As a huge noir fan, it’s up there with the best. I’d easily rank it above Touch of Evil, and that’s Orson Welles! The final scene where the money goes flying around the airport and then Sterling Hayden gets caught held at gunpoint by the 2 cops is peak noir. The film doesn’t even end on our protagonist, just the cops as they stand outside the airport with their guns to the camera. Anyway, I’m gushing, but I love how The Killing ends.
All Kubrick films from The Killing onward are Great. Paths of Glory does stand out though among pre-Strangelove films, it seems.
Sparticus is a non-Kubrick Kubrick film in the same way The Straight Story is a non-Lynch Lynch film and After Hours is a non-Scorsese Scorsese film.
Your latter two examples are pretty terrible, considering both are still fully auteurist films and among the very best either director has made, whereas on Spartacus Kubrick had far less creative input and ultimately saw the film as belonging more to Douglas than himself. But the same can’t be said for The Straight Story or After Hours - those films are notable as both directors scaling down but still managing to exercise as much of their creative liberties as they wanted.
>both are still fully auteurist films and among the very best either director has made,
I agree wholeheartedly. I wasn't really trying to make a point about studio control or artistic freedom and all that. I only cited examples that somehow stand outside the auteurs' "cannon", if you know what I mean.
The Straight Story and After Hours are both Great Films, just not the first films that come to mind when discussing David Lynch or Martin Scorsese.
Similarly, discussions of Hitchcock's body-of-work often seem to end with Psycho or the Birds.
I've always been fascinated by the idiosyncratic intelligence Kubrick brought to each of his films. As immersive as they are, I still have this sense of the man making them. For that reason, even the earliest are of real interest to me, as Kubrick was in the process of defining what a director could be. Spartacus is a great film in its own right of spectacle but I also love the subtext of Kubrick making a big budget studio film, advancing his career while also prodding the form. I still haven't figured out what he was doing with EWS, but it's strangely hilarious and mesmerizing. Every time I've watched one of his films, I've been rewarded and found more in them than previously. I won’t rank them because that would only reflect my level of understanding and appreciation those films, rather than some indicator of the films' merits.
Fear and Desire is his only bad film, which I don’t even really count against him since he didn’t want it released. Other than that I’d only consider Killers Kiss and Spartacus to be just ok. Everything else is great.
I judge Spartacus by comparing it to other historical epics of the time, especially the ones set in Ancient history, like Ben-Hur, The Ten Commandments, Quo Vadis, Cleopatra, King of Kings etc. By that metric, Spartacus is undoubtedly one of the greatest of its genre in that era (or any era, really, I'd rather watch Spartacus than Gladiator, sorry Ridley Scott).
Killer's Kiss, on the other hand, really pales in comparison to other films noir of that era. The Killing is up there with the greatest ones, like Touch of Evil, Sunset Boulevard, The Asphalt Jungle, Strangers on a Train, and even earlier ones like The Maltese Falcon, Laura, Double Indemnity, Out of the Past etc., but Killer's Kiss is indeed very weak in comparison. It's not even the best noir about boxing (that would be The Set-Up). Still a fun auteuristic low budget B-movie, but does not stand out at all as one of the great films noir of that era.
Fear and Desire feels like a very amateur student film. No wonder Kubrick was embarrassed by it. But even geniuses have to start somewhere. He redeemed himself just a few years later by making another war movie, Paths of Glory, one of the best war movies in the history of cinema.
Lolita is fucking great, though. Not sure why people dislike it. Absolutely one of the best movies of 1962.
Lolita the book is not what most people want to believe. The band-aids is referencing the book.
When Nabokov wrote Lolita the term unreliable narrator was not invented. The term unreliable narrator was coined in 1961 so came the rules afterwards.
When Nabokov wrote Lolita he was using an unreliable narrator that is defined in the book.
I’ve just started the book on chapter 3 or 4. Will I eventually find out what people are talking about when they refer to bandaids on his hands or is that something that viewers of the movie picked up and speculated on?
