour movie about him. The real truth behind this is that he's messing with his audience; Barry Lyndon is unimportant unless you find him important. "Barry Lyndon is Barry Lyndon as BARRY LYNDON is BARRY LYNDON." I thought this was clever, but pointless, for it was slow and made you wonder: what did I just watch? The movie is cinematic magic, but it has no real idea to it; a pointless gem if you will. I also found it lacking in substance compared to Kubrick's previous films. But enough of the bad, let's get back to the good. The script is well-written and the scenes are tense from perfect build-up of suspense and release of emotion.

OVERALL, a great Kubrick film with a perfectly unpredictable plot, top quality acting, well done score, beautiful camerawork, a well-written script, and perfect suspense build-up, but it lacks in substance through comparison and it's really pointless.

A Clockwork Orange (1971) review

 
(9 out of 10)

VIOLENCE-The fifth of the favorite subjects of Stanley Kubrick, as the booklet has said.

PLOT:Alex DeLarge (Malcolm McDowell) is a young man with a passion for violence, rape, classical music, and going out with his fellow "droogs" to the Korova milk bar to get drinks. In this dystopian future, he as the leader of his friends, gallavant spreading trouble everywhere. After he oversteps his role of being leader of his droogs, they turn against him and leave him for the cops to handle. He hears about this new government treatment while in jail called "Ludovico's Treatment" that is supposed to change an evil young mind to do only good. Alex applies for it, and gets it, but will things really change? And will his freedom of choice waver as well? This is a very uniquely thought-out plot about a dystopian future executed very well, but my comparisons to the book may disagree..

ACTING:The acting was above excellent McDowell takes the role of Alex DeLarge and makes it his. I don't believe anybody could've played it like he could. I admire him for doing so.
The rest of the cast was quite great too. The other shiners would include Warren Clarke as Dim and whoever played the old man he brutally beat in the most disturbing scene in the movie.

SCORE:The score is consisting of its own theme in different variations and glorious classical music that plays a great part. I love classical music anyway, and the theme was very harrowing.

CAMERAWORK:This is IMO the Kubrick movie with the best camerawork. Every shot is realistic, harrowing, clever, and creative to the point where you can reach in and pull out emotions accurately by just what you see.


OTHER CONTENT:This film is disturbing, twisted, and brutal without a doubt. Some people disagree with this, and I say to just ignore it if so because that's what the film is for; depiction of pure violence. Even though the movie is like this, you find yourself secretly enjoying it and rooting for the character. I like the mindtrick Kubrick was trying to give the audience here; an overlay of psychology. Now on to my one issue with the film. I read the book shortly after seeing the film the first time two years ago, so I can compare now. In staying true to the wonderful piece of literature, this quite prospered, but I found a few problems. The whole reason for calling it "A Clockwork Orange" was trashed and unmentioned in here along with the crucial parts related to it, not to mention a changed ending. I like the book a bit better because of this, but the film still serves as being a great film.

OVERALL,an awesome Kubrick film with a unique and thought-out plot, excellent acting, classical and harrowing score, epic camerawork, a hint of psychological tinge from our humble director, and a good attempt of staying true to the book, but there were some crucial scenes cut from the film.

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) review

 
(10 out of 10)

TECHNOLOGY-The fourth of Kubrick's favorite subjects as the DVD booklet has told me.

PLOT:This is divided into three "segments", if you will.
THE DAWN OF MAN-This tells of how early humans discovered tools, with the presence of a monolith to be explained later in the film.

We then switch to today where we are able to live in space stations and ships. A large crater is found on the moon and a team go to investigate what it is.
JUPITER MISSION I-This introduces our characters Dave Bowman (Keir Dullea) and Poole (Gary Lockwood), who are on a spacecraft bound for Jupiter to find suspected life. The spacecraft is controlled by a model of the new HAL-9000 computer (Douglas Rain). Whem Bowman and Poole think the computer is malfunctioning, they plant to shut it down, but does HAL agree with this?
JUPITER MISSION II-Not to spoil the ending, the mission to Jupiter ends up being successful and this is the trip into the planet's atmosphere and what is found there. This is split into several segments, such as Pulp Fiction is, and each is executed to the essence of perfection.

