Stanley Kubrick: A Life in Pictures (2001) User Reviews

A Life in Pictures - exactly what it sounds like

[MaxBorg89 · 8/10 · 7 October 2008]

Because of his reclusive nature, Stanley Kubrick was never the best choice of subject for a documentary, in life as well as in death. Then again, that depends on who's behind the camera - in this case, the late director's brother-in-law and collaborator Jan Harlan, who also appears as one of the interviewees.

Harlan's choice is very simple: skip any attempt to understand the man and just focus on what we have, namely the pictures (hence the film's title). Not just the movies, but also the photos he took in his youth, before discovering cinema. This aspect is covered through comments by friends and family members. Fans, however, are probably more interested in what people have to say about the films, and so we've got some of the key cast and crew of almost all of his movies (one notable exception is Dr. Strangelove, given Peter Sellers and George C. Scott died a long time before Harlan shot the documentary) describing their experiences. In addition, other filmmakers express their sincere admiration for Kubrick, with heaps of praise coming from Scorsese, Spielberg (who directed the Kubrick-inspired A.I.) and Woody Allen (the original choice for Sydney Pollack's role in Eyes Wide Shut).

All possible anecdotes surrounding the man and his methods are recounted with joy, and the effect his films had on culture and society are explored in detail. Hearing Allen's first impressions of 2001 is refreshing (he didn't like it at first), whilst Scorsese's reaction to Paths of Glory is a perfect tribute to that picture's power ("It was so honest, it was shocking!"). The most famous controversy remains that surrounding A Clockwork Orange, and it's almost touching when Kubrick's widow recalls his decision to withdraw it from theaters in England until his death. We don't learn anything new about the great director, but hearing it from those people completely justifies Harlan's effort.

That said, there is one little problem in the film, and that's the fact that everyone is completely incapable of saying anything bad about Kubrick. Okay, maybe his death has something to do with it, but after dozens of occasions during which both Jack Nicholson and Shelley Duvall berated him for how he treated them on the set of The Shining, hearing them say it was generally a positive experience is surprising to say the least. The closest anyone comes to a bit of criticism is when Malcolm McDowell, always the ultimate Kubrickian icon, describes their relationship like this: "I loved him one moment and wanted to kill him the next!".

Overall A Life in Pictures doesn't add much to what we knew about one of the world's best filmmakers, nor does it take anything away. But remembering him through his work and the people who appeared in his movies is the most appropriate way to make a chronicle of his eventful life.

Great documentary on a great film-maker

[grantss · 9/10 · 30 July 2015]

Great documentary on a great film-maker. Not perfect: you're expected to know instinctively who the interviewees are - there are no captions. Tom Cruise's voice didn't have the gravitas necessary for the narration. Some of the interviews mostly consist of platitudes, but not much detail.

However, the detail is amazing. Whether you are familiar with Kubrick's history, or not, the information is very interesting. Despite the platitudes, the overall insight provided by the interviews and the observations of the narrator give you an excellent understanding of what made Stanley Kubrick a genius.

Great tribute to a great director

[afreder · 9/10 · 2 May 2001]

I saw this film April 26th at Roger Ebert's Overlooked Film Festival in Champaign, Illinois. I found it to be a thorough and captivating overview of the life of a brilliant director. There is much in this documentary that is new, as many of the interviews were conducted following Kubrick's death in 1999.

While this documentary does present a fairly glowing portrayal of Kubrick, there is the occasional comment regarding his darker side (which, frankly, was not really all that dark). This film basically serves as a tribute to Kubrick from his family and friends. And what's wrong with that?

If you want to know something about this irreplaceable film maker, this is the documentary to watch.

Stanley.

