Stanley-Kubrick Movie Reviews

Jean Simmons plays Lavignia, his love interest, and the woman who bears his child, who is born free. Peter Ustinov plays a promiscuous, decadent Roman senator. The corrupt Roman Empire has always been a favorite of literature and films, and in this film, the moral decay is well expressed. In contrast, the slaves are a good hearted group, young, old, men and wome, with good hearts and with a yearning for freedom. Slavery would continue until 1850's America, but even then, through efforts of Spartacus, slavery was attempted to be abolished.

Everyone knows the Roman armies were very strong and powerful. Spartacus did not stand a chance. But the greatest moment in the film comes when Spartacus is not found among the captives and every slave declares "I am Spartacus!" risking their life to save his. Such loyalty and courage is foreign to even the Romans. Spartacus is crucified, his wife is set free and his son is born free. Epic films like these are captured perfectly on DVD. The music is beautiful, the costumes are rich, and the dialogue, although poetic, is realistic. Although this film is very long, it is a good way to glimpse the Roman Empire. It is also very much like the recent film Gladiator in a sense.

Kubrick, only 32 at the time and a last-minute substitute for Anthony Mann, brought technical acuity to the project; witness the climactic clash between the Roman legions and Spartacus's ragged followers, or the sombre vista of crucified men. But he also brought real tension and tragedy to Dalton Trumbo's superior script, never losing sight of the human drama played out against the spectacular "might of Rome" stuff and good fighting action. The same balancing act is achieved by Alex North's first-rate score. The film took four Oscars including those for cinematography and the support gong for Ustinov. The best bit is still the reaction to the demand "Which one of you is Spartacus?" to which everybody, including the people with the popcorn, stand up and shout out: "I'M SPARTACUS!" "NO, I'M SPARTACUS!"

Spartacus hardly could have hoped to win his revolution, but that is not the point. He deals Rome a staggering blow, and in that respect he and his army of slaves is extremely successful. This is perhaps best illustrated in the final duel between Spartacus and Antoninus. This is no fairy tale, and Spartacus's revolution, though brave, is always in danger of proving utterly futile. Rome simply has too many resources, too many men, and too well-trained of an army to ultimately allow herself to be pushed around by her slaves. Still, Spartacus tries, and in this, at least, he asserts his right to be a human being just like anybody else.

This film is rightly labeled a "thinking man's epic." It was revolutionary for its time, and still holds up forty years later as a poignant reminder that all men are created equal, and that thousands and even millions of people have suffered and died in a world that did not understand that as we do today. The battle scenes in this movie are phenomenal for their grand scale, and the action keeps you on your toes. Great acting, great directing, and a captivating story--this is Spartacus.

Jean Simmons plays Lavignia, his love interest, and the woman who bears his child, who is born free. Peter Ustinov plays a promiscuous, decadent Roman senator. The corrupt Roman Empire has always been a favorite of literature and films, and in this film, the moral decay is well expressed. In contrast, the slaves are a good hearted group, young, old, men and wome, with good hearts and with a yearning for freedom. Slavery would continue until 1850's America, but even then, through efforts of Spartacus, slavery was attempted to be abolished.

Everyone knows the Roman armies were very strong and powerful. Spartacus did not stand a chance. But the greatest moment in the film comes when Spartacus is not found among the captives and every slave declares "I am Spartacus!" risking their life to save his. Such loyalty and courage is foreign to even the Romans. Spartacus is crucified, his wife is set free and his son is born free. Epic films like these are captured perfectly on DVD. The music is beautiful, the costumes are rich, and the dialogue, although poetic, is realistic. Although this film is very long, it is a good way to glimpse the Roman Empire. It is also very much like the recent film Gladiator in a sense.

Kubrick, only 32 at the time and a last-minute substitute for Anthony Mann, brought technical acuity to the project; witness the climactic clash between the Roman legions and Spartacus's ragged followers, or the sombre vista of crucified men. But he also brought real tension and tragedy to Dalton Trumbo's superior script, never losing sight of the human drama played out against the spectacular "might of Rome" stuff and good fighting action. The same balancing act is achieved by Alex North's first-rate score. The film took four Oscars including those for cinematography and the support gong for Ustinov. The best bit is still the reaction to the demand "Which one of you is Spartacus?" to which everybody, including the people with the popcorn, stand up and shout out: "I'M SPARTACUS!" "NO, I'M SPARTACUS!"

