Is Stanley Kubrick the Best Director of All-Time?

[Gordon]

He always wins all the polls and the tournaments, and I wonder if we can get more than half the board to agree.

[Cronos]

No

[DaMovieMan]

Yes.

But he shares the spot with Akira Kurosawa.

[JackassFan]

I believe he is, yes.

[Gordon]

No

Hehe...Peter Jackson/Carpenter...hehe.

[Powerslave]

Yeah.

[Lazy Boy]

Hellz yeah.

[ilovemovies]

No.

Now if the topic is most overrated director I'd say he has a fairly decent chance of winning that one.

[sarah1980]

No

.

[deftdelivery]

Kurosawa and Bergman both give him a run for his money...tough matchup.

In my opinion, Scorcese and Spielberg are practically tied with him as well. While these two aren't as consistent, their body of work is incredible.

[therealjohng]

Hahaha, no. Just no.

[Shockwave]

Hell no.

[Le_Big_Mac]

Definitely. I fail to understand how anybody couldn't think he's at least in the running.

[Gordon]

Definitely. I fail to understand how anybody couldn't think he's at least in the running.

Yeah, all these "Hell nah!" and "Hahahaha, no!"'s are curiousitfying me.

And ilovemovies, I thought you were a big Spielberg fan. What gives?

[JJFlamingo]

Abso-fucking-lutely...

[Backstabba]

Nah B.

[athf1980]

He is freaking great directer. He is up there in terms of greatness that is for sure.

[AceD]

No, I don't think so. He's certainly one of the best, but he's not even close to being the most influential, he's not the most consistent, and I don't think he was able to get great performances from his actors (not to say all the performances were bad, but I think it as a little hit-or-miss).

Off the top of my head, I'd rank Kurosowa, Bergman, Ozu, Spielberg & Scorsese, and a couple others ahead of him. Nonetheless, once to get past the top two or so you can make a pretty good case for several guys. I'm more of a fan of an unranked top-10 than trying to decide why/if Scorsese is better than Spielberg.

[zombievictim]

Haha leave it to Cronos to pick the third option.

And IMO, no he is not the greatest director of all time. While excellent in some (two of his films are in my top ten) he's very hit and miss with me and I don't care for some of his other films.

[Cronos]

Haha leave it to Cronos to pick the third option.
Was hoping it was an anonymous poll :D

[bigred760]

No. Great? Yes. Greatest? No.

[bonoferox]

No. I've enjoyed a couple of his movies but never considered them to be ultimate masterpieces of cinema.

[darknite125]

THE best, no. One of the best absolutely I would put Hitchcock, Welles, and Whale ahead of him.

[jaw2929]

Abso-fucking-lutely NOT.

[Hannibal21]

Hitchcock, Wilder, Bergman are 3 directors that I prefer over him, so a tentative no.

But the man's definitely among the top 5 greatest.

[yorrick brown]

Abso-fucking-lutely NOT.

:)

[poopontheshoes7]

No. But he's definately up there. Still can't stand 2001 though...:(

[ilovemovies]

And ilovemovies, I thought you were a big Spielberg fan. What gives?

What does Spielberg have to do with Kubrick?

I'll admit I haven't seen all of his movies yet. I still have yet to see Dr. Strangelove, A Clockwork Orange, Barry Lyndon and Full Metal Jacket.

But from what I have seen from him (The Shining, 2001, Spartacus, Paths of Glory and Eyes Wide Shut), I haven't been impressed. Only Eyes Wide Shut, ironically his worst reviewed movie, I rate higher than a 7/10.

I certainly don't think he's bad but he's definitely overrated IMO.

[Buck Turgidson]

No, but there is no one "Best Director of All Time." He's a player in the conversation and can't reasonably be excluded from any legitimate Top 10.

[Gordon]

What does Spielberg have to do with Kubrick?

Kubrick was Spielberg's mentor and a lot of the latter's style is credited to his day's being taught by the former.

[Shockwave]

Hes a great director, but he doesnt even come close to cracking my top 5.

[Le_Big_Mac]

Kubrick was Spielberg's mentor and a lot of the latter's style is credited to his day's being taught by the former.

The original script for A.I. was also written by Kubrick for Spielberg to direct and was eventually made by Spielberg after his demise.

[DaMovieMan]

Spielberg can only dream of reaching the grandure of Kubrick...I'm sure he does.

[bigred760]

Spielberg has surpassed Kubrick in so many ways. They're both legends in their own rights, but Spielberg will go down as the better director when all is said and done.

[Le_Big_Mac]

I've liked a hell of a lot of Spielberg's work, but when his movies are supposed to be meaningful (i.e. not Indiana Jones), he just comes through as so paper-thin. They both have great vision, but Stanley Kubrick is just this mysterious, incredibly deep genius.