[julius-s · 10/10 · 29 December 2005]

This is and will most likely, for the foreseeable future remain the only, qualified and official life account of the late Stanley Kubrick. Stanley Kubrick was one of the few scholars of the art of film. He did not explain his work much the same way a painter seldom explains his painting, as he expressed it "I will not comment on your interpretation of it, nor will I offer any other" (not an exact quote) concerning 2001: A Space Odyssey. He was, as it has been expressed in this documentary "a man that remained silent, wheter he was applauded or damned" (not an exact quote). This documentary gives an insight into his highly private life, a privilege that has been up to now granted only to a very narrow group of people. Some do not approve of this film since it was not detailed enough, I believe that are missing the point. For example I can not see the reason for knowing what his directorial style was, it would be as seeing some mythical key to Dalis paintings in the way he hold the brush. I believe this film as such is a skilled documentary, and I must confess that I enjoyed it, and still do enjoy when from time to time I watch it again. The film only states facts and presents people who knew him with their personal and subjective opinions and experiences of him. Kubrick himself gave extremely few interviews, and thus remains and will remain as an unknown. This film is more about the shadow of the man, his legacy and his works. The title states clearly, A Life In Picures. He let his films fend for them self, he let the pictures be what they are, it is and will always be the perogative of an artist to create art. Once art is being explained it is then no longer valid. As such, his life collected so fittingly for a filmmaker in pictures is his final work, as we all leave our legacy in the trace that remains once we are gone, as our creations and the memory of us among those left behind he left his. This film is only a collection of this legacy, it is but the frame of the Stanley Kubrick project, his LIFE.

Terrific Overview

[drosse67 · 7 February 2003]

I only have two problems with this otherwise fantastic documentary: Tom Cruise's narration and the fact that EVERYONE he worked with (actors, producers, studio heads) just praised and praised the man as a "difficult but genius" force. From what I've read, there are probably several hundred people who hated him when he was alive. He was especially cruel to Shelley Duvall, and I've read interviews with her when Kubrick was ALIVE, who said making The Shining was the worst experience of her life. Now, in this documentary, she talks about how she has absolutely no regrets, because it made her "smarter." Maybe so. But more than likely there would have been a completely different attitude if this documentary had been made while he was still alive. And Tom Cruise's narration--I kept hearing "I worked with the greatest director of all time on his last movie, so there!" in his self-important narration. Malcolm McDowell would have been a more appropriate choice, in my opinion, as the humble narrator. But all in all, this is an excellent examination of a brilliant mind, a trade photographer who made arguably the greatest string of films in the history of cinema, from Lolita to The Shining (at least in my humble opinion).

Inside Kubrick

[virek213 · 10/10 · 30 November 2007]

Hollywood has often had a difficult time dealing with ambiguity and enigmas. And there have been very few directors who define those terms much better than the late Stanley Kubrick. That aspect, and many others, are the focus of the incredible intriguing 2001 documentary STANLEY KUBRICK: A LIFE IN PICTURES, directed by Kubrick's brother-in-law (and frequent co-producer) Jan Harlan.

In its 142-minute running time, the film, narrated by Tom Cruise, charts Kubrick's progress from his early days as a photographer in the Bronx to his earliest efforts at film-making (1953's FEAR AND DESIRE; 1955's KILLER'S KISS), and how each new film helped to revolutionize Hollywood at a time when the old studio system was now starting to crumble. But as even a successful big-budget effort like SPARTACUS shows, Kubrick was never one who could simply kowtow to the whims of studio executives. He needed complete creative control over every film he made from that point on, and he didn't feel that he could do that in Hollywood. In a radical move, he moved himself, his family, his life, and his work to England in 1960 and never set foot on American soil again, apart from a few scattered occasions. But he always considered himself an American filmmaker first and foremost.

Beginning with LOLITA in 1962, and continuing right up to the last film, EYES WIDE SHUT, in 1999, Kubrick chose material and subject matter that most other directors would never have thought of touching with a barge pole. His way of doing films, a process that often took years on end (hence the relatively small number of films to his credit), was often seen as cold, clinical, and detached, which tended to rub critics the wrong way. On other occasions, however, his films were often controversial. LOLITA was considered quite scandalous because of its depiction of forbidden love. The reviews for 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY were initially extremely bad because of that film's revolutionary approach to science fiction. DOCTOR STRANGELOVE was frequently slammed for its savagely satirical approach to nuclear war and Cold War-era politics. A CLOCKWORK ORANGE spawned a firestorm because of its explicit and whimsical approach to sex, violence, and governmental brainwashing. And even THE SHINING, regarded as one of the great horror films of all times in most quarters now, still remains a bone of contention for others because of its ambiguities and the fact that it strayed so far from its Stephen King source material.

