Well I'll tell you something: HE'S NOT. His only three good movies were Batman Begins, Inception, and Interstellar. Yes, Heath Ledger did amazing job as the anarchist in clown makeup, but that alone does not make The Dark Knight a good movie.
shareHow you wish.
Nolan, I love you forever!
Kubrick is overrated hipster hippie garbage. 2001 is one of the most boring movies of all time. I literally laugh out loud when people call it "so suspenseful and tense" lol. Yeah, watching cardboard cutout space ships twirl in circles for 11 minutes to ballet music is so tense. The actors have about as much personality as a 2x4 and who can forget the 12 minute segment of the Windows Media Player light-show. So brilliant!
A Clockwork Orange is a stupid excuse to be "edgy" with a plot that is so contrived and uninteresting that the movie literally goes almost nowhere in it's entire 130 minute runtime. No backstory, no explanation. Thugs just berate the town, one of them gets caught killing a lady with a giant dick statue, and all it takes after two years of incarceration is a mere couple weeks of watching brutal films with a special "serum" and all of a sudden he gets so sick whenever violence arises - even merely raising is fist is just too much for him! It's so convenient how the bum he runs into is the same one from over two years ago and happens to remember him and also happens to have a crew of 20 other bums ready to beat him up. Also convenient that the policemen who rescue him were his old "drooges" or whatever the *beep*. Even more convenient yet that he winds up at the guy's how of whom he paralyzed while rummaging his wife and the dumb piece of *beep* starts belting "Singing in the Rain" at the top of his lungs? Yeah okay. Such a brilliant film. The dialogue is utter *beep* too.
Eyes Wide Shut? I won't even touch that one. Yet again, another film that makes no sense and just attempts to be edgy and artistic by walking the line of how much skin and sex they can show on the big screen. This is simply a masturbatory piece for Kubrick - oh look at the brilliant cinematography and costume design. Yeah well what good is that when the "story" is so horribly written and slow paced that it makes 159 minutes feel more like 230. It's not that I don't enjoy slow paced movies - I do - but there has to be content. This piece of crap is literally a hollow shell that serves no purpose other than to have a sexually driven, trite piece of "art".
The Shining, while better than the previous three listed, is another overrated piece of film. Yeah, it has it's moments. The blood coming from the elevator is pretty neat. But there are so many parts that just fall flat. The naked lady in the bath tub turning into a morbid, decrepit old chick - supposed to be spooky but it's laughably dumb. Same with when Shelley finds the "all work and no play" pages. Spooky? Scary? Eerie? Frightening? None of the above. So many scenes are stretched too long due to, once again, crap writing and crap dialogue. Jack with the bartender, Jack in room 237 (with the lady), Jack in the bathroom. Snoooooooooze. Not to mention many of the supposedly spooky moments are ruined by Shelley Duvall's terrible acting. When the kid starts saying "redrum" to her, when Jack is busting through with an axe, when she's walking backwards with the baseball bat, when she's running through the hotel yelling her son's name. All ruined by her awful voice, her awful acting, and her inability to appear genuinely terrified.
I'm not being anti-Kubrick just for the sake of it. I'll admit, I love Full Metal Jacket and Barry Lyndon is one of the most overlooked and underappreciated movies from the 70's. Dr. Strangelove is also a good satirical eye-opener, especially for it's time. (Haven't seen Lolita or Paths of Glory - I'm working on it). But at the end of the day, if you wanna talk about overrated, Kubrick is the poster child.
Nolan has put himself in a nice little niche. He recognizes that most people do not have the aptitude or experience to appreciate quality filmmaking. At the same time, he realizes people do not like to feel dumb. This understanding is crucial to why he makes the films he makes. Film is not held to the same level of esteem as other art forms. People have no problems acknowledging that they don't understand a classic painting, or that they don't have the palate to appreciate fine wine. Because film is not seen in the same light, people struggle to admit that they are not currently equipped to understand quality filmmaking. This is why the best films in a given year are rarely the highest grossing. People do not like to watch things that they can't appreciate or understand. Nolan has tapped into this. He makes films that look like a Hitchcock, a Kubrick, or a Spielberg, but they are usually very shallow. This allows your average movie goer to feel as if they are sitting with the "in crowd". Now this doesn't mean that he doesn't know how to make a decent movie. He just tries to make blockbusters that he can pass off as intellectual films. I put him in the same category I put Michael Bay. They're both decent filmmakers, but they play to the box office, and very rarely does timeless art come from people trying to make money.
This also works the other way. The "in crowd" also feels that only certain types of films fall into the top tier. Comedies, Action Films, Big Budget Blockbusters, and the like, are deemed to not be worthy of the same conversation as films like Room, 12 Angry Men, or Schindler's List. This is why all of the Best Picture nominations come out at the same time of year, and are accurately referred to as "Oscar Bait" before they're even released.
At the end of the day Nolan has put out hits for 15 years now. That's obviously impressive. I just don't put him in the top tier of filmmakers.