You know, he's The Brain to Spielberg's Pinky.

[bigred760]

I've liked a hell of a lot of Spielberg's work, but when his movies are supposed to be meaningful (i.e. not Indiana Jones), he just comes through as so paper-thin. They both have great vision, but Stanley Kubrick is just this mysterious, incredibly deep genius.


You found Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan paper thin? Hell, I wouldn't even call Munich or A.I. paper thin.

[Le_Big_Mac]

A.I. doesn't count since that was Kubrick's story (and I have yet to see it). Maybe paper-thin isn't the best word to describe it. It just seems like all his movies are there just to make some statement by the end of it, except maybe Schindler's List and E.T. I mean that doesn't stop a movie from being great. It's a Wonderful Life and 12 Angry Men are two of my favorites. But everything Kubrick has touched after Lolita has been just a grandiose work of art.

[Gordon]

War of the Worlds kicks the shit out of Barry Lyndon.

[Scarfather]

Far from it.

[Cop No. 633]

When I think of a director as somebody who had their hand in just about every aspect of production on a film, the first person that comes to mind is Kubrick. He researches his films with an OCD like quality that astonishes me. The technical innovations he had a hand in 2001 along with the fantastic visual effects team and production artists literally pushed sci-fi films into the modern age. Without it, Star Wars never would've happened. Visually, he's my favorite director because he always has shots that make me jealous. Barry Lyndon is one of the most beautiful films I'll ever see. There's moment where it looks like a moving painting. I also love Kubrick for the satire embedded in all his movies. There's just this disdain for society and human kind that I just bond with more so than with any other director. He literally sees through the pretty facade of humans and shows you the things many movies tend to gloss over. There's never a perfect character in his movies. Everyone has flaws. Usually, very bad ones... look at Alex in A Clockwork Orange. It's insane that he could make such a likable film with such a sociopathic main character. That's the sign of a great director.

I also like that he doesn't try to manipulate the audience in trying to feel a certain way about the events that happen in his films. It's a detachment that I think many critics have used against him, but I really like it because it forces to viewer to make up their own feelings on a scene. That's something I think Spielberg (who I'm a big fan of as well) doesn't do too often. He usually tries very hard to get you to feel a certain way in his films whereas I prefer leaving the audience decide on their own like Kubrick.

There's just too much to say about this man. When I think of "Best" director, I tend to think of a director whose qualities and body of work I admire that I would like to embody in my own way. Somebody to look up to. Kubrick fits the bill for me. He was a maverick director who called the shots on all his movies after Spartacus and never backed down. He never apologized for his movies except for his first.

I like what Jack Nicholson said of Kubrick, "Everyone pretty much acknowledges he's the man, and I still think that underrates him."

[Le_Big_Mac]

War of the Worlds kicks the shit out of Barry Lyndon.

That's bullshit if I've ever heard it.

[tbone]

He was very good, but I'm a huge fan of Hitchcock and Kurosawa.

[JJFlamingo]

What makes him great is his CONSISTENCY. All directors have their share of bad films; Kubrick has hardly any...:D

[DaMovieMan]

War of the Worlds kicks the shit out of Barry Lyndon.

That's a good joke.


When I think of a director as somebody who had their hand in just about every aspect of production on a film, the first person that comes to mind is Kubrick. He researches his films with an OCD like quality that astonishes me. The technical innovations he had a hand in 2001 along with the fantastic visual effects team and production artists literally pushed sci-fi films into the modern age. Without it, Star Wars never would've happened. Visually, he's my favorite director because he always has shots that make me jealous. Barry Lyndon is one of the most beautiful films I'll ever see. There's moment where it looks like a moving painting. I also love Kubrick for the satire embedded in all his movies. There's just this disdain for society and human kind that I just bond with more so than with any other director. He literally sees through the pretty facade of humans and shows you the things many movies tend to gloss over. There's never a perfect character in his movies. Everyone has flaws. Usually, very bad ones... look at Alex in A Clockwork Orange. It's insane that he could make such a likable film with such a sociopathic main character. That's the sign of a great director.

I also like that he doesn't try to manipulate the audience in trying to feel a certain way about the events that happen in his films. It's a detachment that I think many critics have used against him, but I really like it because it forces to viewer to make up their own feelings on a scene. That's something I think Spielberg (who I'm a big fan of as well) doesn't do too often. He usually tries very hard to get you to feel a certain way in his films whereas I prefer leaving the audience decide on their own like Kubrick.