But Kubrick remained largely above it all by being deeply committed to his family and friends, as this documentary also shows, utilizing film footage that the outside world had never seen up to that point. Kubrick rarely gave interviews; he was an intensely private man (though not at the Howard Hughes level like so many pundits might claim); and he could be extremely exacting with the actors he worked with (witness Shelley Duvall's own trauma on THE SHINING). Directors like Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, Alex Cox, and Woody Allen all share their impressions of Kubrick's cinematic mastery; while actors like Malcolm McDowell, Sir Peter Ustinov, Jack Nicholson, and Matthew Modine share their impressions of working so closely with the man.

All of this adds up to a great film, one that can never answer all the questions about its subject simply because those questions may not have answers that will satisfy everyone, if anyone at all. But no matter how he was regarded by critics or audiences while he was alive, Stanley Kubrick remains one of the most important directors in cinematic history; and this documentary sets the case for that claim in solid stone.

impressive documentary on one of the most mysterious filmmakers of all time

[ekisest · 9/10 · 3 July 2006]

This impressive documentary covers most of Stanley Kubrick's work, through the recollections of major figures in the film industry that, somehow, came into contact with this legendary director. Tom Cruise's presentation is no good, but all the rest works. Nevertheless, the "great absent" in this picture is Kubrick himself. All the way I was waiting for a glimpse at the real, flesh and blood Stanley Kubrick talking about his work. His voice appears briefly, in a recorded speech about "2001", but he doesn't say anything, really. The absence of significant footage with the central figure of this documentary, enhances the mystery surrounding the resources and hidden agenda behind most of his films. Anyway, while watching carefully one of the many pictures of Kubrick's childhood - the one where he's playing the piano with his sister, you can see something beyond those apparently innocent, childish eyes, something that reminded me of the kid in "The Shining".

A must see

[bsinc · 9/10 · 6 November 2002]

I didn't really appreciate (or know, for that matter) Kubrick as a director before I saw "A life in pictures". Now I think he truly is the best director of all time. Not because of his unique and amazing work, but because he made Hollywood kneel before his feet. He had complete control over EVERY single thing he wanted to. And no one argued. Not too loudly, anyway. He had the knowledge and the power to make others call him for a project and not vice versa. And no one argued. And if they did, who cared. He wanted "A clockwork orange" out of the movie theaters and the studio obliged. And no one stopped him. They probably argued, but they made a nice profit. I just saw "Bullets over Broadway" yesterday: Stanley Kubrick was never in his life(well, MAYBE with "Spartacus") a man like David Shayne, he was not a bitch! He was not one of those directors that took notice of other peoples opinions, he didn't give a damn. He had a vision in his mind and I think he never changed it for anybody. You could call that very selfish, but he was so confident in his capabilities and thank God for that! What would cinema be without Stanley Kubrick? I have seen only about a third of his movies and I can honestly say most of them are irreplaceable! His knowledge of photography, aesthetics and the uniqueness of every single movie he ever made were too good to be ruined by an occasional crude story or performance. He put the visual feel of the movie first and everything else second. That's why "A life in pictures" is the perfect title. It's about a strange and eccentric man who forever enriched the movie world .

A subjective point of vue for an astonishing content, that's the way Jon Harlan tell us the story from Stanley Kubrick.

[Christophe44 · 7/10 · 1 April 2004]

The presentation of Kubrick's filmic life is chronological; it's a simple and non original method that is compensated by the clarity of the speech and the coherence of the internal structure. This speech is made from a duality which is inherent of Kubrick's social and filmic life. He has been considered as a genius for his director capabilities, but also as a madman for the inaccessibility of his private life.