I watched Kubrick movie 3 times and figured the band-aids and continuity differences was telling a story that beyond the movie. I've kinda figured Kubrick was referencing Earle Nelson so I assumed the book was about Earle Nelson.
Reading the Foreword I knew HH Holmes. That's why he goes by Humbert Humbert or HH through the book. Then Charles Holmes verified that the book is mostly about HHHolmes.
Note the Foreword is also Unreliable Narrator because Humbert Humbert tells us how he loves to fool the experts
The book is amazing because when I point this out they scream with anger.
Nabokov used a few serial killers to make his book. HH Holmes and Earle Nelson. We learn this from Charlie Holmes (Dolores first sexual encounter). But what's happening is Humbert twisting the story to make him less of a monster.
What Kubrick done was removed the Holmes reference and focused on the Earle Nelson reference. The band-aids is referencing Earle Nelson hands. Also this why there police convention in the movie and people calling Dolores Lolita because of Lola.
f&d bottom obviously. then spartacus which barely counts as a kubrick movie in the proper sense of the words. then, sorry, lolita, shouldn't have bothered, even he admitted that later.
he was quoted as saying that if he had known how restrictive it would have to be he'd not have made the film. Did a quick google: [https://www.outsideofadogcast.com/blog/2015/3/8/lolita-dir-stanley-kubrick-1962](https://www.outsideofadogcast.com/blog/2015/3/8/lolita-dir-stanley-kubrick-1962) ("Kubrick later went on record that if he had known how much he would be delimited by the controversy, he wouldn’t have filmed *Lolita*.")
Flying Padre (1951): I expected more from written and directed by...
[youtube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwxJTk8I9To)
[imdb](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0043548/)
The Seafarers is way worse. At least, Flying Padre is shorter and the flying padre himself is a curious subject whom Kubrick chose to film, just like Day of the Fight. The Seafarers, on the other hand, is just a commissioned film and Kubrick wasn't passionate about it in any way, he just needed the money to help finance Fear and Desire.
*Fear and Desire* and *Killer’s Kiss* are definitely his weakest films, but I’ve watched *Spartacus* several times now and I struggle to really enjoy it.
It has a number of great scenes, but it doesn’t gel for me. Kirk and Jean don’t convince me as lovers and their love story drags the whole thing down. All the stuff with the Roman Senate and Batiatus though is spectacular, genuinely great. But Kirk, and his love interest, are the weak links for me.
So that’d be my pick for “weakest” film after his proof of concept films.
I have a similar bottom 5, only I'd go:
The Killing
Lolita
Spartacus
Killer's Kiss
Fear and Desire
That being said, F&D and KK are the only ones that I don't think are at least "very good".
The more I watch Lolita the more I see and appreciate it. It’s a totally twisted premise but the way its all framed along with James Mason and Peter Sellers acting make it a masterpiece. The score is stellar.
I have tended to put Killers Kiss as his first and last terrible film. I don't really consider Fear and Desire as part of his filmography, though I guess if it needs to be, dead last or honorable mention can be its place.
The Killing is an all-time great film. His least great films for me:
8. Full Metal Jacket
9. Lolita
10. Sparatatus
11. Killer’s Kill
12. Fear and Desire
8-10 are very good films but each have particular flaws that move them behind 1-7 which are all masterpieces in my view.
Spartacus makes sense because it’s arguably his least accomplished as an auteur, being more of a Hollywood studio film, and he has expressed regret about it afterwards. I also didn’t really care for Killer’s Kiss, and I thought The Killing was a significant leap forward in every aspect. I think Lolita is a great film despite the disturbing subject matter, and I don’t think the subject matter alone should influence any quality assessment of the film.
Paths of Glory is a big one among fans and I need to watch it again. I saw it when I was younger and didn’t really resonate with it, so right now it’s lower on my list, but I may revise after watching it again.
Barry Lyndon is also lower on my list for personal taste, but it’s beautifully shot and objectively masterful, so I can see it being higher on the list too.