There's just too much to say about this man. When I think of "Best" director, I tend to think of a director whose qualities and body of work I admire that I would like to embody in my own way. Somebody to look up to. Kubrick fits the bill for me. He was a maverick director who called the shots on all his movies after Spartacus and never backed down. He never apologized for his movies except for his first.

I like what Jack Nicholson said of Kubrick, "Everyone pretty much acknowledges he's the man, and I still think that underrates him."

My sentiments exactly.

[the_sneaker]

War of the Worlds kicks the shit out of Barry Lyndon.

Barry Lyndon kicks the living shit out of War of the Worlds. Dude, Gordon, I have lost so much fuc*ing respect for you. How could you possibly utter such a horrible sentence as that?!

[Gordon]

Barry Lyndon kicks the living shit out of War of the Worlds. Dude, Gordon, I have lost so much fuc*ing respect for you. How could you possibly utter such a horrible sentence as that?!

Well, you know what? It's really not that much of a stretch when you think about it. Tom Cruise portrayal of Ray Ferrier is more dynamic and heartfelt than anything I have seen out of that one-note boring fucking Ryan O'Neil.

War of the Worlds was nominated for THREE Oscars. It had a huge budget that afforded it fantastic effects, and the story, if you weren't aware you fucking moron, is one of the best and most timeless novels ever. The people speak in REAL english, as opposed to that Irish-y bullshit you have to endure.

[the_sneaker]

Well, you know what? It's really not that much of a stretch when you think about it. Tom Cruise portrayal of Ray Ferrier is more dynamic and heartfelt than anything I have seen out of that one-note boring fucking Ryan O'Neil.

War of the Worlds was nominated for THREE Oscars. It had a huge budget that afforded it fantastic effects, and the story, if you weren't aware you fucking moron, is one of the best and most timeless novels ever. The people speak in REAL english, as opposed to that Irish-y bullshit you have to endure.

Let me get this straight...Irish people don't speak English? Dude, not only does your taste in movies suck my grandmother's balls...but now you're spewing shit that doesn't even help your point. You sound like the biggest bigot right now...and that's something seeing as how you're talking about Tom Cruise!

[Gordon]

Let me get this straight...Irish people don't speak English? Dude, not only does your taste in movies suck my grandmother's balls...but now you're spewing shit that doesn't even help your point. You sound like the biggest bigot right now...and that's something seeing as how you're talking about Tom Cruise!

You know what, fuck you. talk a boutbad taste in movies hows about ur lotr rotk bullshit son?? i fucking hope u lrn to respect us snior members

[APzombie]

let's respect everyone, yea?

Hitchcock, Wilder, Bergman are 3 directors that I prefer over him, so a tentative no.

But the man's definitely among the top 5 greatest.

I'll give you Wilder and Bergman. I'd say he's about the same for me as Hitch.

[the_sneaker]

You know what, fuck you. talk a boutbad taste in movies hows about ur lotr rotk bullshit son?? i fucking hope u lrn to respect us snior members

If senior means spending all your fucking on a bulshit fukin website talking bout movies with a bunch of other nerds than im fuken glad that im no senior, sun. fuck you, beyotch.

[Crazy Dud]

As others have said, he is certainly one of the best. He is probably even in the top ten, but I would rank Welles, Hitchcock, Kurosawa, and Spielberg ahead of him. As others have already said, he was inconsistent with the performances of his actors, and that alone probably keeps him from being the greatest.

[Gordon]

If senior means spending all your fucking on a bulshit fukin website talking bout movies with a bunch of other nerds than im fuken glad that im no senior, sun. fuck you, beyotch.

Fuck this, let's play Halo.

[APzombie]

what the fuck kjsust happend? fucking st. patties day....

i'm going to throw up on my old vhs copy of wb's kubrick collection. fck the boardsright now im gonna fucking hurll

[the_sneaker]

Fuck this, let's play Halo.

Fuck Coke...let's just take a couple of shots and play some Halo! It's on!

[X-Nightcrawler]

Was hoping it was an anonymous poll :D

DAMMIT! It isn't.

[echo_bravo]

Spielberg can only dream of reaching the grandure of Kubrick...I'm sure he does.


Dont mean to call you out but have you heard of this little film called Schindlers List? Its better than anything Kubrick has ever done and I believe Kubrick even said its the greatest film ever made.

And I am definitely a Kubrick fan. Hell, I have a Clockwork Orange avatar. The Shining is one of my favorite films ever too.

[DaMovieMan]

Schindler's List is amazing, Spielberg's masterpiece, but it doesn't really reach the level of A Clockwork Orange or 2001: A Space Odyssey (at least, but imo there's more Kubrick films i can include) in terms of direction, depth and influence (we're just comparing directors at this point)


Its better than anything Kubrick has ever done and I believe Kubrick even said its the greatest film ever made.