The documentary begins with a negative approach, illustrated with quotations showing how mad were Kubrick's projects. This negation will soon be compensated with positive contemporary interviews from his family, directors and actors. This double movement will reproduce itself all along the documentary with an alternation between Kubrick's films and his state of mind within and between the shootings. All is presented in the optic to show us that whatever the press has said about Kubrick, he was really a good director who made great movies with great people.

The content of the documentary is as impressive as the art of Kubrick, even if his begins are shortly showed. That's not astonishing because Kubrick himself has never considered his begins worth seeing it (he denied his first movie, Day of the light). His second movie, Fear and desire, and his third one, Killer's kiss, are not detailed, but Jon Harlan makes us understand that Kubrick genius was already there.

A switch in the art of Kubrick is showed from his Spartacus, produced by Kirk Douglas. There, Kubrick understood that sharing responsibilities was a dead end, the producer riding the boat while the director was washing it. Over, from there, Kubrick will made his movies alone..from Lolita to Eyes wide shut.

The documentary shows then his second task: to give humanity to a non-human director. The press said that he didn't like mankind, which was a real paradox because in all his movies, the central interest was the search for humanity in mankind..but nobody understood that point.

The only problem with this documentary is that Jon Harlan has too much orientated his speech; the interviewed actors are just saying how human he was and how good he was..it's a little bit boring a the end (but very interesting as well !!)

We'll expected a better form for the content of this documentary, but Jon Harlan has the merit to make us believe that even if Kubrick was a genius director, he was also a human being. It's a good point.

"Everyone Pretty Much Acknowledges He's the Man"

[kubrick2899 · 10/10 · 2 August 2004]

This film brings me to tears every time I watch it. Jan Harlan's fantastic documentary about the great Stanley Kubrick is a true masterpiece. By giving insight into his past, films, family, and unfinished projects, Jan Harlan gives Kubrick fans a new look at a man who's greatness will never be equaled. The pacing of this documentary is wonderful, and ever second of it is informative and entertaining. Tom Cruise does a fabulous job of narrating it, as well. Jack Nicholson is the one who says it all; "Everyone pretty much acknowledges he's the man, and uh, I still think that underrates him." STANLEY KUBRICK: A LIFE IN PICTURES is one of the greatest films ever made.

Well done. A nice doc style homage and tribute to the master the unique and compelling Stanley Kubrick.

[blanbrn · 7/10 · 16 March 2008]

"Stanley Kubrick: A Life In Pictures", is clearly a fine and well done documentary that pays a fine homage and tribute to this legendary master and unique film director. It's narrated by actor Tom Cruise and it starts by showing Stanley's very early beginnings from pictures of him growing up showing his days of school and being with family. Also much historical info is provided by showing how Kubrick done his early films, and it was also nice to learn how that Kubrick had his first job as a photographer for "Look" magazine in which that would inspire him to later direct films. Each of Stanley's films are highlighted in which this doc shows clips and footage and each picture is broken down by very well dead on analysis from the actors who played in them and many film critics and other directors give their take on many of the fine works of Stanley. Rare interviews are provided here in this doc from many that have appeared in Stanley's films like Malcom McDowell, Jack Nicholson, and even Nicole Kidman. From the man who many thought was wrapped in mystery and suspense this documentary brings light and fine info on the very private and compelling Stanley Kubrick it certainly is a tribute and homage to watch. This documentary is a must watch for any Kubrick lover, I think he without a doubt was one of our times better film directors so this is a must watch it's a great visual complement to his films combined with a intimate picture of his personal and professional life.

Nearly perfect look

[jellopuke · 9/10 · 23 February 2020]

As long as you are only interested in, as the title puts it, his life in pictures, then this is a perfect movie. While it may have been nice to see a little more about the never realized projects, other than that, it's comprehensive and all encompassing. If you want to know a little more about the man, it's a tad distant, but that's okay. A necessary viewing.