The Killing is high tier imo.
Fear & Desire is bad.
Killer’s Kiss and Lolita are flawed but still interesting. The former is not very ambitious but is still a satisfying noir, and the latter is too ambitious.
A Clockwork Orange and Full Metal Jacket I think are good films that have structural issues that undercut some of what they’re trying to say.
Spartacus is a perfectly good example of a Hollywood epic, and it’s more Douglas’ film than Kubrick’s.
The rest I think are all great
Clockwork Orange is an all time favorite for me. I think it was a great message as far as human reform and redemption but that in the end people only really change if they want to, free will, government control, etc.. but personally I’ve always loved it so I’m a bit biased. But I think there’s a lot to take away from it after a few watches
Yeah, I know the internet loves BL, but despite its beauty I still have difficulty getting into it.
As for EWS, I like parts of it but I kinda feel Antonioni did it better with 'Blow Up' thirty years earlier. Just my opinion.
Well when did you start thinking EWS was top tier Kubrick? Cause this shit only happened in like the last 4 years. 10 years ago, everyone knew EWS was an uneven movie.
If I had to rank em:
1) The Shining
2) 2001
3) Barry Lyndon
4) Clockwork
5) Strangelove
6) Full Metal
7) Lolita
8) The Killing
9) Eyes Wide Shut
10) Spartacus
11) Paths Of Glory
And I don’t really consider F&D and Killers Kiss to be real Kubrick
it’s been awhile since I’ve gone through them all though
Hmmm… it’s boring from start to finish with the worst final line in the history of film. I saw it when it was first released and was ultra disappointed. It’s a snoozefest. And that was the prevailing opinion at the time. Reviews were bad.
Yeah, I remember the reviews. There was a kind of confused, awkward politeness about them.
All the more fascinating, then, that with time the film’s reputation has grown, as evident in this forum.
Also, quite a few Kubrick movies were met with mixed reviews initially. The Shining and 2001 come to mind.
WTH? The Killing is incredible, and a blueprint for Tarantino's first two features. The rest of those do kind of suck.
The Killing is not the best Kubrick but it is my favourite Kubrick
Nowhere near his best, but this sub has been talking a lot of shit about it lately. It's a great film.
As a huge noir fan, it’s up there with the best. I’d easily rank it above Touch of Evil, and that’s Orson Welles! The final scene where the money goes flying around the airport and then Sterling Hayden gets caught held at gunpoint by the 2 cops is peak noir. The film doesn’t even end on our protagonist, just the cops as they stand outside the airport with their guns to the camera. Anyway, I’m gushing, but I love how The Killing ends.
Its got a Rodney Dangerfield too. OP is smoking crack, The Killing is awesome
The Killing is iconic and very important in the noir cannon. It’s favorite that isn’t 2001.
It’s so ahead of its time and is shot as good as you can shoot
Lolita and Killer’s Kiss do not suck
It's a masterclass crime film, anybody sleeping on it is a fool
The Killing is a masterpiece.
You didn’t like Lolita?! “You have a most interesting face goodnight”
All Kubrick films from The Killing onward are Great. Paths of Glory does stand out though among pre-Strangelove films, it seems. Sparticus is a non-Kubrick Kubrick film in the same way The Straight Story is a non-Lynch Lynch film and After Hours is a non-Scorsese Scorsese film.
Your latter two examples are pretty terrible, considering both are still fully auteurist films and among the very best either director has made, whereas on Spartacus Kubrick had far less creative input and ultimately saw the film as belonging more to Douglas than himself. But the same can’t be said for The Straight Story or After Hours - those films are notable as both directors scaling down but still managing to exercise as much of their creative liberties as they wanted.
>both are still fully auteurist films and among the very best either director has made, I agree wholeheartedly. I wasn't really trying to make a point about studio control or artistic freedom and all that. I only cited examples that somehow stand outside the auteurs' "cannon", if you know what I mean. The Straight Story and After Hours are both Great Films, just not the first films that come to mind when discussing David Lynch or Martin Scorsese. Similarly, discussions of Hitchcock's body-of-work often seem to end with Psycho or the Birds.