Can you please provide a source for that statement? I know that Kubrick's favorite movie was Treasure of Sierra Madre. I think you might be referring to something Kubrick said about Schindler's List being the greatest holocaust movie. Which it is, but it still inferior to Kubrick's masterpieces.

[Lost in Space]

i vote kubrick

[echo_bravo]

Schindler's List is amazing, Spielberg's masterpiece, but it doesn't really reach the level of A Clockwork Orange or 2001: A Space Odyssey (at least, but imo there's more Kubrick films i can include) in terms of direction, depth and influence (we're just comparing directors at this point)




Can you please provide a source for that statement? I know that Kubrick's favorite movie was Treasure of Sierra Madre. I think you might be referring to something Kubrick said about Schindler's List being the greatest holocaust movie. Which it is, but it still inferior to Kubrick's masterpieces.


I am still trying to find the quote maybe he said its one of his favorite films but I remember it was said in a documentary about Kubrick. He was completely blown away by Schlinders List.

With that being said, I definitely still think that Schlinders List is better than any Kubrick film. I mean, he freakin recreated the Holocaust.:eek:

Also it seems that the American Film Institute agrees with me too. (Schindlers List is rated at #9, while the highest Kubrick film is #22):p

Also Kubrick only directed like 9 films which I think kinda holds him back as being the "best of the best".

[Gordon]

Yeah, the two were great friends and admirers of each other. Because they were both great.

What a solution (http://www.joblo.com/forums/showthread.php?t=119132).

[Natty]

No, but there is no one "Best Director of All Time." He's a player in the conversation and can't reasonably be excluded from any legitimate Top 10.

Exactly, Kubrick is somewhat of a genius though, I probably prefer the work of Spielberg but both are brilliant.

[casanovaajay143@gmail.com]

I have seen the movies of Alfred Hitchcock, Martin Scorsese, Steven Speilberg. The Reason i rate Kubrick Ahead of them is that he has directed 16 movies. Each movie is a different genre and most of his movies are genre defining. Like The Shining(horror), Dr. Strangelove(comedy), Clockwork orange(cult), Paths of glory(anti-war), Full metal Jacket(war).And i believe Barry lyndon his best work. The directors i have mentioned before are good but cannot be matched with the genius of Kubrick. He was born to make movies and go back.

[QUENTIN]

I'd put Scorsese and Bergman above him, but he's definitely in my top 5. In addition to his many masterpieces, he's made films I'm not crazy about, but even they are mind-blowingly well made. Like Hitch, I can understand that if someone doesn't dig his unique, distancing style that they won't appreciate his work but his formal mastery of the craft is practically undeniable.

Though he wouldn't be my absolute #1, I do think he helmed the best directed movie ever in 2001.

Like Buck said, there isn't really a single director who stands head and shoulders above the rest, but he's gotta be in the conversation of any such discussion or list.

[SS-Block]

Kubrick's definitely one of the best.

Hitchcock, Leone, Kurosawa, Ozu, and Mizoguchi could all stake a claim too.

If I were to select one it would be Kurosawa.

[screamer581]

Yep.


And most "overrated". LOL

[JackassFan]

Since I posted here the first time, I'd say I've actually changed my mind. It was always close between Spielberg, Kubrick and Scorsese for me, but now I've seen more of their works, I'd put Spielberg ahead.

[Frosty_86]

From the technical stand point I would say Kubrick is the best but in terms of what's actually there on film I have to say no he's not. A lot of his movies I just couldn't connect with. Some of his movies I just didn't care what happened to the characters or the story itself. He was a great director from a visual stand point but there's more to a movie than just visuals there has to be a story and great characters. I don't feel invested in some of his movies, I just don't give a shit about some of the stories. Granted I love The Shining, and Dr. Strangelove and I do like A Clockwork Orange and Full Metal Jacket even if I think the latter two are overrated. I remember trying to watch 2001 and loving the opening scene but then after that I was pretty much bored to tears. Also I get really pissed when some people (no body here but people Ive met out in the world) who act like Im idiot and I dont know any thing about great film making if I don't like Kubrick's films. Give me Scorsese, Weir, Lumet, Spielberg, Tarantino, or Mann any day of the week.

Im not saying that he wasn't a genius when it came to film making it's just that I think when I look at movies I enjoy by certain directors he just doesn't have as many as a lot of other directors that I do like.

[Buck Turgidson]

I always enjoy being the reasonable one.

[Otis_Driftwood]

Let me think about this for a moment...Hell no.

Not even close.