Kubrick was most impressively unusual

[radpix · 7/10 · 24 October 2007]

I find the fact Tom Cruise being chosen to do the narration was a terrible idea. Tom Cruise definitely did not help Kubrick's health with his awful acting in Eyes Wide Shut. Malcolm MCDowell would have been the best choice by far.... I mean come on. I found the documentary decent but anything on Kubrick I will watch with an open heart. I will miss his movies. Not many directors make a movie exclusively for sake of art, and the love of directing in general. A lot of people who I know have never seen Paths of Glory, which is a must see. The topic of war was really something that must of weighed strongly with Kubrick, given he made 4 movies about it. Sparticus would be another except for the fact Kubrick did it to save Kirk Douglas's production.

Hymns of praise

[Mort-31 · 5/10 · 3 April 2003]

Nobody denies that Stanley Kubrick was a unique director, one of the best ever of those who worked in the United States, and that the story of his life and his pictures is something really interesting and worth seeing. I had devoured a book about Kubrick's films before, and I was absolutely fascinated. But I am not supposed to review Stanley Kubrick but this movie about him.

I rate it only 5 out of 10 because in my opinion it is too long but at the same time does not take its time to deal with the individual films – there are too many of them (although Kubrick himself is stated to have considered them too few!). Maybe they should have decided to concentrate on particular aspects of Kubrick's work.

The interviewees are credited only by their functions not by their names, so we often do not know who we have in front of us.

And altogether, as this film was made as a huge homage to Kubrick after his death, it is much too glorifying, too humble and too full of devotion. And hymns of praise sung to somebody else is not what one wants to hear for 135 minutes throughout.

time well spent

[bradt-2 · 18 June 2001]

The documentary is fun and intriguing. There are dozens of interviews -- all quite new, i.e. filmed after Kubrick's death -- including comments from the rarely-heard-from Ligeti, Ustinov, Duvall, Frewin, etc. -- and of course Kubrick's own family. We hear many funny (and sad, and strange) stories about Kubrick never mentioned in any biography; we see home movies never before seen by the public; we see excerpts from a 1968 documentary showing behind-the-scenes work on 2001, and countless photos and film clips taken during the shooting of Kubrick's other films; commentary on his films by a number of directors; dozens of images of Kubrick as a kid; the list is almost literally endless. "There wasn't really anything 'new' in the movie?" Sure.

An interesting look at one of the finest directors to ever live

[Marwan-Bob · 9/10 · 12 April 2019]

Interesting, Informative, And Well made Documentary... all i have to say is : if you Really Love Stanley Kubrick's Films and Truly Love Cinema you must Watch This, You Must.

Not as much of a hagiography as I had expected

[MissSimonetta · 8/10 · 1 April 2016]

Stanley Kubrick is a cinematic god, up there with Orson Welles and Akira Kurosawa as one of the greatest directors to have ever walked the planet. Made by his brother-in-law shortly after his sudden death at age 70, Stanley Kubrick: A Life in Pictures (2001) could have been quite sugary and light, with nothing but praise for the late filmmaker.

While there is a lot of praise on display, the documentary does portray a more even-handed view of Kubrick. The man could be difficult to work with, a trait most acutely displayed in his appalling treatment of Shelley Duvall during the making of The Shining (1980). However, he could also be warm and generous. He was, in short, perfectly human. I did wish some of his other collaborators could have been interviewed, but I'm perfectly happy with who did appear. Kubrick's career is covered in great detail, with the film itself clocking in at almost two and a half hours. Kubrick fans will definitely be interested.

Simple and well informed bio-documentary.

[joshi_3592 · 9/10 · 17 March 2010]

If you're a Stanley Kubrick fan like me, you're gonna love to see this. it starts with his first film and moves on to his last. Sure, it's more of a documentary about his films than the person himself, but his films were his life, so they work very well together. What more can I say, it shows his as a genius in film and as a loving father and husband, it simply summarises his life in a very simple and informative way.

now to complain, there was a few things I didn't quite understand. They had censored it. Okay, removing the nudity from some of his film i can except, but to bleep the swears? And the funny thing is, they only bleeped one recording of Kubrick yelling at Sjelly Duvall (they had a few arguments, but relax it was nothing sinister), yet all the swears that were featured from "Full Metal Jacket" and "eyes Wide Shut" were not bleeped. And this is not really a complaint, but as mentioned before it is a very simple documentary. I never really felt that they mentioned what made Kubrick such a great director. they treated the matter more like a mystery instead of analysing why. But then again, it's about the man himself, not what he did in detail.

