Barry Lyndon

As Stanley Kubrick had proven time and time again, he was an absolute perfectionist. With the exceptions of Peter Sellers and R. Lee Ermey, he wanted his actors to follow the script word for word. He would shoot the same scene over and over again until the final result suited him. (Is it any wonder that it was a rarity for actors to work with him more than once?)

And it all came to a head with Barry Lyndon. Thanks to the work from John Alcott, it's easily the most beautiful-looking film of Kubrick's career. (No surprise that Alcott's work earned an Oscar.) But there's more to the film than gorgeous cinematography.

In comparison to some of his other work, Barry Lyndon is easily the most civil of Kubrick's films. (Bear in mind its bookends are A Clockwork Orange and The Shining.) Indeed, the delicate veneer of the film may seem out of place for the man later responsible for Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut, but this film displays a defiance regularly found in Kubrick's work.

And at the same time, Barry Lyndon seems like an unusual change of pace for Kubrick. After all, the film made before this one was brimming with violence and anarchy to an almost gleefully twisted level. So having Kubrick tackle territory more familiar to the likes of James Ivory might have looked odd to some forty-plus years ago.

Barry Lyndon is a bit stretched out in regards with the run time but it is gorgeous to look at. Again, it feels strange to see a Kubrick film be this civil but one wonders what another costume drama in his hands would be like... (More than likely similar to this: a genteel nature, fine details that look stunning when enhanced by high definition, and a run time that makes it feels like it's been playing for nearly a week.)

My Rating: ****1/2

Full Metal Jacket

War is hell. Everyone knows that. When Hollywood depicts it, they only seem to capture the carnage. It's only once in a blue moon where they explore the madness soldiers endure during battle (and even afterwards).

It seemed inevitable that Stanley Kubrick, who often capture insanity within humanity, would make a war film. He did with Paths of Glory in 1957 and thirty years later, he re-visited the war genre with his penultimate film Full Metal Jacket. The wars depicted are very different (Paths of Glory focused on World War I, Full Metal Jacket Vietnam), but the themes are very similar.

One complaint some people have with Full Metal Jacket is that the two halves bear no resemblance to each other. I think the differing factors is a nice touch. Seeing reality go from the controlled nature of boot camp to the pure chaos of combat is pretty damn staggering.

And knowing Kubrick, he keeps that insanity motif running throughout the film. And boy, does he know how to use it to the fullest. Just pay attention to that first half of the film. The outcome makes what Jack Torrance becomes in The Shining (and what Alex DeLarge is at the start of A Clockwork Orange) pale in comparison.

I'll admit Full Metal Jacket isn't Apocalypse Now but it definitely holds its own in regards to war being hell. (Fairly certain that this and Paths of Glory would be an awesome double feature.) Oh, Kubrick, you mad genius. You've made me love another work of yours.

My Rating: *****

Killer's Kiss

You've got to admire Stanley Kubrick. The man only made thirteen films during his forty-six years in Hollywood, and each one of them deemed him a revolutionary to the world of film.

It's clear with his second film Killer's Kiss. The many foundations of his later work can be seen here. The thin line between good and evil. Characters that are next to impossible sympathize for. You know, the standard Kubrick spec.

The film clocks in at 67 minutes, but Kubrick manages to get in an effective story, though not among his more famous work. He does however get in a few noir cliches but adds new variations on them. (Hey, it's only his second film. Give him slack.)

Much like Sidney Lumet, Woody Allen and Martin Scorsese in the years to come, Kubrick treats his hometown of New York City as one of the characters. The hustle and bustle of the city adds gravitas to the story. He knew this city and was going to show it the way he saw it.

Killer's Kiss is good though not particularly memorable. Had it been, say, twenty minutes longer I'd be singing a very different tune. Still, the most crucial aspect in the long run is that the following year, Kubrick made it big.

My Rating: ****1/2

BOOK VS MOVIE: Lolita

When visions collide, one of two things can happen. Either it can become poetry or it can become a mess, especially if it's on a touchy subject.

In regards with Lolita, Vladimir Nabokov and Stanley Kubrick are complete opposites. Nabokov is poetic with his words while Kubrick is blunt with his vision. Despite their very distinct differences, they both manage to weave together a tale of a consuming obsession.

The way Nabokov writes this story is with lyrical musings by its narrator. Indeed the words are beautiful, but I have a notion Nabokov tended to get a little carried away with his writing.

And when Kubrick had the right mind to turn Lolita into a film, he faced a number of obstacles. Re-working the heavily obscene material into something the censors would approve of was next to impossible. And yet he manages to succeed somewhat.

Indeed there are the expected tweaks found too commonly in among Kubrick's adaptations, but it still captures how demented the human mind can become. Both the novel and the film have their own charms but since they are on different spectrums, it's hard to say which is better. The film is easier to understand yet the novel has more atmosphere to it. See? Hard to choose.

What's worth checking out?: I'd go with both.

Eyes Wide Shut

Although I've seen a few of his movies, I'm not entirely won over by Stanley Kubrick. He's a very good director, but his movies take some time to absorb.

Eyes Wide Shut is no exception. Like several other Kubrick movies, it explores the mental deterioration of man (with the occasional sexual reference). I like how the story is set during the Christmas season when the tale isn't exactly cheerful. I mean, really. What better way to celebrate the holidays than through thoughts of infidelity?