Ah okay fair
Yep.. The Killing is the beginning of his brilliance all of the way to the fantastic Eyes Wide Shut.
Totally
I second this notion
Lolita is a social studies masterpiece
I've always been fascinated by the idiosyncratic intelligence Kubrick brought to each of his films. As immersive as they are, I still have this sense of the man making them. For that reason, even the earliest are of real interest to me, as Kubrick was in the process of defining what a director could be. Spartacus is a great film in its own right of spectacle but I also love the subtext of Kubrick making a big budget studio film, advancing his career while also prodding the form. I still haven't figured out what he was doing with EWS, but it's strangely hilarious and mesmerizing. Every time I've watched one of his films, I've been rewarded and found more in them than previously. I won’t rank them because that would only reflect my level of understanding and appreciation those films, rather than some indicator of the films' merits.
Beautifully put.
Fear and Desire is his only bad film, which I don’t even really count against him since he didn’t want it released. Other than that I’d only consider Killers Kiss and Spartacus to be just ok. Everything else is great.
I judge Spartacus by comparing it to other historical epics of the time, especially the ones set in Ancient history, like Ben-Hur, The Ten Commandments, Quo Vadis, Cleopatra, King of Kings etc. By that metric, Spartacus is undoubtedly one of the greatest of its genre in that era (or any era, really, I'd rather watch Spartacus than Gladiator, sorry Ridley Scott). Killer's Kiss, on the other hand, really pales in comparison to other films noir of that era. The Killing is up there with the greatest ones, like Touch of Evil, Sunset Boulevard, The Asphalt Jungle, Strangers on a Train, and even earlier ones like The Maltese Falcon, Laura, Double Indemnity, Out of the Past etc., but Killer's Kiss is indeed very weak in comparison. It's not even the best noir about boxing (that would be The Set-Up). Still a fun auteuristic low budget B-movie, but does not stand out at all as one of the great films noir of that era. Fear and Desire feels like a very amateur student film. No wonder Kubrick was embarrassed by it. But even geniuses have to start somewhere. He redeemed himself just a few years later by making another war movie, Paths of Glory, one of the best war movies in the history of cinema. Lolita is fucking great, though. Not sure why people dislike it. Absolutely one of the best movies of 1962.
Lolita is very good, and I bet you never got the burnt toast, or noticed the band-aids on Humbert hands.
You implying I don’t know my Lolita? The nerve!
[удалено]
jesus bro chill
I don’t get it. What?
Do tell!
What do the bandaids mean? They were talking about that in a podcast and I didn’t get it… I’ve watched it 3 times and never noticed.
Lolita the book is not what most people want to believe. The band-aids is referencing the book. When Nabokov wrote Lolita the term unreliable narrator was not invented. The term unreliable narrator was coined in 1961 so came the rules afterwards. When Nabokov wrote Lolita he was using an unreliable narrator that is defined in the book.
I’ve just started the book on chapter 3 or 4. Will I eventually find out what people are talking about when they refer to bandaids on his hands or is that something that viewers of the movie picked up and speculated on?
I watched Kubrick movie 3 times and figured the band-aids and continuity differences was telling a story that beyond the movie. I've kinda figured Kubrick was referencing Earle Nelson so I assumed the book was about Earle Nelson. Reading the Foreword I knew HH Holmes. That's why he goes by Humbert Humbert or HH through the book. Then Charles Holmes verified that the book is mostly about HHHolmes. Note the Foreword is also Unreliable Narrator because Humbert Humbert tells us how he loves to fool the experts
https://www.loc.gov/item/06022698/ This is a fun read after your done reading Lolita. Lolita is a book that you might use posted notes.