[Monotreme]

Kubrick was ONE of the best. But not THE best, in my opinion. And I'm too lazy to go into a really long explanation about why I believe this, so let's just leave it at that :P

[Sgizzy316]

I refuse to vote due to the completely ridiculous (yet funny) voting options listed. However, Kubrick is a top 2-3 director of all-time IMO.

[Servo]

After checking out the Kurosawa exhibit at AMPAS last year it's hard to believe any director will come even close to topping that man, even the great Stanley Kuberick. I love, love, love Kuberick but Kurosawa was a GOD. The man didn't draw storyboards - he made gigantic paintings on canvases and used that as reference that was, for lack of a better word, perfection. I would place Kuberick between Kurosawa and Welles. Way more consistent and entertaining and thought-provoking than Orson Welles, but not nearly as perfect or as masterful behind the camera or with a pen & paper (quite literally - as most of Kurosawas scripts were handwritten) as Kurosawa.

[PSU80]

If Scorcese or Michael Mann hadn't been born then maybe Kubrick would have been the best director ever. But since that wasn't the case, he isn't. I didn't vote because the poll choices suck my ass.

[PSU80]

I forgot to add John Carpenter and Steven Speilberg as directors who blow Kubrick out of the fucking water. And believe me I'm a huge Kubrick fan. Full Metal Jacket and The Shining rank in my all-time Top 25.

[Reigh Kaufman]

I forgot to add John Carpenter and Steven Speilberg as directors who blow Kubrick out of the fucking water. And believe me I'm a huge Kubrick fan. Full Metal Jacket and The Shining rank in my all-time Top 25.

John Carpenter blows Kubrick out of the water? Only if Kubrick is holding Carpenter's head under the water while Carpenter blows him.

[LordSimen]

Hell no. That would be John Carpenter. Kubrick would still be one of the best, just not the best.

[Jig Saw 123]

He's in the running, but Carpenter over Kubrick...hell no.

[Buck Turgidson]

Guys, I like Carpenter, a lot but...cut it out.

[LordSimen]

Guys, I like Carpenter, a lot but...cut it out.

Why? Thread asked a question, we're answering it.

[bigred760]

John Carpenter is a good director, but he doesn't even come close to the genius that is Stanley Kubrick.

[Crazy Dud]

John Carpenter is a good director, but he doesn't even come close to the genius that is Stanley Kubrick.

Would Kubrick have even been capable of delivering the abomination that was Ghosts of Mars?

Carpenter's best films are minor masterpieces (Halloween, Escape From New York, The Thing), but he's delivered a number of turds too (Memoirs of an Invisible Man, Village of the Damned, Ghosts of Mars). He is simply too inconsistent to be considered as being in the same league as Kubrick for even a second.

[bigred760]

Would Kubrick have even been capable of delivering the abomination that was Ghosts of Mars?

Carpenter's best films are minor masterpieces (Halloween, Escape From New York, The Thing), but he's delivered a number of turds too (Memoirs of an Invisible Man, Village of the Damned, Ghosts of Mars). He is simply too inconsistent to be considered as being in the same league as Kubrick for even a second.

Like I said . . . he's a good director, but he's no Kubrick.

[LordSimen]

I'd say Barry Lyndon is worse than Ghost of Mars, yeah. It suffers from the worst crime a film could ever commit- It's boring.

[Buck Turgidson]

This is where the guy on the phone at the suicide hotline gets exasperated and hangs up.

[Crazy Dud]

I'd say Barry Lyndon is worse than Ghost of Mars, yeah. It suffers from the worst crime a film could ever commit- It's boring.

I thought Memoirs of an Invisible Man was pretty damn boring myself!

As far as comparing Ghosts of Mars to Barry Lyndon, worse in terms of personal enjoyment, I can understand that, but there's is no way one can truly say Ghosts of Mars is superior to Barry Lyndon from an objective critical perspective.

And did Kubrick really have any other misfires, other than Barry Lyndon (which I also must confess is probably his weakest film, though I haven't seen Killer's Kiss)?

[Monotreme]

Wait what the FUCK - where is all the Barry Lyndon hate coming from? I think it's one of Kubrick's finest films! Sure, it's not up there with his MASTERPIECES like 2001, Clockwork Orange, Dr. Strangelove, Paths of Glory, The Shining - but it's a really great movie, always incredible to look at at the LEAST, but I also found the story and characters engaging, and I had no problem getting through it - I was never bored once. But more importantly, it's just such an incredible cinematic achievement that it's impossible to ignore. The cinematography is just... no words can describe it.

