Kubrick's F0.7 lens

[crawdiddy]

I'll be more blunt and say that Kubrick's "intelligence and culture" didn't make him a great director. He is, IMO, one of the most over-rated film directors of all time.

I'd agree with the poster who said that he's more a photographer than a director. His movies are almost always beautiful to look at, but weak in other regards. The acting in his films is almost uniformly mediocre, or worse. In addition to the awful job Ryan O'Neal did in "Barry Lyndon," you can add the bizarre Cruise/Kidman performances in "Eyes Wide Shut," which is a film so 'serious,' and so bad, it borders on camp.

High production values don't make art.

I don't know exactly what made Kubrick a great director, but something did. I think his visuals are a large part of it. And visuals are what film is all about, isn't it? His films are extremely visual. Much of 2001 is without dialog. The story is advanced visually.

Of course, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I think Kubrick is brilliant. So is Woody Allen, and their films couldn't be more different.

I personally think Mozart is overrated. It's my opinion. YMMV.

 

[furcafe]

I would say great, but flawed, & yes overrated.

Visuals are obviously important, but they can only do so much if you don't have a good story & acting, too. Going to your prior post, my original point was that Kubrick made much better movies early in his career when he was forced to collaborate w/others, which played to his strengths, than he did in his later years when he had complete creative control (e.g., Eyes Wide Shut) & no one to tell him that he was wrong, kind of the reverse of Orson Welles's career. Perhaps Ridley Scott's "greatness," such as it is, is that he's been able to acknowledge his own weaknesses.

I don't know exactly what made Kubrick a great director, but something did. I think his visuals are a large part of it. And visuals are what film is all about, isn't it? His films are extremely visual. Much of 2001 is without dialog. The story is advanced visually.

Of course, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I think Kubrick is brilliant. So is Woody Allen, and their films couldn't be more different.

I personally think Mozart is overrated. It's my opinion. YMMV.

 

[kevin m]

...Kubrick made much better movies early in his career when he was forced to collaborate w/others, which played to his strengths, than he did in his later years when he had complete creative control (e.g., Eyes Wide Shut) & no one to tell him that he was wrong, kind of the reverse of Orson Welles's career.

I agree completely. "Chimes at Midnight" is so much better than "Citizen Kane" it's not even funny. Kubrick was watchable and promising early in his career; less so the more he became an "auteur." Some watch his later films and see "serious" themes, I just see ponderous pretension.

 

[Sonnar2]

Kubrick as a Leica photographer, that was new to me.

I share some oppinions that some of his later films are somewhat overrated. Full Metal Jacket looses against Ford Coppola's Apocalypse Now and even Kubricks older film Paths of Glory. Plus I didn't get why it takes him years to make such a dissapointing and powerless film as Eyes Wide Shut. He lost his energy over the years. (Still he's the greatest movie-maker for me)

The third film not as great was Lolita. Probably because of Peter Sellers (although he was great in Dr. Strangelove). I prefer the remake of Lolita (Adrian Lyne, 1997) ...

have fun

 

[naren]

I too saw the movie when it was brand new, on a large screen. I thought it was excellent. But then, I'm a huge Kubrick fan. I would agree it's not his best work. (That honor still goes to Dr. Strangelove and Full Metal Jacket.)

Not to get into a silly debate, but despite a number of great films I can't see anyone naming any movie other than "A Clockwork Orange" as his Magnus opus. In fact when I watch that movie, a snapshot of virtually any second of the film looks like a great still photo to me. That is just remarkable.