Saying that someone doesn't "understand" good filmmaking is a cop-out and probably the most obvious and expected answer that could be given for something so primitively subjective; but I wouldn't expect anything less from someone who adores Kubrick so much. If Nolan's schtick is playing to the hands of those who "wish" to feel intelligent, than Kubrick's, in retort, is playing to the hands of the overly pretentious, "you-just-don't-get-it" types; those who think they "understand" so much about filmmaking, those who, aside from having watched a certain number of movies themselves, have no real idea of what filmmaking is all about, aside from a crash course in high school and a few 20-minute YouTube videos.
Kubrick was, technically, very competent. I cannot deny that some of his sets and still-framed shots are beautiful. But aside from his technically ability, he was exceedingly rubbish when it came to having original thoughts or even creating interesting stories. Has Kubrick ever done anything that wasn't adapted from a previous pieces of work (novel, film, or otherwise)? And not only is he unable to generate an original thought, his supposedly brilliant "adaptations" of these novels have, in multiple instances, been shunned by not only fans of the original books, but the authors themselves.
Kubrick is so focused on embellishing his technical & cinematographic skills through his movies that the stories they (attempt to) tell are vapid, uninteresting, and oftentimes nonsensical even past the point of suspended disbelief. His costumes, sets, and scenes are beautiful, absolutely. Van Gogh's Starry Night is a beautiful painting, too, but there's a reason you don't sit and stare at it for 3 hours straight. Movies are more than just paintings and technical compositions of sets, costumes, scenes, and lighting. Something has to be happening. Nothing ever happens.
His stories are either missing what would otherwise be interesting backstory information (a la Alex from Clockwork Orange, the monolith origin in 2001) or have huge gaps of discontinuity (Jack's seemingly sudden change from charming father to crazed psychopath with little to no meaningful transition, the sudden change of dynamic between Tom/Nicole in Eyes Wide Shut). I understand that you don't need to beat your audience over the head with exposition, and many things can often be better when left up to the audience to figure out. But completely omitting relevant information (especially when it was a large, detailed portion of the novels in which these films were adapted from) and ridiculing people for "not understanding" is the biggest excuse for abysmal writing that I've seen.
Other times, the non-ancillary content is so miniscule that scenes drag on excessively long for the sake of filling in space. The shots of space ships spinning in 2001 are great, and especially impressive for 1968. But a few minutes would suffice. 12 minutes to show what could be adequately appreciated in less than half that time. But Kubrickians will argue - you just don't understand! You know nothing about film making! People see films to be entertained. Entertainment wears thin after a while, even from the most beautiful of shots and scenes.
Kubrick's lack of relative backstory and investment into his writing typically leads to characters with no personality, no interest, and no connection to the audience. I'm not saying these things are necessary. but almost every one of Kubrick's films is devoid of ANY type of emotional connectivity to its characters. Perhaps the largest rebuttal to this is Full Metal Jacket and Barry Lyndon, (which I listed above as films I actually did enjoy) where the timeline is more clearly defined; there's a goal in mind - we watch a character from some tangible moment in their life go through some kind of paradigm. It's a "complete" project. Unlike A Clockwork Orange, where it seems as though we are tossed into the middle of a story, given little to no information, and by the time it ends, we still have so many questions. But hey - at least we know the government is bad! That's the point, right?!
Having absolutely no emotional investment in any of the characters really makes immersion into the movie difficult. You can't force yourself to care about characters who have given you no reason to care about them. Whether that be a good reason or a bad reason - it doesn't matter. Movies are much more enjoyable when you have at least some kind of feeling towards the main character(s) involved. Otherwise, the story itself better be a damn good one, and in most cases, they are not.
That said, despite what you think is "actually brilliant filmmaking" versus "digestible plebian trite masked as brilliant filmmaking" is irrelevant unless you are a film maker (whether it be director, producer, etc.) yourself or, at the VERY least have been around the business, working CLOSE with film makers during the process, on sets, etc.. And so if either of those are true about yourself, please let me know. Otherwise, your response is simply just another subjective opinion of someone who has seen a lot of movies, same as everyone else on IMDb. So have fun watching your "masterpieces" like Clockwork Orange, 2001, and Eyes Wide Shut. I guess I'm just a simple-minded rube who likes to believe he's seeing something smarter than he really is. But at least I thoroughly enjoy the time spent watching most of Nolan's films.
And just as one aside - I find it strange that someone who's just an outspoken admirer of Kubrick has ratings for only 4 of his movies?
Of course the enjoyment of a film is going to be subjective. The various aspects of film making are subjective to a much lesser degree. Set design can be argued much more objectively than say the delivery of a line of dialogue, for example.
To say that only those working in the film industry can discuss and have opinions on film is a ridiculous statement.