[Terror Australis]

Wait what the FUCK - where is all the Barry Lyndon hate coming from? I think it's one of Kubrick's finest films! Sure, it's not up there with his MASTERPIECES like 2001, Clockwork Orange, Dr. Strangelove, Paths of Glory, The Shining - but it's a really great movie, always incredible to look at at the LEAST, but I also found the story and characters engaging, and I had no problem getting through it - I was never bored once. But more importantly, it's just such an incredible cinematic achievement that it's impossible to ignore. The cinematography is just... no words can describe it.

The man speaks the truth!

[nerd85]

After reading all these comments, I'm starting to see that most people still don't understand what Kubrick did with his films. He didn't always set out to craft the defining work of whichever genre he was adapting...it happened as a result of his exhausting commitment to creating art. Check any list of great dark comedies, you'll see Dr. Strangelove. Any list of epic horror, you'll see the Shining. And 2001 is beyond most film categorization even 40+ years later. It made Sci-Fi films important and worth putting thought into. Is 2001: A Space Odyssey tedious and confusing? That's what being in space is like. Are all of his films masterpieces? If you're a fan of film, you can certainly find reasons to watch them all.

Saying anyone is the greatest director of all time, can never really be done. He is my personal favorite and because of my love for his films, I can appreciate all the great makers of cinema. Regardless of genre or time period.

[Monotreme]

After reading all these comments, I'm starting to see that most people still don't understand what Kubrick did with his films. He didn't always set out to craft the defining work of whichever genre he was adapting...it happened as a result of his exhausting commitment to creating art. Check any list of great dark comedies, you'll see Dr. Strangelove. Any list of epic horror, you'll see the Shining. And 2001 is beyond most film categorization even 40+ years later. It made Sci-Fi films important and worth putting thought into. Is 2001: A Space Odyssey tedious and confusing? That's what being in space is like. Are all of his films masterpieces? If you're a fan of film, you can certainly find reasons to watch them all.

Saying anyone is the greatest director of all time, can never really be done. He is my personal favorite and because of my love for his films, I can appreciate all the great makers of cinema. Regardless of genre or time period.

Also, your favorite movie is Eternal Sunshine, so your comment gets 20% more support for me based on that fact alone :) Welcome to the forums!

[DaMovieMan]

I'd say Barry Lyndon is worse than Ghost of Mars, yeah. It suffers from the worst crime a film could ever commit- It's boring.

Very puzzling, this hatred for Barry Lyndon. It's the most underrated Kubrick masterpiece followed closely by Eyes Wide Shut.

It's nice this thread is back on top...Kubrick is still my favorite director but I can safely say that Kurosawa should be considered "better" objectively only because of the amount of films he managed to make and how every one I've seen so far have been near-perfect or as close to perfection as film can get.

[Buck Turgidson]

Wait what the FUCK - where is all the Barry Lyndon hate coming from? I think it's one of Kubrick's finest films! Sure, it's not up there with his MASTERPIECES like 2001, Clockwork Orange, Dr. Strangelove, Paths of Glory, The Shining - but it's a really great movie, always incredible to look at at the LEAST, but I also found the story and characters engaging, and I had no problem getting through it - I was never bored once. But more importantly, it's just such an incredible cinematic achievement that it's impossible to ignore. The cinematography is just... no words can describe it.The sole disagrrement I have with you is that Lyndon is every bit as great as those films.

[PSU80]

I thought Memoirs of an Invisible Man was pretty damn boring myself!

As far as comparing Ghosts of Mars to Barry Lyndon, worse in terms of personal enjoyment, I can understand that, but there's is no way one can truly say Ghosts of Mars is superior to Barry Lyndon from an objective critical perspective.

And did Kubrick really have any other misfires, other than Barry Lyndon (which I also must confess is probably his weakest film, though I haven't seen Killer's Kiss)?

If you don't call Eyes Wide Shut a misfire, then I suggest you watch it again and take off the Stanley Kubrick love blinders.

And to the poster who said Carpenter had minor masterpieces, i.e; Halloween. Wasn't Halloween at one point in time the highest grossing independent film ever??? If that's minor I'd love to see what your version of major is.

[DaMovieMan]

And to the poster who said Carpenter had minor masterpieces, i.e; Halloween. Wasn't Halloween at one point in time the highest grossing independent film ever??? If that's minor I'd love to see what your version of major is.

I don't mean to write words into other poster's keyboards but maybe they don't measure masterpiece's by how much money it made? I certainly don't. Halloween is a classic horror film and showcases some great direction but as far as depth, innovation, and everything you would put under the umbrella of art is concerned it can't really be compared to anything Kubrick made. Totally different levels.

[PSU80]

I don't mean to write words into other poster's keyboards but maybe they don't measure masterpiece's by how much money it made? I certainly don't. Halloween is a classic horror film and showcases some great direction but as far as depth, innovation, and everything you would put under the umbrella of art is concerned it can't really be compared to anything Kubrick made. Totally different levels.