Spartacus hardly could have hoped to win his revolution, but that is not the point. He deals Rome a staggering blow, and in that respect he and his army of slaves is extremely successful. This is perhaps best illustrated in the final duel between Spartacus and Antoninus. This is no fairy tale, and Spartacus's revolution, though brave, is always in danger of proving utterly futile. Rome simply has too many resources, too many men, and too well-trained of an army to ultimately allow herself to be pushed around by her slaves. Still, Spartacus tries, and in this, at least, he asserts his right to be a human being just like anybody else.

This film is rightly labeled a "thinking man's epic." It was revolutionary for its time, and still holds up forty years later as a poignant reminder that all men are created equal, and that thousands and even millions of people have suffered and died in a world that did not understand that as we do today. The battle scenes in this movie are phenomenal for their grand scale, and the action keeps you on your toes. Great acting, great directing, and a captivating story--this is Spartacus.

It's an epic drama about the rise and fall of an Irish rogue in the late 18th century. Lavishly photographed, using only natural light, real costumes, good acting (with possible exception of Ryan O'Neal), but somehow lacking the Kubrick feel. It's a pretty conventional film. There's nothing really outlandish about it. However, being written (based on a 19th century novel), produced and directed by the man, it is undeniably a Stanley Kubrick film and deserves attention as such. Perhaps the most Kubrickian (if I may use the term) thing about Barry Lyndon is how un-Kubrick-like it is. Audiences had come to expect the unexpected from Kubrick, and what would be more unpredictable than to follow-up a film like A Clockwork Orange with a costume epic set in the 18th century? That's the way he was. Always taking the divergent path.

Now, regarding the film itself, it's very well made, not surprising considering its creator. The story of Redmond Barry is interesting, particularly in its historical context. Several wonderful scenes alone make the film worth watching. A small battle scene during the Seven Years War, the card-playing scenes, and the duel between Barry and his stepson near the end. There are some sporadic scenes with dazzling camera work and Kubrick manages to sneak in a couple of his tracking shots. The film is leisurely paced, as nearly all Kubrick films, but interest is always maintained.

I don't think that anyone would claim Barry Lyndon Kubrick's greatest achievement, but it is a remarkable achievement nonetheless. Perhaps more accessible to mainstream audiences than his typical work, Barry Lyndon is definitely an enjoyable experience for fans of Kubrick, but perhaps more so for fans of lavish costume epics. So enjoy it for what it is, just don't expect any of the old ultraviolence.

Ryan O'Neal is the unlikely star, and he does a good job, rising from humble Irish origins to the decadence of titled wealth, employing a two-fisted competence in the manly arts, including some soldiering, some thievery at cards and a presumed consummate skill in the bedroom. Marisa Berenson plays Lady Lyndon, whom Barry has managed to seduce; and when her elderly husband dies, she marries Barry thus elevating his social and economic station in life. But Barry is rather clumsy at playing at peerage, and bit by bit manages to squander most of the Lyndon fortune until his stepson, Lord Bullingdon (Leon Vitali) grows old enough to do something about it.

This really is a gorgeous movie thanks to the exquisite sets and costumes and especially to John Alcott's dreamy cinematography and a fine score by Leonard Rosenman. The 184 minutes go by almost without notice as we are engrossed in the rise and fall of Barry's fortunes. There is fine acting support from Patrick Magee as the Chevalier de Balibari and Leonard Rossiter as Captain Quinn, and a number of lesser players, who through Kubrick's direction bring to life Europe around the time of the Seven Years War (1754-1763) when decadence and aristocratic privilege were still in full flower.

The script features two dueling scenes, the first showing the combatants firing at one another simultaneously at the drop of a white kerchief, the second has Barry and his stepson face each other ten paces apart, but due to the flip of a coin, the stepson fires first. Both scenes are engrossing as we see the loading of the pistols with powder, ball and ramrod, and we are able to note how heavy the pistols are and how difficult it must be to hit a silhouette at even a short distance. It is this kind of careful attention to directional detail that absorbs us in the action and makes veracious the story. Notice too the way the British soldiers march directly en mass toward the French guns. They actually used to fight battles that way! Also note the incredible pile of hair atop Lady Lyndon's head. Surely this is some kind of cinematic record.