And also like several other Kubrick movies, Eyes Shut Wide was no stranger to controversy. (Is there one movie of his that didn't?) Personally, I find that it wasn't needed. Believe me, there have been other movies that are a lot kinkier than Eyes Wide Shut.

An interesting note for Kubrick to end on. I thought that this was very good, a far cry from the usual consensus it receives. It has the usual Kubrick themes and motifs, though the darker ones were a bit of a bother to me. Still, it's worth checking out.

My Rating: ****1/2

Paths of Glory

We all know that war is hell. It never justifies anything and most of the time it never solves anything.

After three soldiers are accused of cowardice, their commanding officer Col. Dax (Kirk Douglas) tries to prove that they were responding to an impossible attack.

Paths of Glory was the first of Stanley Kubrick's so-called trilogy on the dehumanization of war (the other two would be Dr. Strangelove and Full Metal Jacket). All three basically showed that even if you get out alive, you never leave the war behind.

This was also the first of two movies Douglas and Kubrick would do together (the second, of course, was Spartacus). Like Spartacus in a sense, Paths of Glory needs Douglas as its driving force. Mind you, that's not a bad thing.

Not many movies revolve around the First World War; Paths of Glory is one of those few. It's one of the many highlights in both Douglas and Kubrick's filmographies. Should you ignore it? Hell no. The final scene alone is worth the price of admission.

My Rating: *****

Spartacus

Stanley Kubrick is mostly noted for his troubled productions due to his domineering personality (The Shining, Eyes Wide Shut, A Clockwork Orange, etc.). But the outcome is always the same: a movie that stands the test of time.

Thracian slave Spartacus (Kirk Douglas) refuses to allow himself to become the animal the Roman civilization would have him be. His love for slave girl Varinia (Jean Simmons), coupled with his revulsion at the crushing treatment and callous murders of his fellow slaves, ignites a passion for freedom. They escape and are joined by more runaways, and swell to become a vast army. Contrasted with their impassioned plans for open rebellion are the calculating minds of their Roman adversaries Crassus (Laurence Olivier), Gracchus (Charles Laughton) and Batiatus (Peter Ustinov).

This is only the fourth Kubrick movie I've seen (the other three are Dr. Strangelove, The Shining and 2001: A Space Odyssey), and I've become an interested watcher. The steady flow of the movie makes it easy to watch. The battle scenes are absorbing and Kubrick's direction makes the movie stunning.

My Rating: ****

2001: A Space Odyssey

I give Stanley Kubrick points for venturing into different genres. He has done horror (The Shining), war (Paths of Glory, Full Metal Jacket) and sci-fi (A Clockwork Orange, 2001: A Space Odyssey), to name a few.

When a large black monolith is found beneath the surface of the moon, the reaction immediately is that it was intentionally buried. When the point of origin is confirmed as Jupiter, an expedition is sent in hopes of finding the source. When Dr. David Bowman (Keir Dullea) discovers faults in the expeditionary spacecraft's communications system, he discovers more than he ever wanted to know.

Throughout the movie, I'm trying to piece together what the plot is. But then I just gave up trying and just watched it. Visually stunning and beautiful musical score, 2001: A Space Odyssey is worth seeing for those who are cinephiles or those who want to see an interesting movie.

My Rating: *****

BOOK VS MOVIE: The Shining

"All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy."

That phrase stuck to the subconscious of anyone who dared to watch Stanley Kubrick's horror movie. Though as most people know Stephen King, the author of the book the movie's based on, was not too pleased with the result of Mr. Kubrick's film. No surprise once you think of it: Kubrick pretty much re-wrote the entire book and claimed it as his own.

Former teacher Jack Torrance has earned the job of caretaker at the Overlook Hotel. He, along with his wife Wendy and son Danny, are to stay at the hotel for the entire winter. Danny has a special power which the hotel chef Dick Hallorann calls "shining". As the days become weeks and the weeks become months, Jack's behavior starts to change...

The book and movie are SO different, it's like they're not anyway related. Both are equally scary, but I find the book better.

What's worth checking out?: Personally, I'd go with the book.

Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

Not a lot of people think of the Cold War as a topic for a comedy. However, Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove managed to break that mold.

Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper (Sterling Hayden) goes crazy and sends B-52's to bomb the Soviet Union because the Communists are going "sap and purify" the "precious bodily fluids" of the American people. Group Captain Lionel Mandrake (Peter Sellers) finds out that Ripper's attack is a fraud and tries to make him send the planes back.
At the Pentagon's War Room, Air Force General Buck Turgidson (George C. Scott) tries to convince President Merkin Muffley (Sellers again) to do a full-scale attack on the Soviet Union. Muffley calls the Soviet Premier Dmitri Kissoff, who tells him if the Soviet Union is bombed, a Doomsday device will be set off. Muffley calls over ex-Nazi Dr. Strangelove (Sellers' third role) to explain the mechanics of the Doomsday device.

This is definitely one of Stanley Kubrick's best-known works, as well as Sellers'. I'm not sure which of his performances I liked the best; Mandrake's a little too serious (at least until he orders Colonel "Bat" Guano to shoot the Coca-Cola machine for money) and Muffley was as well (excluding his line "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the War Room!"), and Dr. Strangelove was his funniest role (particularly the last scene where his right hand is either trying to strangle him or do the Nazi salute).

Worth watching?: Yes!