Like I stated earlier, I am a huge Kubrick fan but the man was far from perfect, his work had it's flaws and he did make some colossal turds.

Halloween is probably second only in horror history to Psycho; at least that what most critics I've heard or read have said. And it did in fact change the face of the horror genre. I think that's more than just monetary gain. I personally worked with a woman who saw Halloween when it was released and told me it was almost traumatizing to some people. Remember not much like that had been seen before. I also remember Roger Ebert saying once that he was so frightened by Halloween that although he lived but two blocks from the theater, when he left he called a cab. I'm pretty sure as a genre flick Halloween pretty much defines innovation.

[ilovemovies]

but there's is no way one can truly say Ghosts of Mars is superior to Barry Lyndon from an objective critical perspective.




Actually they can. And do you know why? The word objective when it comes to opinions doesn't exist. Because ALL opinions are subjective. And that is all a critical analysis is. An opinion.

[PSU80]

Actually they can. And do you know why? The word objective when it comes to opinions doesn't exist. Because ALL opinions are subjective. And that is all a critical analysis is. An opinion.

What he said...

[DaMovieMan]

Like I stated earlier, I am a huge Kubrick fan but the man was far from perfect, his work had it's flaws and he did make some colossal turds.


Alright well a phrase like "colossal turd" would never come close to a description for a Kubrick film for me. Even his films that are not masterpieces like Killer's Kiss or Lolita are still far and away better than some colossal turds like, say, Dungeons and Dragons or anything by Uwe Boll. Colossal turd? A film by Stanley Kubrick? I might sound pretentious but that just sounds so wrong.


Halloween is probably second only in horror history to Psycho; at least that what most critics I've heard or read have said. And it did in fact change the face of the horror genre. I think that's more than just monetary gain. I personally worked with a woman who saw Halloween when it was released and told me it was almost traumatizing to some people. Remember not much like that had been seen before. I also remember Roger Ebert saying once that he was so frightened by Halloween that although he lived but two blocks from the theater, when he left he called a cab. I'm pretty sure as a genre flick Halloween pretty much defines innovation.

I haven't read upon the context to know enough, but it sounds like Halloween was a great and very innovative horror film when it came out. You're right, it definitely is more than monetary. And it scared people which any good horror film aims to do. But put it next to Kubrick's horror film and the artistic difference, I hope, is clear.

Actually they can. And do you know why? The word objective when it comes to opinions doesn't exist. Because ALL opinions are subjective. And that is all a critical analysis is. An opinion.

Actually, critical analysis is usually an opinion made by an expert who studied the subject for years thus holding more weight than an opinion from Average Joe. Sometimes opinions are just so off that they can be classified as wrong. Let me know when you read a critical analysis from a respected/learned critic that makes the case Ghosts of Mars is a better artistic achievement than Barry Lyndon, and I'll stand corrected. But I'm not holding my breath.

[viceus]

Barry Lyndon is boring?

2001 is more of a bore.

Who's better than Stanley Kubrick?

Tarkovsky.

I place Maurice Pialat, Bela Tarr, Antonioni, Bresson, and Lynch alongside him.

But hey, this aint no competition.

[sidewinder572]

You guys should check out this website http://theyshootpictures.com where they calculate to top films and directors

currently Kubrick is at number 4 behind Fellini, Hitchcock and Wells

[Buck Turgidson]

I would really think that anyone who is a Tarkovsky enthusiast (which I am) would never, ever used "bore" or "boring" or any variation thereof, simply because they're so often deployed against Andrei's films by people who can't handle a movie without Cameron Diaz in it.

[Crazy Dud]

Alright well a phrase like "colossal turd" would never come close to a description for a Kubrick film for me. Even his films that are not masterpieces like Killer's Kiss or Lolita are still far and away better than some colossal turds like, say, Dungeons and Dragons or anything by Uwe Boll. Colossal turd? A film by Stanley Kubrick? I might sound pretentious but that just sounds so wrong.



I haven't read upon the context to know enough, but it sounds like Halloween was a great and very innovative horror film when it came out. You're right, it definitely is more than monetary. And it scared people which any good horror film aims to do. But put it next to Kubrick's horror film and the artistic difference, I hope, is clear.



Actually, critical analysis is usually an opinion made by an expert who studied the subject for years thus holding more weight than an opinion from Average Joe. Sometimes opinions are just so off that they can be classified as wrong. Let me know when you read a critical analysis from a respected/learned critic that makes the case Ghosts of Mars is a better artistic achievement than Barry Lyndon, and I'll stand corrected. But I'm not holding my breath.