Bottom line: one of Kubrick's best, certainly his most beautiful film.

The oddly named Humbert Humbert (James Mason in, perhaps, his finest performance), comes to America from some unspecified European country. Looking for lodging, he crosses paths with Dolores "Lolita" Haze (Sue Lyon), and her mother Charlotte (brilliantly played by Shelley Winters). What follows is a black comedy swirling giddily around a host of sexual taboos - pedophilia chief among them, as Humbert finds himself sexually obsessed with the teen-aged Lolita. Had this been a TV-movie of the week, Lolita would have been the saintly victim of the villainous Humbert. Instead, Kubrick and Nabokov's Lolita is a precocious manipulator - awakening to her sexual identity and the strange power she can exert over members of the opposite sex. The difference, of course, is that she is a child and doesn't know any better; Humbert is an adult and damn well should.

So, for that matter, should Clare Quilty, Humbert's rival for the attentions of the young nymphet. Quilty, though sicker than Humbert, is a farcical character, played brilliantly by Peter Sellers - the Robin Williams of his day. The edgy, blackly comedic tone is no better exemplified than in the scenes he and Humbert have together. It becomes obvious as the film progresses that, in some twisted way, Humbert actually loves Lolita, while Quilty sees her more as the object of a fetish.

By the end, Humbert is reduced to a broken shell of a man, and it does not really matter if we approve of his behavior or not: he is still sympathetic, as much a victim of his own demons as Lolita herself, or her hapless mother. Without lifting a finger to "redeem" him, Kubrick forces us to come to terms with Humbert's humanity, as well as his perversion.

Compare that to sanctimonious pap like American Beauty, a film that nearly demands that we "understand" its main character, even daring suggest that disapproving of his infatuation with a teenaged girl is akin to the homophobic excesses of his sadistic, one-dimensional ex-Marine neighbor (apparently ugly stereotypes are perfectly OK when applied to conservatives). Add to this a few patently absurd, over-the-top plot developments and Kubrick's Lolita begins looking better and better.

Many have suggested that, had Kubrick made Lolita in a more permissive atmosphere, a different (therefore "better") film would have resulted. I doubt it. At the end of the day, Kubrick's Lolita is more about foolish, pathetic, self-destructive behavior, than pushing the limits of what salacious content we are allowed to see on-screen. It is about how obsession and hypocrisy can crush a person. It is about how very funny we are as a species, with our propensity destroy each other and ourselves for the pettiest, most absurd of reasons.

Lolita was directed by Stanley Kubrick and is essentially based on Vladimir Nabakov's controversial novel in which the nymphet is 12 (not 15) and therefore her relationship with Humbert is (or was in 1955) all-the-more shocking. Because of its truly effective social satire, I would rate the first segment more than Five Stars if I could but rate the second segment (at best) Three Stars, hence the rating which appears above.

The oddly named Humbert Humbert (James Mason in, perhaps, his finest performance), comes to America from some unspecified European country. Looking for lodging, he crosses paths with Dolores "Lolita" Haze (Sue Lyon), and her mother Charlotte (brilliantly played by Shelley Winters). What follows is a black comedy swirling giddily around a host of sexual taboos - pedophilia chief among them, as Humbert finds himself sexually obsessed with the teen-aged Lolita. Had this been a TV-movie of the week, Lolita would have been the saintly victim of the villainous Humbert. Instead, Kubrick and Nabokov's Lolita is a precocious manipulator - awakening to her sexual identity and the strange power she can exert over members of the opposite sex. The difference, of course, is that she is a child and doesn't know any better; Humbert is an adult and damn well should.

So, for that matter, should Clare Quilty, Humbert's rival for the attentions of the young nymphet. Quilty, though sicker than Humbert, is a farcical character, played brilliantly by Peter Sellers - the Robin Williams of his day. The edgy, blackly comedic tone is no better exemplified than in the scenes he and Humbert have together. It becomes obvious as the film progresses that, in some twisted way, Humbert actually loves Lolita, while Quilty sees her more as the object of a fetish.

By the end, Humbert is reduced to a broken shell of a man, and it does not really matter if we approve of his behavior or not: he is still sympathetic, as much a victim of his own demons as Lolita herself, or her hapless mother. Without lifting a finger to "redeem" him, Kubrick forces us to come to terms with Humbert's humanity, as well as his perversion.