ACTING:There really weren't that many actors, but of what there was, the acting was really good. Dullea and Lockwood do a great job with their parts as well as Rain, considering he has to act like a lifeless computer.

SCORE:The score is composed of several pieces of classical music along with some chanting tracks. I loved the soundtrack through and through, especially the well-known Also Sprach Zarathustra.

EFFECTS:This is second to what the movie is all about. For the time this was made, the effects are beyond top-notch. Since space travel was fairly new, Kubrick had to imagine what Jupiter and space itself looked like. Do I even have to say it; Kubrick did this like no other man could! The effects I saw done blew my mind even as today's CG standards go.


CAMERAWORK:This is the first to what makes this movie work. The effects may have been mind-blowing, but they wouldn't have worked so well if it wasn't for Kubrick's harrowing camera style; not to mention the rest of the movie.

OTHER CONTENT:This movie purely blew my mind and fueled the cinephile in me. I loved everything about this. It was different, ground-breaking, fascinating, and overall of that beautiful. Most say all it is for most of the movie is objects movie across the screen slowly, but that's for suspense and to depict the wonder of the space Kubrick saw. I felt Kubrick so much in the movie, I'm surprised he wasn't breathing down my neck in spirit. I also got what he was trying to get through with the ape scene at the beginning: the human race always wants more and is always finding new technology and ways to do things whether it be good or bad. This is not for everybody, but it has the beauty, imagination, and it breaks the boundary of filmmaking.

OVERALL,an epic Kubrick film with a perfect segmented plot, really good acting, classical soundtrack, mind-blowing effects, harrowing camerawork, and the true feeling of a beautiful movie.

Dr. Strangelove or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1962) review

 
(8 out of 10)

SATIRE-The third of Stanley Kubrick's favorite subjects, as told by the DVD booklet.

PLOT:This takes its place during the Cold War times when nuclear war was going on. General Ripper (Sterling Hayden) orders his air troops to execute Plan R, which involves all planes attacking Russia and dropping their nukes on it. Now, everyone is against Ripper's orders and is trying to stop it, including a fuming General Turgidson (George C. Scott) and the laid-back German doctor, Dr. Strangelove (Peter Sellers). It is a very unique plot based off the Cold War, but its execution as a comedy is a little flat.

ACTING:The acting is great, brilliant even. Hayden does a great job, but the two stars are definitely Scott and Sellers. These two were both main characters in Kubrick's previous film, Lolita, and they work almost as well in here as they did in there. Sellers did a better job than in Lolita, but Scott doesn't break his acting record.
 
Other shiners in this include Slim Pickens as Captain Kong, Keenan Wyn as Col. Bat Guano (clever word play), and whoever played the phone guy talking to Dimitri.

SCORE:Though most of the score was the, "The Ants Go Marching" played over, what wasn't was pretty good.

CAMERAWORK:This has some of Kubrick's ingenius camerawork, and I admit it was pretty great; maybe even harrowing.


OTHER CONTENT:I find this to be, so far, Kubrick's most overrated flick. I see the satrical parodies in it, but I didn't really find it too funny. I do admit, it had some jokes that left me in stitches, but most jokes I didn't find funny. I find it concentrating more on story than comedy. It's still a great film, nevertheless, but I just believe it isn't as funny as back in '64. Time wasn't the BEST to it. One thing I found particularly brilliant though is the ending. I loved the ending.

OVERALL,a great Kubrick film with a flat but unique plot, great acting, good score, possibly harrowing camerawork, and a brilliant ending, but not all jokes succeeded and time wasn't (IMO) the best to it.

Lolita (1962) review

 
(9 out of 10)

TABOO-The second favorite subject of Stanley Kubrick as foretold by the DVD booklet.