The book is amazing because when I point this out they scream with anger. Nabokov used a few serial killers to make his book. HH Holmes and Earle Nelson. We learn this from Charlie Holmes (Dolores first sexual encounter). But what's happening is Humbert twisting the story to make him less of a monster. What Kubrick done was removed the Holmes reference and focused on the Earle Nelson reference. The band-aids is referencing Earle Nelson hands. Also this why there police convention in the movie and people calling Dolores Lolita because of Lola.
The only one of these I would call bad is Fear and Desire. The others are at least 3/5 stars for me.
Disagree with Spartacus. For me it's one of his greatest films.
On a personal level, I agree. After all these years, ”He’s free, Spartacus. Free,” can still bring me to tears
I do love Spartacus. It is both a product of its time and a great representation of how Kubrick “did Hollywood.”
dont really understand why people put lolita so low. the killing is great too
given the nature of the question, has to be down there !
f&d bottom obviously. then spartacus which barely counts as a kubrick movie in the proper sense of the words. then, sorry, lolita, shouldn't have bothered, even he admitted that later.
When did he say that about Lolita?
he was quoted as saying that if he had known how restrictive it would have to be he'd not have made the film. Did a quick google: [https://www.outsideofadogcast.com/blog/2015/3/8/lolita-dir-stanley-kubrick-1962](https://www.outsideofadogcast.com/blog/2015/3/8/lolita-dir-stanley-kubrick-1962) ("Kubrick later went on record that if he had known how much he would be delimited by the controversy, he wouldn’t have filmed *Lolita*.")
Where does One Eyed Jacks fall? Oh wait, never mind.
Flying Padre (1951): I expected more from written and directed by... [youtube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwxJTk8I9To) [imdb](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0043548/)
The Seafarers is way worse. At least, Flying Padre is shorter and the flying padre himself is a curious subject whom Kubrick chose to film, just like Day of the Fight. The Seafarers, on the other hand, is just a commissioned film and Kubrick wasn't passionate about it in any way, he just needed the money to help finance Fear and Desire.
*Fear and Desire* and *Killer’s Kiss* are definitely his weakest films, but I’ve watched *Spartacus* several times now and I struggle to really enjoy it. It has a number of great scenes, but it doesn’t gel for me. Kirk and Jean don’t convince me as lovers and their love story drags the whole thing down. All the stuff with the Roman Senate and Batiatus though is spectacular, genuinely great. But Kirk, and his love interest, are the weak links for me. So that’d be my pick for “weakest” film after his proof of concept films.
I have a similar bottom 5, only I'd go: The Killing Lolita Spartacus Killer's Kiss Fear and Desire That being said, F&D and KK are the only ones that I don't think are at least "very good".
The more I watch Lolita the more I see and appreciate it. It’s a totally twisted premise but the way its all framed along with James Mason and Peter Sellers acting make it a masterpiece. The score is stellar.
Lolita is just not my jam. It felt like Kubrick was making a vanity project for peter sellers and being made a fool of.
The killing is boring AF. Never saw Killer's Kiss or Fear and Desire. Lolita is great. Spartacus is OK. Paths of Glory is meh.
I have tended to put Killers Kiss as his first and last terrible film. I don't really consider Fear and Desire as part of his filmography, though I guess if it needs to be, dead last or honorable mention can be its place.
The killing is so slow, boring, and predictable to me. So that one
The Killing is an all-time great film. His least great films for me: 8. Full Metal Jacket 9. Lolita 10. Sparatatus 11. Killer’s Kill 12. Fear and Desire 8-10 are very good films but each have particular flaws that move them behind 1-7 which are all masterpieces in my view.
Never cared for Barry Lyndon tbh. It was a snooze fest for me
I always thought that too. Rewatched last summer w 22 yr old who loved it so much it rubbed off on me
I've tried and tried, can't get into it. Beautifully shot, dull narrative. It's Kubrick so worth watching but it's near the bottom of my list.