Compare that to sanctimonious pap like American Beauty, a film that nearly demands that we "understand" its main character, even daring suggest that disapproving of his infatuation with a teenaged girl is akin to the homophobic excesses of his sadistic, one-dimensional ex-Marine neighbor (apparently ugly stereotypes are perfectly OK when applied to conservatives). Add to this a few patently absurd, over-the-top plot developments and Kubrick's Lolita begins looking better and better.

Many have suggested that, had Kubrick made Lolita in a more permissive atmosphere, a different (therefore "better") film would have resulted. I doubt it. At the end of the day, Kubrick's Lolita is more about foolish, pathetic, self-destructive behavior, than pushing the limits of what salacious content we are allowed to see on-screen. It is about how obsession and hypocrisy can crush a person. It is about how very funny we are as a species, with our propensity destroy each other and ourselves for the pettiest, most absurd of reasons.

Lolita was directed by Stanley Kubrick and is essentially based on Vladimir Nabakov's controversial novel in which the nymphet is 12 (not 15) and therefore her relationship with Humbert is (or was in 1955) all-the-more shocking. Because of its truly effective social satire, I would rate the first segment more than Five Stars if I could but rate the second segment (at best) Three Stars, hence the rating which appears above.

The oddly named Humbert Humbert (James Mason in, perhaps, his finest performance), comes to America from some unspecified European country. Looking for lodging, he crosses paths with Dolores "Lolita" Haze (Sue Lyon), and her mother Charlotte (brilliantly played by Shelley Winters). What follows is a black comedy swirling giddily around a host of sexual taboos - pedophilia chief among them, as Humbert finds himself sexually obsessed with the teen-aged Lolita. Had this been a TV-movie of the week, Lolita would have been the saintly victim of the villainous Humbert. Instead, Kubrick and Nabokov's Lolita is a precocious manipulator - awakening to her sexual identity and the strange power she can exert over members of the opposite sex. The difference, of course, is that she is a child and doesn't know any better; Humbert is an adult and damn well should.

So, for that matter, should Clare Quilty, Humbert's rival for the attentions of the young nymphet. Quilty, though sicker than Humbert, is a farcical character, played brilliantly by Peter Sellers - the Robin Williams of his day. The edgy, blackly comedic tone is no better exemplified than in the scenes he and Humbert have together. It becomes obvious as the film progresses that, in some twisted way, Humbert actually loves Lolita, while Quilty sees her more as the object of a fetish.

By the end, Humbert is reduced to a broken shell of a man, and it does not really matter if we approve of his behavior or not: he is still sympathetic, as much a victim of his own demons as Lolita herself, or her hapless mother. Without lifting a finger to "redeem" him, Kubrick forces us to come to terms with Humbert's humanity, as well as his perversion.

Compare that to sanctimonious pap like American Beauty, a film that nearly demands that we "understand" its main character, even daring suggest that disapproving of his infatuation with a teenaged girl is akin to the homophobic excesses of his sadistic, one-dimensional ex-Marine neighbor (apparently ugly stereotypes are perfectly OK when applied to conservatives). Add to this a few patently absurd, over-the-top plot developments and Kubrick's Lolita begins looking better and better.

Many have suggested that, had Kubrick made Lolita in a more permissive atmosphere, a different (therefore "better") film would have resulted. I doubt it. At the end of the day, Kubrick's Lolita is more about foolish, pathetic, self-destructive behavior, than pushing the limits of what salacious content we are allowed to see on-screen. It is about how obsession and hypocrisy can crush a person. It is about how very funny we are as a species, with our propensity destroy each other and ourselves for the pettiest, most absurd of reasons.

Lolita was directed by Stanley Kubrick and is essentially based on Vladimir Nabakov's controversial novel in which the nymphet is 12 (not 15) and therefore her relationship with Humbert is (or was in 1955) all-the-more shocking. Because of its truly effective social satire, I would rate the first segment more than Five Stars if I could but rate the second segment (at best) Three Stars, hence the rating which appears above.

Overall, Eyes Wide Shut is a good rent.

Overall, Eyes Wide Shut is a good rent.

The whole enterprise is extremely controlled, as is typical of its director. The acting, cinematography, set design, music - everything is molded to the total vision.