My verdict for this bio-documentary is 9/10.

Good overview on the life and career of one of the greatest directors who ever lived

[TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews · 8/10 · 26 December 2004]

This documentary starts out with Kubrick's life as a child, continues through his first films, and goes thoroughly through all of his feature films, from first to last, even mentioning those projects he had planned but which he never made. It has some good interviews with the people he worked with through the years and his friends and family. I only have a few complaints about it, the number one being that just about everything that is said about Kubrick is positive. I see him as one of the greatest and most influential film-makers of all time, but he certainly must have had flaws. Yet this seems to omit any and all references to his negative sides, apart from a few actors mentioning that they did find him kind of harsh every now and then. I know that this was made after he died, but they could have included some of the bad stuff too, if for nothing else then to make kind of a balance. Another complaint would be that Tom Cruise probably isn't the best choice for a narrator... I would have preferred Malcolm McDowell, personally. But for the most part, this is an interesting and entertaining look at the life and career of Stanley Kubrick who is, arguably, one of the greatest directors who ever lived. There are plenty of little anecdotes about him, and some of the actors have fun facts about him or his personal habits. Most of the interviewees share their opinion on Kubrick, but, like I said before, it's mostly praise. I found the interviews with the actors on his films to be the most entertaining and worthwhile of this documentary, though the story of Kubrick and the behind-the-scenes facts in it also helped making it worth the time. I recommend this to any fan of Kubrick who wants to know more about him, his life or his colleagues opinion of him. I doubt anyone who isn't a fan or doesn't care about aforementioned knowledge would find it interesting, though. 8/10

A very comprehensive look at Stanley Kubrick's life

[matlefebvre20 · 7/10 · 24 August 2006]

Stanley Kubrick is one of cinema's greatest enigmas. His filming methods were unique, nobody had visions like his own ones and his personal behavior was legendary. This documentary, directed by Kubrick's longtime collaborator (and brother-in-law) Jan Harlan and narrated by Tom Cruise, is a very complete one and it allows us to discover a vision of Stanley Kubrick that is not the one we had in mind.

It all starts with Stanley's birth in New York City in 1928. His relationship with his younger sister and his poor school results are the first signs that Stanley wasn't an ordinary human being.

Then, it shifts to Stanley's years working as a photographer for "Look" magazine and it quickly moves to Kubrick's first cinematic work, "Day of the Fight". However, I was a little bit deceived because we never know why and how Stanley became attracted to video cameras. We just know that he shot a movie about his favorite sport (boxing, that is) and that's all.

One by one, every movie that Kubrick made (and never made) is presented and analyzed by different people who worked with him and also who didn't (such as Martin Scorsese and Woody Allen). The movies are presented as follows: "Fear and Desire" (the only film that Kubrick didn't like), "Killer's Kiss", "The Killing", "Paths of Glory", "Spartacus", "Lolita", "Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb", "2001: A Space Odyssey", "Napoleon" (a never-shot movie), "A Clockwork Orange", "Barry Lyndon", "The Shining", "Full Metal Jacket", "Aryan Papers" (which he didn't shot because of the release of "Schindler's List"), "A.I." (which was put on delay because of technical impossibilities) and "Eyes Wide Shut".

Stanley Kubrick was a very mysterious person because people rarely saw what he looked like. This documentary should satisfy them because there are many pictures of him, along with his crew members, the actors and his family.

And as far as I can remember, it's the very first time that I actually hear Stanley's voice. It begins with a 1958 interview at the CBS radio, after the release of "Paths of Glory". There are scenes with his family, which make us discover what kind of father he was. There also are scenes on the filming set and some of them are very memorable. The legendary rumors of Kubrick's bitter relationship with Shelley Duvall on the "Shining" set are materialized, among others.

