67 minute low budget film-noir without much going for it except one little thing... every shot in the movie is spectacular. Kubrick was a professional photographer and it shows. KILLER'S KISS does for New York at midnight what BARRY LYNDON did for candlelight.

Kubrick's first major movie. Most Kubrick movies are flawed masterpieces. THE KILLING probably isn't a masterpiece, but it's almost flawless. (Only the antiquated narration stands out as a flaw.) I like perfection, so I rate this movie higher than most would. Very close to a remake of THE ASPHALT JUNGLE, and both starred Sterling Hayden. Why was Kubrick a credits hog? Cult crime writer Jim Thompson's widow is still pissed that Kubrick claimed screenplay credit here, with Thompson being relegated to "dialogue by." (All directors rewrite screenplays as a normal part of their job, which is an implied part of "directed by") Thompson gets the last laugh, though, since Kubrick implicitly claimed credit for the silly narration, while Thompson's dialogue credit covers some of the best dialogue ever filmed. The 1950s was as great a Hollywood decade than the 1930s and 1970s, and this is clearly one of the great 50s films.

Unique texture. Kirk Douglas incongruously stars as a WWI French officer, but it works. A very, VERY good movie, but not dazzling... it doesn't have that magical Kubrick quality. Makes tangible something hard to imagine: the many pointless "over the top" suicide assaults during the fixed positions trench warfare portion of WWI.

Kubrick fled the US after SPARTACUS, never to return. This project was begun by Anthony Mann (himself a great director), and it's impressive that relative newcomer Kubrick could pull this all together on short notice. A good movie, but far from great. Screenwriter Dalton Trumbo was a black-listed communist, so they needed to think up a name fore the scr credit. Kubrick suggested his own name. Everyone was pretty appalled by that and they ended up using Trumbo's real name. The cinematographer won an ironic Oscar for this film, since photographer Kubrick wouldn't even let him touch the cameras, telling him to just sit there and get paid.

I continue to see LOLITA as Kubrick's best movie. The script is great literature–Nabakov adapted his own novel, which explains that.  Despite the tawdry theme it's a symbolic work that really has very little to do with sex. The best way to read it is that Clare Quilty and protagonist Humbert Humbert are parts of one personality, or that Humbert is an aspect of Quilty. (To Nabakov Humbert Humbert probably meant shadow of a shadow, like "umbra.") 

Fascinating to look at, and entertaining as hell, but more a few great segments than what I'd call a great film. That said, the world is a better place because this film, among others, made the practical absurdity of nuclear war plain to millions of ordinary voters. Ironically, the 1960s view was an over-statement that became under-statement. Nuclear war in 1964 would have been a disaster but not a threat to human existence. By the time nukes became a practical threat to the species (1980s) people had already been thinking in those terms for decades. Better too early than too late...

A wonderful film, and influential film, and a beautiful film, but how can 2001 outperform all other Kubrick movies in critics polls? The HAL section may well be the best thing Kubrick ever did, but it's only 1/3 of the movie. The primary obligation of cinema is to not be boring and 2001's notable flaw is slow self-importance. That said, as an overall artistic/cultural effort it's pretty amazing. Among other things, 2001 invented the look of the modern science fiction film and still looks good today. That's really impressive, considering everything that happened to FX since 1968.

When CLOCKWORK ORANGE came out in 1971 it was so original it seemed to have masterpiece written all over it. It’s a stylistic marvel! Over time, however, CW hasn’t held up as well as LOLITA, DR. STRANGELOVE, THE SHINING, 2001 or FULL METAL JACKET. There’s a hollowness beneath its dazzling originality. The theme of the film seems to be the complexity and irreducibility of the mind and soul – that rape and Beethoven are part of an indivisible continuum of human response. Fair enough. But I just can't view Alex sympathetically and the movie requires that we be charmed or seduced by him. The whole second half of the film is weak. Despite my objections, it's dynamite film-making. When UK gangs began copying the violent antics in CLOCKWORK, Kubrick forbad re-release of this film in Britain during his lifetime. What's the logic in that? Apres moi, le deluge.

I saw it several years ago, and I think I enjoyed it somewhat, but as of this writing I cannot recall one thing about it. That's not a good sign. There are many candles. A person goes outdoors. There may be a woman in it at some point. (Since writing that I have seen much of it again and guess what? I still can't remember it... it's like a black hole.)

The only film I ever saw in a theater that SCARED me. A tremendously original film, and would be a no-brainer pick as Kubrick's greatest work if the flaws were less in-your-face. Duvall carries the film as the only actor not doing shtick. The kid isn't a great actor, and Nicholson's "performance" should never have been permitted. His mugging spoils the intellectual tone of the whole. Cut out the conventional horror movie visions at the end and substitute William Hurt for Nicholson and this would have been the best film in 20 years. Stephen King had wonderful luck early on: CARRIE, THE DEAD ZONE and THE SHINING are all wonderful films, and are all among the first 6 of more than 60(!) King movie adaptations. Millions of people didn't like this movie because it wasn't true to the book. Presumably if one learned to spin straw into gold those folks would complain it isn't as comfortable to sleep on.

Who knew the throw-away "me so horny" scene would end up setting women back 50 years? Impossible to predict what will catch on. CLOCKWORK ORANGE has aged horribly while FULL METAL JACKET gets better every year. The "Boots are Made for Walking" tracking shot that introduces Vietnam might be the best single thing in a Kubrick movie. It's almost as much fun as the opening of TOUCH OF EVIL. The first mortar attack on the base is also mighty impressive. I love tight artistic control but FMJ does suffer from Kubrick's idea of building Vietnam in England. The light is all wrong. England is a land of long shadows, even in summer. Vincent D'Onofrio's "Private Pyle" is so convincing it seems like he must be a guy they found in an institution somewhere. He doesn't get enough credit as an actor because he did such a good job here nobody can believe he's the same guy.

One of the worst films ever released, and only noteworthy in that it provided an easy way to gauge the credibility of individual critics. After a 12 year hiatus everyone was primed for something great from the most respected living director, and Kubrick's sudden death raised the stakes, making everyone root for EWS to be good. People were even speculating in print (without having seen the film) that Kubrick would receive a posthumous direction Oscar. I don't mind enthusiasm and hero worship, but what excuse was there to write positive reviews even AFTER seeing this thing? EWS is a tedious, naive unintentional parody of "classy" European sexploitation films on the emotional level of a sheltered 12 year-old. As if it wasn't already awful enough, the score is an unintentional parody of art-film music. Kubrick described this as his best film, showing how tragic the aging process is. (Shortly before Alfred Hitchcock's death, his favorite film was SMOKEY AND THE BANDIT... really!)

Directed by Steven Spielberg, but important to mention here. Kubrick and SS worked back and forth on this project for years, and Kubrick, before he died, said SS should make it himself, which he did.  Watching the entire film is far too painful to be worth it, but everyone should watch the first hour at least once. Spielberg is the great directorial virtuoso of our era, but something of a chucklehead. Only he could have made the first hour of AI; a brilliant imitation you would swear was by Kubrick. Unfortunately the Kubrick impression ends abruptly, and the second half is moronic even by the standards of Spielberg at his worst. Honest to God: the second half of AI makes E. T. look like GRAND ILLUSION.  I remember sitting in the theater 30 minutes in thinking "this is the best film I've seen in a theatre in over a year" and one hour later thinking "this may be the very worst film I have ever seen." Why doesn't Spielberg try an experiment along the lines of attempting a perfect imitation of Orson Welles. I'd pay to see it!