Just to set the record straight, I like Barry Lyndon. When I say I consider it his weakest film, please understand that I love all his movies (though I haven't seen Killer's Kiss). I also wasn't thinking of Spartacus. That one may actually be his weakest. Though, if I recall, he did not have full creative control over that one. The only MAJOR flaw in Barry Lyndon is that it simply didn't need to be as long as it was.

Perhaps I spoke incorrectly when calling Halloween a "minor" masterpiece. Lets put it this way . . . I consider Barry Lyndon and The Shining to be masterpieces of art, whereas I consider Halloween to be a masterpiece of entertainment (though its artistic merits are certainly notable, just as The Shining certainly has entertainment value). Perhaps that works better for you (PSU80)?

You are right about objective critical analysis. My B.A. is in film (with a minor in theater) and I am currently pursuing an M.A. in English. I have learned that there are definite standards upon which to apply objective critical analysis to any work of fiction. As you said, I'd be VERY interested in seeing someone make a compelling critical argument that Ghosts of Mars is a greater achievement in film than is Barry Lyndon.

[viceus]

I would really think that anyone who is a Tarkovsky enthusiast (which I am) would never, ever used "bore" or "boring" or any variation thereof, simply because they're so often deployed against Andrei's films by people who can't handle a movie without Cameron Diaz in it.


Is this aimed at myself?

I will definitely use the word "boring" to describe a film if I think the film is boring.

I say 2001 is more of a bore than Barry Lyndon (which I do not think is boring in the slightest), but by no means would I say it is a boring film. I just have to be in the very right mood and have the endurance to sit through 2001.

I'm incredibly patient when it comes to film and MANY of my favourites would be thought of as "boring" by many, I'm sure.

Oh, and Cameron Diaz is definitely boring.

[Buck Turgidson]

I wouldn't say "aimed" but it's in reaction, yes.

You're perfectly within your rights to call films boring if you want. I just don't really like to do that, myself. It's been used as a cudgel against too many films that I love for me to ever want to employ it.

[viceus]

I do understand.

Some of the best films I've seen and viewed for other people I've heard such things as the following:

"It doesn't have subtitles, does it? No, I can't be bothered!" (How can you read and watch a film at the same time?)

"It's on for three-and-a-what-hours?" (I might get fidgity)

"It's quite slow, isn't it?" (I need a pair of tits or a person's head to explode in the next scene to liven me up)

"This is too weird, I don't get it" (I have no imagination)

And it's a right shame and frustrating and all that, 'cos you know they are excellent.

I have came across people and their laziness toward film. If they do manage to get through one of these instances, the film often adopts the keyword "boring".

However, there really are some terribly boring films, or rather boringly terrible films. I think that is what I mean when I use the term.

[Ripper1888]

No he is not, Kubrick was a very good filmaker but he is not the greatest of all time imo.

[Buck Turgidson]

I have came across people and their laziness toward film. If they do manage to get through one of these instances, the film often adopts the keyword "boring". Exactly, which is why I try to avoid the term. Having said that...However, there really are some terribly boring films, or rather boringly terrible films. I think that is what I mean when I use the term....that seems undeniable. I would classify Magnolia as such but I wouldn't want people to then assume I disliked anything more challenging than Transformers.

Long story short: I understand where you're coming from and we're pretty much on the same page.

[the_sneaker]

There is no such thing as an all time best director, simply because that is subjective. I could say blue is the all time best color, but that doesn't mean it is. Even if every single person on this thread...hell...on this forum said that Kubrick was the best director of all time, it wouldn't mean he was.

[viceus]

There is no such thing as an all time best director, simply because that is subjective. I could say blue is the all time best color, but that doesn't mean it is. Even if every single person on this thread...hell...on this forum said that Kubrick was the best director of all time, it wouldn't mean he was.

No need to put a dampner on it. Isn't this whole site designed for people to share and discuss their personal opinion on film, a medium designed exactly for that? No one is trying to set any truth, this isn't a physics forum (which are fucking cool, by the way).

[DorkisFig]

Trying to figure out the best director of all time is like trying to figure out the best film of all time - it will never be something we can agree on.

Kubrick is awesome, I am sure he is in everyone's top 10, if not top 5 but I don't imagine he is everyone's number 1 guy.

I like Scorcese over Kubrick

[Briare Rabbit]

2001 and Paths of Glory are Kubrick`s only really great films. Strangelove and A Clockwork Orange are alright for what they are but Barry Lyndon is about as exciting as watchinh grass grow and Full Metal Jacket runs out of steam after about a half hour. I`ve never been a huge Shining fan but I don`t mind it.