There are numerous people appearing in this documentary and they comment on Kubrick's visions, his filming habits and so on. Among them, there are Sir Peter Ustinov from "Spartacus"; Arthur C. Clarke, Douglas Trumbull and Keir Dullea from "2001"; Malcolm McDowell from "Clockwork Orange"; Jack Nicholson and Shelley Duvall from "The Shining"; Matthew Modine from "Full Metal Jacket"; Steven Spielberg, who directed Kubrick's project "A.I." and Tom Cruise, Nicole Kidman and Sydney Pollack from "Eyes Wide Shut". It's very interesting to watch and listen to these people sharing their memories of Stanley Kubrick and helping us to see Kubrick from another eye. These people were directly implied with Kubrick so they can't be wrong.

Some people always thought that Stanley Kubrick was a very reclusive, obsessive and bitter character but the documentary shows us a different kind of person. He's got a very good sense of humor, he was generous, he was open-minded and he was passionated with what he was doing. He was also a very intelligent man and his passion for chess is well-specified.

There are no other works that look like this documentary. It's the ultimate document to watch in order to get the most complete and comprehensive look at Stanley Kubrick's life and career. And while it's not an outstanding documentary, it's worth watching for every Kubrick fan. Those who don't like Kubrick or are just indifferent might not find that interesting.

an intriguing tribute

[Kitreno · 8/10 · 16 September 2001]

The documentary is full of interest, and makes you want to see his films again. As Yan Harlan (The Director) said after the screening, some people claim to be a perfectionist but this often means they just irritate, however Stanley was a true perfectionist who never gave an inch. The results speak for themselves.

Cynics would say that this documentary neatly coincides with the release of the Speilburg film AI, a script that Stanley first of all put off because he felt that it would benefit from more advanced CGI in a few years time, and then passed to Steven Speilberg. The drawings of AI sets and ideas certainly suggest that AI could be another grand film on the scale of 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Yan Harlan in his talk after the screening also confirmed that other directors are looking at scripts that Stanley had 'on the back burner' including an epic about Napoleon Boneparte. Yan also mentioned that Stanley was always loath to be asked to explain his films such as the final sequence in 2001, he even removed narration from the film's opening. Like a piece of music or painting, Kubrick felt that the film shouldn't need explaining, and it was fine for people to leave the cinema drawing their own conclusions from the plot. This is refreshing in main stream cinema, and hopefully it will live on as other directors pick up ideas developed by Mr Kubrick.

Happy birthday, Stanley!

[lee_eisenberg · 7/10 · 26 July 2006]

I agree with a previous viewer that "Stanley Kubrick: A Life in Pictures" would have been better with someone other than Tom Cruise narrating (I thought that "Eyes Wide Shut" was worthless). As for the complaint that all the interviewees lauded Kubrick, that was OK with me. Let's face it, he was a director unlike any other, and the documentary does a pretty good job showing his life. It was strange seeing that footage of him when he was about 10 years old, and almost heartbreaking hearing Steven Spielberg's story about the scene from "Paths of Glory"). But anyway, I thought that overall, this documentary did a pretty good job.

An Insightful Retrospect on the Great Stanley Kubrick

[brando647 · 8/10 · 17 February 2011]

Jan Harlan, a producer for the films of Stanley Kubrick since 1975's BARRY LYNDON, has put together an amazing documentary on the masterful filmmaker. The film covers Kubricks entire career, giving ample time to discuss each of his films as well as any controversy or production issues surrounding them. Narrated by Tom Cruise (star of Kubrick's final film, EYES WIDE SHUT), the nearly 2.5 hour documentary is an in-depth discussion that brings together those who worked closely with Kubrick throughout the years, including Harlan himself, Jack Nicholson, Malcolm McDowell, and Sir Arthur C. Clarke. The behind-the-scenes information in regards to how Kubrick sought to achieve his masterful visions or bring out the best in his actors is nothing new if you've watch the supplemental material available on the DVDs for Kubrick's film, but the best of the film comes in the form of Kubrick's personal life. The documentary includes rare footage of Kubrick at home with his wife and children and we are given the chance to see him in a different light: that of a caring husband and occasionally strict father. The material can become a bit dry and it's a bit longer than necessary, but there's a lot of information to cover and it's sure to satisfy fans of one of the world's most masterful filmmakers.

