'Kubrick - a life in pictures' doesn't make the Kubrick dvd collection more complete and in that way it is commercial exploitation by warner. But that aside I think it is an comprehensive, elaborate document that concentrates more on Kubrick's pictures than on Kubrick the director, although his intellect went into his pictures of course, without letting the rest of his private life interfere too much with his brainchildren. This document however is the legacy of someone else and as elaborate as it may be, it is a contextual interpretation of Kubrick's cynicism narrated by Tom Cruise (good job BTW) and directed by someone who knew Kubrick but never worked with him. That means there are always essential points lost. Knowing that's the case in most docu's, this one didn't disappoint.
I think it was good choice to let all Kubrick films pass the revue and take a look at what Kubrick's thoughts were during each project and how his collaborators and family coped. Interviewing Woody Allen wasn't a good idea: although he's (like Kubrick) a 'very' New Yorker and he's one of the better directors of our time, his remarks on Kubricks cinema were bogus and should have been left out. Instead, composer Ligeti (2001, Eyes Wide Shut) should have gotten more time.
Especially the remarks about the 'Zeiss-lenses' (?) used for Barry Lyndon are clarifying: it shows some of the experimental (but determined) mind of Kubrick that we also saw with Eisenstein and Kurosawa. A little hesitating I think I can say that Soderbergh fits that illustrious list too from that perspective. But that's another story (not just because he's not dead). About Federico Fellini, Luis Buñuel, Mike Nichols, Orson Welles, and Stanley Kubrick I could say that they're my favourite directors. Visually and especially with regard to content. There really is no way of choosing, because they complemented each other's cinema and in their own brilliant ways show their concern with humanity. Some more rational than others. Kubrick's concerns are what this documentary nearly, but not completely satisfyingly, showed. 8/10
I think it was good choice to let all Kubrick films pass the revue and take a look at what Kubrick's thoughts were during each project and how his collaborators and family coped. Interviewing Woody Allen wasn't a good idea: although he's (like Kubrick) a 'very' New Yorker and he's one of the better directors of our time, his remarks on Kubricks cinema were bogus and should have been left out. Instead, composer Ligeti (2001, Eyes Wide Shut) should have gotten more time.
Especially the remarks about the 'Zeiss-lenses' (?) used for Barry Lyndon are clarifying: it shows some of the experimental (but determined) mind of Kubrick that we also saw with Eisenstein and Kurosawa. A little hesitating I think I can say that Soderbergh fits that illustrious list too from that perspective. But that's another story (not just because he's not dead). About Federico Fellini, Luis Buñuel, Mike Nichols, Orson Welles, and Stanley Kubrick I could say that they're my favourite directors. Visually and especially with regard to content. There really is no way of choosing, because they complemented each other's cinema and in their own brilliant ways show their concern with humanity. Some more rational than others. Kubrick's concerns are what this documentary nearly, but not completely satisfyingly, showed. 8/10