Was Kubrick the greatest of all time? - General Discussion Discussion

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Hitchcock was the greatest of all time. Kubrick is definitely up there though as one of the all time greats.

reply

No, I don't think so. Hitchcock had more misses than hits, and the problem I have with him is that so much of his "genius" was ripped off from lesser known B movies.

Kubrick was not only consistently good, 2001 redefined the look and feel of sci-fi.

reply

[–] MovieBuff224 (5053) 4 years ago

I went to film school for a year, and all they wanted to talk about was Hitchcock. I respect and understand his influence, and he has a few masterpieces but he doesn’t compare to the New Hollywood greats.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Who are the "new Hollywood greats" that you think are better than Hitchcock?

reply

[–] MovieBuff224 (5053) 4 years ago

Mainly Kubrick and Scorsese

reply

[–] tcrum (29616) 4 years ago

No...

reply

[–] zephyr_cape (2979) 4 years ago

I adore Kubrick, but MovieBuff—there's no such thing as the greatest of all time dude! It's not a contest!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You can count on me posting this same shit any time you start talkin' greatest of all time. 🦄

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

One of many over rated directors.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Nonsense.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

No, truth.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

He's far from the greatest. An innovative thinker, maybe, and a disciplined Director of actors.

But not "the greatest Director".

If the main job of a Director is to get the best possible performance from the actors, (and the cameraman) he directs, Alfred Hitchcock deserves the award for that.

reply

[–] dmac8 (5050) 4 years ago

Hitchcock wasn't the best with actors. Not at all. Probably his greatest weakness.

And your way too narrow regarding the "main job". It's about bringing together all creative elements into a single artistic vision. The entire production is yours. Everything. Waaay before you get to directing performance you have pre-production and breaking story. Especially with Hitchcock and his rigidity, the movie was finished on his storyboards before he ever says "action".

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Yes, that's true, Dmac. However, I still think he was the better Director than Kubrick. By a country mile.

reply

[–] dmac8 (5050) 4 years ago

I'm more with zephyr on this final "greatest of all time" verdict stuff.

Hitchcock is unparalleled in some aspects but weak in others. Kubrick does some other stuff really well, and he pioneered a few things too.

But I do disagree with Moviebuff's assertion that no one comes close to Kubrick. It winds up becoming a contest between whose films resonate with you more than the other. But that's more about you than them.

reply

[–] samoanjoes (50709) 4 years ago

Although Kubrick is not my favourite director, I do love him and I've aways felt that he should be the best. He made great films in different genres: comedy (Dr. Strangelove), war (Full Metal Jacket), Sci-Fi (2001, A Clockwork Orange), horror (The Shining), drama (The Killing, Eyes Wide Shut). He was also able to make great films in different periods: past, present and future.

reply

[–] Zilkin (401) 4 years ago

I don't know, Kubrick movies take themselves too seriously. There is no fun in his movies. There are many great directors, to proclaim Kubrick whose movies you really can only watch for the esthetics as photography was his greatest strength as a movie Maker is kind of pretentious. There is no director more meticulous and better at cinematography, there are many directors better at being artistic and making a movie with more feeling and soul.

reply