Caution: Genius At Work.

[rmax304823 · 7/10 · 9 July 2016]

It's a fine, straightforward, and kind biography of film director Stanley Kubrick, from his birth in New York to his death at seventy at his home in Hartfordshire.

There are plentiful clips from his movies and many still photos. There are more than a dozen talking heads -- fellow directors, old friends, colleagues, school chums. They all go rather easy on Kubrick. There were some "disagreements" between producer/star Kirk Douglas and Kubrick over "Spartacus." "Disagreements" is a carefully chosen word. Douglas is more candid in his autobiography, "Ragman's Son," in which Kubrick is described as "a talented s***."

A head observes that Kubrick was lucky to have had the assistance on "Dr. Strangelove, Or How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb," of two of the funniest and most creative people of the era: Peter Sellers, who was allowed to ad lib while Kubrick kept the cameras running, and Terry Southern, a font of madcap ideas, the writer who gave us "PRE-vert." One of the writers points out that in his maturity Kubrick tended to think of his stories in several independent "unsinkable units," meaning blocks of scenes, and then only later trying to link them together in the narrative. It's most obviously the case in the astonishing "2001: A Space Odyssey," but it's also apparent in later works like "Full Metal Jacket" and sometimes the seams show.

It's not usually remarked on but Kubrick's use of music was highly original too. Before "Dr. Strangelove" and "2001," the score was designed to heighten the emotions being displayed. Classical music was used only rarely, and then as a substitute for the usual background. After "Dr. Strangelove" and especially "2001," new vistas opened for the use of music in films. It's almost impossible to imagine "2001" without the Strauss waltz, or the "stargate" sequence without the unnerving white noise of Gyorgi Ligeti. Who had ever heard of Gyorgi Ligeti? Nobody, whereas everyone knows Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninoff, whether they know they know it or not. And of course post-1968 everyone had heard Richard Strauss' "Also Sprach Zarathustra." I remember its being used in TV commercials.

Like most of his mature movies, "A Clockwork Orange" was "controversial." I think the word was first applied to "Lolita." Anyway, some of the media vilified Kubrick and his "excremental vision." At several showings there were violent incidents after the film was shown. I'm not sure his vision should be called that but it's certainly true that as he got older there was less humanity in his work. Nothing -- before or after -- equals the scene at the end of "Paths of Glory" in which a frightened young girl inexpertly sings a simple German folk song and in doing so enthralls the raucous audience of doomed French soldiers, so that they stop shouting and begin to quietly hum along with her. I can't watch it without being moved. Following that, his characters become less and less involved with one another, cooler and more distant.

Maybe his next hard look at warmth and the doubt that lies behind it is in his last film, "Eyes Wide Shut." There won't be any more Kubrick movies and it's the film world's loss, just as it lost Fellini, Hitchcock, and David Lean. I mention them because flâneurs talked about their work the same way. When is the next Fellini movie? What's David Lean's next picture about? There won't be any more questions about these directors and it's too bad because much of what we see on the screen now is barely fit for human consumption.

INTERESTING, INFORMATIVE, AND ENTERTAINING

[odor007 · 8 July 2002]

This was a very well made documentary focusing on the life and the films of the late and masterful, Stanley Kubrick. Everyone from Woody Allen and Nicole Kidman to family members are interviewed throughout this piece, showing how the director was seen by those most involved in his life. The documentary seemed to go chronologically through the more famous works of Kubrick, and stopped to tell tales of Kubrick's perfectionism, his conflict, personal struggles for both the actors and the director, and even unique technological achivements Kubrick made along the way. This documentary taught me quite a bit of things I never knew about Kubrick, one the greatest directors that has ever lived, and stays entertaining while being interesting and informative. If you loved movies like "Eyes Wide Shut," "Full Metal Jacket," "Dr. Strangelove," or "A Clockwork Orange," you're sure to appreciate the behind the scenes looks at not only the set and filming, but at the directors' rollercoaster of a private life as well.