If you're expecting a typical Hollywood picture, this isn't the one for you. It's a Kubrick film. The pace is slow and deliberate, and the story is told in pictures, not dialog (what dialog there is is intentionally banal). As in a dream, the film has a logic of its own. If you clear your mind of expectations and just follow the course of the film, letting in the images and colors, you might be rewarded.

An unusual film.

The DVD looks good. Unfortunately, there is no option to view the infamous, x-rated 'orgy' scene as was originally intended by Kubrick.

Once the hype and expectations are stripped away, EWS emerges as an emerges as an eerie, surreal, journey into a man's sexual and marrital insecurites. It's not about sex, it's about the thought of sex. The journey is triggered and driven by the realization that his wife has had sexual thoughts that weren't of him. He is tempted by and seeks sexual enticement, until it truly becomes threatening. If you think metaphors are boring and/or pretentious, this movie ain't for you, because the movie speaks in them almost exclusively. The threat isn't really a threat to his physical well being, but a threat to the life with his family that he has established and cares for. One scene that bugs me is the poolroom "explanation" scene, because it's not what the film is going after. It almost seems to be there to make fun of such expository scenes in movies, because it rambles on and explains so much without really explaining anything at all. It's almost clever in that way, but I thought it was out of place. Other than that, it's not of Kubrick's best films, but it deserves way more credit than the mainstream is willing to give it.

Overall, Eyes Wide Shut is a good rent.

The whole enterprise is extremely controlled, as is typical of its director. The acting, cinematography, set design, music - everything is molded to the total vision.

If you're expecting a typical Hollywood picture, this isn't the one for you. It's a Kubrick film. The pace is slow and deliberate, and the story is told in pictures, not dialog (what dialog there is is intentionally banal). As in a dream, the film has a logic of its own. If you clear your mind of expectations and just follow the course of the film, letting in the images and colors, you might be rewarded.

An unusual film.

The DVD looks good. Unfortunately, there is no option to view the infamous, x-rated 'orgy' scene as was originally intended by Kubrick.

Once the hype and expectations are stripped away, EWS emerges as an emerges as an eerie, surreal, journey into a man's sexual and marrital insecurites. It's not about sex, it's about the thought of sex. The journey is triggered and driven by the realization that his wife has had sexual thoughts that weren't of him. He is tempted by and seeks sexual enticement, until it truly becomes threatening. If you think metaphors are boring and/or pretentious, this movie ain't for you, because the movie speaks in them almost exclusively. The threat isn't really a threat to his physical well being, but a threat to the life with his family that he has established and cares for. One scene that bugs me is the poolroom "explanation" scene, because it's not what the film is going after. It almost seems to be there to make fun of such expository scenes in movies, because it rambles on and explains so much without really explaining anything at all. It's almost clever in that way, but I thought it was out of place. Other than that, it's not of Kubrick's best films, but it deserves way more credit than the mainstream is willing to give it.

Overall, Eyes Wide Shut is a good rent.

The whole enterprise is extremely controlled, as is typical of its director. The acting, cinematography, set design, music - everything is molded to the total vision.

If you're expecting a typical Hollywood picture, this isn't the one for you. It's a Kubrick film. The pace is slow and deliberate, and the story is told in pictures, not dialog (what dialog there is is intentionally banal). As in a dream, the film has a logic of its own. If you clear your mind of expectations and just follow the course of the film, letting in the images and colors, you might be rewarded.

An unusual film.

The DVD looks good. Unfortunately, there is no option to view the infamous, x-rated 'orgy' scene as was originally intended by Kubrick.

Once the hype and expectations are stripped away, EWS emerges as an emerges as an eerie, surreal, journey into a man's sexual and marrital insecurites. It's not about sex, it's about the thought of sex. The journey is triggered and driven by the realization that his wife has had sexual thoughts that weren't of him. He is tempted by and seeks sexual enticement, until it truly becomes threatening. If you think metaphors are boring and/or pretentious, this movie ain't for you, because the movie speaks in them almost exclusively. The threat isn't really a threat to his physical well being, but a threat to the life with his family that he has established and cares for. One scene that bugs me is the poolroom "explanation" scene, because it's not what the film is going after. It almost seems to be there to make fun of such expository scenes in movies, because it rambles on and explains so much without really explaining anything at all. It's almost clever in that way, but I thought it was out of place. Other than that, it's not of Kubrick's best films, but it deserves way more credit than the mainstream is willing to give it.