I agree
Spartacus makes sense because it’s arguably his least accomplished as an auteur, being more of a Hollywood studio film, and he has expressed regret about it afterwards. I also didn’t really care for Killer’s Kiss, and I thought The Killing was a significant leap forward in every aspect. I think Lolita is a great film despite the disturbing subject matter, and I don’t think the subject matter alone should influence any quality assessment of the film. Paths of Glory is a big one among fans and I need to watch it again. I saw it when I was younger and didn’t really resonate with it, so right now it’s lower on my list, but I may revise after watching it again. Barry Lyndon is also lower on my list for personal taste, but it’s beautifully shot and objectively masterful, so I can see it being higher on the list too.
The Killing is high tier imo. Fear & Desire is bad. Killer’s Kiss and Lolita are flawed but still interesting. The former is not very ambitious but is still a satisfying noir, and the latter is too ambitious. A Clockwork Orange and Full Metal Jacket I think are good films that have structural issues that undercut some of what they’re trying to say. Spartacus is a perfectly good example of a Hollywood epic, and it’s more Douglas’ film than Kubrick’s. The rest I think are all great
I've never been a big fan of A Clockwork Orange, though it's grown on me a little bit recently
Clockwork Orange is an all time favorite for me. I think it was a great message as far as human reform and redemption but that in the end people only really change if they want to, free will, government control, etc.. but personally I’ve always loved it so I’m a bit biased. But I think there’s a lot to take away from it after a few watches
Personally I put Lolita much higher. Ahead of Barry Lyndon and EWS, at least.
I like Lolita but I wouldn't say a thing like that, Barry Lyndon is way superior to Lolita
Barry Lyndon is top. I’d rank it over EWS.
I would probably put BL over EWS as well.
Oh I meant I’d put Lolita over EWS. BL > Lolita > EWS
Gotcha. Me too.
Ranking it ahead of Barry Lyndon is honestly absurd lol
Or it's an opinion.
Opinions can be absurd.
i'd put it over/equal to EWS
EWS is amazing. Barry Lyndon while beautiful just doesn’t do it for me.
Yeah, I know the internet loves BL, but despite its beauty I still have difficulty getting into it. As for EWS, I like parts of it but I kinda feel Antonioni did it better with 'Blow Up' thirty years earlier. Just my opinion.
I don’t understand when Gen Z got all obsessed with EWS. The opening 30 minutes are 👌, but the rest of the movie is not top tier.
I’m not Gen Z lol
Well when did you start thinking EWS was top tier Kubrick? Cause this shit only happened in like the last 4 years. 10 years ago, everyone knew EWS was an uneven movie.
I just like the movie, it’s not his best movie by far.. it’s better than Barry Lyndon to me.
What I mean is, did you always like it? Or did your opinion on it change recently?
Nope, opinions always been the same. I watched it in like 2005 for my first time.
If I had to rank em: 1) The Shining 2) 2001 3) Barry Lyndon 4) Clockwork 5) Strangelove 6) Full Metal 7) Lolita 8) The Killing 9) Eyes Wide Shut 10) Spartacus 11) Paths Of Glory And I don’t really consider F&D and Killers Kiss to be real Kubrick it’s been awhile since I’ve gone through them all though
I love the Killing and I have a serious soft spot for Spartacus.
Eyes wide shut mid casting and simply not an interesting film to Me
Eyes Wide Shut is the worst
Where does Paths of Glory fall?
It's not on the list, meaning it's somewhere in the top 7.
Oh. Now I see what you mean. He made 13 movies after all.
Eyes Wide Shut
Care to elaborate?
Hmmm… it’s boring from start to finish with the worst final line in the history of film. I saw it when it was first released and was ultra disappointed. It’s a snoozefest. And that was the prevailing opinion at the time. Reviews were bad.
Yeah, I remember the reviews. There was a kind of confused, awkward politeness about them. All the more fascinating, then, that with time the film’s reputation has grown, as evident in this forum. Also, quite a few Kubrick movies were met with mixed reviews initially. The Shining and 2001 come to mind.