PLOT:Humbert Humbert (James Mason) is a professor wating to teach in the United States. He rents out a room at the house of miss Charlotte Haze (Shelley Winters) and her daughter Lolita Haze (Sue Lyon), and instantly falls in love with Lolita.
Though his love is with Lolita, Charlotte seems to fall in love with Humbert and they get married, unhappily. When Charlotte finds Humbert's diary revealing his true emotions toward her and her daugther, she spirals into depression and throws herself in front of a car. Humbert goes to get Lolita at a summer camp her mother forced her into and starts to go on a long trip with her, not telling her that her mother did. All this time, a strange persona is following them and showing up near them (Peter Sellers). Lolita is devastated when she finds out her mother is dead, but after the shock realizes Humbert's love for her and agrees to a small affair with him, but when they try to start life over, Lolita starts falling for boys her age and Humbert grows upset. What will happen of this and who is their strange follower? This is a very unque plot for its time and is executed quite perfectly.

ACTING:The acting is very good. Mason is great as well as Lyon, considering this was her first role. I felt the chemistry between them. Winters was pretty good. Sellers was very good in all of his roles, but his main role in here as Clare Quilty is brilliant.


SCORE:This score was actually pretty unique and pretty good to boot.

OTHER CONTENT:This, sadly didn't have Kubrick's angled camerawork I love so much, but that's not why I counted it off a bit. My counting off is due to a little character development problem. I felt we didn't have enough character development in Humbert to be on his side or against him. I felt we got to know him, yes, but not truly enough to feel for him. This may definitely be disagreeable, but it's all a matter of opinion. I did like the script in this one, but not as much as Spartacus'.

OVERALL,an awesome Kubrick film with a perfectly executed plot, very good acting, unique score, and a great script, but it has some character development problems in my opinion.

Spartacus (1960) review

 

 Hello, my fellow movie reviewers and blog-readers! I came from Rotten Tomatoes as The Creep to bring you movie reviews in other places in case Flixter screws it up anymore to where I lose all my reviews and can't post anymore. I will start with my Stanley Kubrick collection and post my earlier reviews latter. Now, Sparatacus!

(9 out of 10)

REBELLION-The first of the 9 favorite subjects of Stanley Kubrick, as told by the DVD booklet.

PLOT:Spartacus (Kirk Douglas) is a Thracian slave that is bought by Lentulus Batiatus (Peter Ustinov) to teach to be a gladiator, but Spartacus is rebellious, and eventually starts a rebellion against Rome's slave opression with the other gladiators and takes a wife, a Brittanian slave named Varinia (Jean Simmons) and a friend named Antoninus (Tony Curtis). The slaves revolt against the corrupt Russian senator Marcus Licinius Crassus (Laurence Olivier). It is the classic story of Spartacus executed nearly perfect.

ACTING:The acting is truly brilliant. No one did a bad job! Douglas was perfect as Spartacus, Simmons does brilliant as Barinia, and Curtis does wonderful as Antoninus. Olivier and Ustinov also did a great job, considering this was Ustinov's Academy Award-winning role for Best Supporting Actor. 

SCORE:The score here is like a Babylonian John Williams. I loved it. Though I wouldn't call it beautiful or unque, it was still great.

EFFECTS:The blood effects are purely spectacular for the time being. They weren't damn CG and they actually made it look like real blood instead of strawberry cough syrup shit.

CAMERAWORK:Yes, the famous Kubrikian, angled camerawork is here for the best shots ever the grace the screen, as usual.

OTHER CONTENT:Now, this film is purely brilliant, but it has a couple minor flaws that I could find. Firstly, I believe (as well as some other tight-fisted critics) that the plot execution is a bit uneven. It is very well executed, but you can tell that it's a little too freewilling and loose than it needs to be. Secondly, I wouldn't count this one as much of a flaw than a directorial characteristic, but I also believe this doesn't have the 100% true feeling of a Stanley Kubrick film. I mean, I can feel in some scenes more than others Kubrick's presence, but I can't feel it throughout as I could with his other films I've seen. But let's stop with the flaws for a minute and glorify any other good things about this film. The script is very well-written; so much that it is almost poetry than a script. Also, the movie's pretty accurate to the tale of Spartacus if I might say so based on what I learned in 7th grade.

OVERALL,an awesome Kubrick film with a near-perfectly executed plot, brilliant acting, great score, realistic effects, Kubrickian camerawork, well-written script, and "historically" accurate, but the plot's execution, though near-perfect, is uneven and the presence of Kubrick in this film isn't as strong as in some of his other works.

-Creep Out-