I am his greatest admirer and there is no competition when it comes to question who the greatest filmmaker of all time is.

but what is his greatest achievement in film

YOU VOTE!!

You got it wrong, boss....

Kubrick was a cold-hearted, boring, emotionless son of a bitch. The only thing that he did that's worth half a $hit is "Killer's Kiss".

His best film was "Eyes Wide Shut", cause it killed him.



Just kidding.

And you shall know us by the trail of dead.

only thing i liked was the begining of full metal jacket...cuz it was truly hilarious...yet, had little to do with kubrick or his style. was all in the dialogue, and it was written by the actual colonel guy (dont' remember name)

and you got it wrong, there is no question that STEVEN SPIELBERG is the greatest filmmaker of all time...next to me of course. hehe

He's good, real good. Full metal jacket is my favorite Viet Nam war movie. At first I thought it was goin to be crap but it turned out to be pretty amazing.

1clue3

spielberg? the same **** who didn't even have any dedication to kubrick for AI. I actually think kubrick would have been thankful to not have had that film dedicated to him. Spielberg's crap modern pinochio showed why he hadent written a script since close encounters. Spielberg killed good film. he gave the power back to the studio. i wish the **** were dead.

interesting way of expressing your jealousy, hsteinbrick...

how you got jealousy out of that is beyond me. if you want me to talk about jealousy i'll say how jealous i am about the cinematography of Citizen Kane or the way kubrick made one movie a decade and still managed to get the high profile on them without needing two movies out a year (in reference to spielberg). but i'm not pulling the reverse ****. i say i hate spielberg i mean i hate spielberg. not the person but the movie maker. i guess i just don't respect the guy in the form of his creative projects. i guess being described as someone jealous of spielberg pisses me off to hell. hey in gotta face that the guy has followers who defend him. i'm 16 makin my films for nothing. no budget, crap actors, and poor film making talent. i don't make a film in order to get 200 million at the box office. i make films for myself. i don't see that in spielberg. at leats not lately. i mena minority report and catch me if you can were nice flicks, but theyre no godfather or citizen kane. ever notice how since 1975 (jaws) the number of good movies has gone down. just go searching for movies by year and you will see how its dropped from three masterpieces a year to one decent film. look at this year. im mean chicago? come on give me a ****ing break. you suggested i was jealous of spielberg. spielberg is a lemon in the world where lemonade taste like ****. jealous? sorry man. you got it wrong.

Hmmmm. I find it interesting to see new faces on the site with there tempers and ill mannered and less than stellar opinions or education on film to say the least.
Spielberg...makes movies to make money? Do you really believe that? Do you actually think that Steven Spielberg needs more money? Do you even think he cares that much about it? Do you know how much money he donates every year? Are you that ignorant?
Second. He might make bright colorful movies that lack raw emotion to some, but Steven Spielberg has not screwed the film industry...open your eyes buddy. Look at all the directors that Spielberg has brought up. And by the way... Close Encounters of the Third Kind was written by a young guy from Idaho originally and then found be Spielberg and made into a longer more elaborate script. So he has always had help...that how he works, he's a Director, not so much a writer.

"I don't have time for film school...I'm too busy making movies" lol

maybe you missed the sarcasm...well, you obviously DIDN'T see the sarcasm.

I disagree with everything you said about speilberg, and agree with THE MIND...though there is one point you said that is true...lately movies have been crap (compared to older years) with such crap as goldmember (tho very funny), xXx, master of disguise, ballistic and the list goes on.

Spielberg though, on the other hand, has never made a bad movie, at least that I've seen. If anything, his have been some of the best of years past.

quote:

---

with such crap as goldmember (tho very funny)...

---

Oh come on now, don't say Goldmember was crap, and then go on to say that it was funny. The movie was a comedy. It's purpose was to be funny. If a movie achieves its desired reaction, then it should be praised and considered a "good movie".

Therefore, since Goldmember was (intentionally) funny, it was not crap.

...and I apologize for changing the topic of this discussion so drastically.

--Alan

------------------
http://www.alandenton.com
------------------

ever seen HOOK? obviously not. i guess maybe i jumped to a conclusion that i feel the quality and rate of good movies has gone down since spielberg hit in 1975 and especially since ET. And as far as goldmember (sorry to change subject) Ozzy was right when he said that the boobs were telling the same jokes again.

I'd rather watch Dr. Strangelove than Schindler's List any day. Period.

Man, I must be the biggest loser in the world or something. Cause I liked Hook AND AI.
And I think Spielberg is the greatest director of all time.
Dont get me wrong, I like Kubrick, but I cant understand why there is so many people on this site who hate Spielberg. I think his films are awesome.
Dont think Ive seen a bad one yet.

In reply to how come most here don't like Speilberg, its because they don't think his films are artistic. In my opinion, that is not neccesarry at all to be included in a good film. Most of his films are action for godsakes! He makes blockbusters and is definately good at doing that. Do you think it's a priority to make films artistic, or keep them entertaining so most people can enjoy and understand them? I'd rather make a film that most people can enjoy than one that is so layered that only like 2 people can. That was one of Kubrick's problems (if I might call it one.) It's not necessarily his fault, he was just too smart for his own good. I go on boards for his films like "Eyes Wide Shut" and people are saying that the sect was a group of aliens!! How the hell was I supposed to know that? I don't think they ever mentioned that in the film, but after close analization, that's what these people on the boards perceived. Some directors love to be artistic, and that's fine(if you can; please, go for it) but I've seen too many good films to say that being so is required for every good movie.

Food for thought....

One "block buster script" can give you the means as to 'pay the mortgage' and 'raise your profile' while you go on your "ART-FILM" quest...


Spielberg: is not sitting around worrying whether he's as good as any other director, he doesn't need to. And frankly it doesn't matter. Show a little respect, the guy had a camera in his hand before you were even born. He is in part the reason people love movies today.

A bit of trivia.. My father was in his very first movie....

I disagree with Alan Denton. I said the movie was crap, i'm not saying its terrible and not worth watching. I'm simply saying that as a movie with a STORY, not the jokes in it, it is crap. because it made me laugh doesnt mean its a good film right there. There are alot of movies that can make me laugh, but are still awful films. Examples being movies like Master of Disguise. I laughed maybe twice, but other than that, the movie is one of the worst that i've ever seen.

As for kubrick, i dont like him. Nothing he's done that i have seen has really amazed me, or intrested me. Eyes Wide Shut was quite bad, so was Dr. Strangelove (also having one of the worst previous ever). Full metal jacket was good only because of the begining, and again, the dialogue there wasn't kubrick. After the training camp, i quickly lost interest.

Maybe its artistic. So what, it doesn't mean that it cant be bad. As well, because things aren't artistic, it doens't mean the can't be good either.

Simple.

Oh, and Spielberg rules!

one of the things that kubrick did better than spielberg was to let his film stand as what it is. what i mean is i always see spielberg talking about his films and explaining them perfectly in a way that contradicts what i saw myself in his films. what he said about indiana jones being a B action adventure film ruined my perseption of it. this is because i tried to look at the art of the movie but saw that spielberg appeared to have no motives to show any artistic form in it. kubrick on the other hand was very private and let his films stand for what the were in anyones mind without influence. I mean he never explained (to my knowledge) why nicholson appeared in the old picture at the very end of the shining. this allows one to draw their own conclusion.
note: i hated how conceeded spielberg seemed in goldmember. was he acting or being a real *******? maybe directors shouldnt appear in films. (with acception to polanski and scorseses cameos)

Yeah, and that was probably him doing the backflips too, hey?

kubrick is the only person i would come close to calling "best director ever"