If developing an emotional investment in the characters is so important that you can't enjoy a film without it, then Kubrick is not the director for you. You clearly need a beginning, middle, and end. You need absolute closure, or at least a hint for the right direction of closure. All of which is fine. Some people find enjoyment and entertainment in the unknown. Some people find entertainment in the technical side of film making. Some people think Ben Stiller is the greatest director of our time. Enjoyment is subjective.
To say that some of the most beloved films by both critics and fans are "digestible plebian trite" comes off as if you can't even understand why so many people do enjoy them. Maybe you don't understand why people enjoy 2001. That seem unlikely, but I guess it's possible.
Opinions about a film != opinions about film making, the latter of which is hard to speak definitely about if you have no first-hand content with which to compare to. It's easy to form opinion about how those various film making aspects ultimately affect your overall enjoyment and film-watching experience, sure, but speaking objectively about them as you seem to want to do is funny considering you don't really have personal experience with them; you're only really qualified to give your subjective opinion about which ones you prefer (as am I), no more, no less.
I don't need a beginning, middle, and end definitely in every single movie I watch. How about Pulp Fiction, No Country for Old Men, Once Upon a Time in America, Lost in Translation, Blade Runner... all movies with varying degrees of ambiguity, loose ends, timeline obscurity, and general misdirection. However the difference is in the writing, the script, the dialogue, the pace; even in cases where a character has no back-story (the gangsters in Pulp Fiction or Llewlyn Moss in NCfOM), we are still given the gift of wonderful dialogue, exceptional acting, and dynamic, worthwhile pacing that lets us garner feelings towards these characters, on a personal level. Kier Dullea has the emotional presence of a stillborn and it makes it hard to connect with him or emotionally care about him when HAL is refusing to let him back in the ship. He just makes me want to sleep.
I wasn't referring to Kubrick's films as "digestible plebian trite", that was analogous to how you described Nolan's films -- movies seeming to deep, despite being quite shallow, so that rubes and dimwits can pretend they understood something intelligent for 2 and a half hours. And if that's your subjective opinion of his films, that's fine. But if you want to talk about the "most beloved films by both critics and fans" than based on many mediums (IMDb being one of them), Nolan is better than Kubrick and has a larger number of more highly rated films. I'm not saying that is right or wrong, I'm just saying that your running into a circular argument if you chose to go that route.
I can understand why some people would like 2001. My concern is not that I can't see how anybody could like it. My concern is that I don't see how so many people can like it. Clearly I'm in the minority for not liking Kubrick, based on public opinions and ratings. But if that's true, than you're in an even smaller minority for similarly not liking Nolan's work. And if your justification is that your elevated film making intelligence allows you to enjoy Kubrick's films while all of us simple-minded folks just "don't get it", then by all means, enjoy your pretentious works of art.
The Shining is his worst movie in my opinion. I agree with everything you said. Though I do like the scene when Danny is riding his tricycle. The silence between the hardwood floor and the carpet.
Ditto. Eyes Wide Shut.
A Clockwork Orange is outstanding. The film is so weird that it stands the test of time. So much to think about once the credits roll. The moral questions are endless. Not to mention the vision for the film is pulled from the pages like some sort of soul. I suggested it to a friend. Who then suggested it to his sister and boyfriend who aren't necessarily film buffs. But they thought it was a good movie. The book has a conclusion. I think the book version has 21 chapters. And Kubrick told 20.
I wouldn't say the film goes nowhere. Alex is a prick. He is a bully. He has no respect for authority. He's always looking to manipulate people. He doesn't listen to his parents. He doesn't listen to his legal guardian (or representative) And after sexually assaulting a woman in her home. He's betrayed by his friends and left for the police. He again tries to manipulate a priest into believing he's changed. Only to be brainwashed to crumble at the things he used to love feeling.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEVrzwXDdyuRnG6VMfoT2nyS0TdznlSDc
Kubrick's way of telling a story is just completely different than Nolan. I love Nolan but Kubrick made films to instill an emotional reaction INSISE the Viewer. We are to come to our OWN conclusion. If Dr. Strangelove wasn't enough, 2001 was the film in which Kubrick turned completely to his Visual Narrative that he made his own. You don't just watch a Kubrick film, you experience it. You may get an ending... But it raises far more questions than it answers. I love every film he's made but 2001 and The Shining are my personal favorites but all of them are more than good. Every film he made dominated it's genre. He enjoyed using our subconscious to attack ourselves... To question our outlook on Life, Love, Sex, Politics, War, History etc etc... All by being the opposite of say, an Oliver Stone. He never directly implies anything. It is up to the Viewer. The ending of 2001 is at the top of the list of the Most Thought Provoking moments in Cinema History. The Shining is right there as well.
Kubrick's work is unique and certainly not for everyone but nobody can question his passion for the artform. His work is far from empty. It's not simply Beautiful Cinematography. It's using that Photography, an area he mastered BEFORE filmmaking and making every image as powerful as the next. He understood the difference between perspectives. It's partially why he obsessed over takes and that's something only he could answer... But he never did. His interviews were intentionally misleading. He was the influence of a Generation. Nolan included...