Martin Teller A thorough overview of the director's career, one that makes me want to watch his movies for the umpteenth time. I do have a couple of gripes about the documentary, though. Tom Cruise is a lousy narrator. Whatever you think of him as an actor, his voice, his intonation is very plain and flat. Also, the film is almost entirely gushing. Don't get me wrong, I love Kubrick. Everyone loves Kubrick, it's practically a cliché, like saying you love the Beatles. But there are valid criticisms that can be leveled at his films, and very few of those are voiced here, and even those are quickly dismissed. A little less fawning would have been nice.

Max_cinefilo89 Because of his reclusive nature, Stanley Kubrick was never the best choice of subject for a documentary, in life as well as in death. Then again, that depends on who's behind the camera - in this case, the late director's brother-in-law and collaborator Jan Harlan, who also appears as one of the interviewees.Harlan's choice is very simple: skip any attempt to understand the man and just focus on what we have, namely the pictures (hence the film's title). Not just the movies, but also the photos he took in his youth, before discovering cinema. This aspect is covered through comments by friends and family members. Fans, however, are probably more interested in what people have to say about the films, and so we've got some of the key cast and crew of almost all of his movies (one notable exception is Dr. Strangelove, given Peter Sellers and George C. Scott died a long time before Harlan shot the documentary) describing their experiences. In addition, other filmmakers express their sincere admiration for Kubrick, with heaps of praise coming from Scorsese, Spielberg (who directed the Kubrick-inspired A.I.) and Woody Allen (the original choice for Sydney Pollack's role in Eyes Wide Shut).All possible anecdotes surrounding the man and his methods are recounted with joy, and the effect his films had on culture and society are explored in detail. Hearing Allen's first impressions of 2001 is refreshing (he didn't like it at first), whilst Scorsese's reaction to Paths of Glory is a perfect tribute to that picture's power ("It was so honest, it was shocking!"). The most famous controversy remains that surrounding A Clockwork Orange, and it's almost touching when Kubrick's widow recalls his decision to withdraw it from theaters in England until his death. We don't learn anything new about the great director, but hearing it from those people completely justifies Harlan's effort.That said, there is one little problem in the film, and that's the fact that everyone is completely incapable of saying anything bad about Kubrick. Okay, maybe his death has something to do with it, but after dozens of occasions during which both Jack Nicholson and Shelley Duvall berated him for how he treated them on the set of The Shining, hearing them say it was generally a positive experience is surprising to say the least. The closest anyone comes to a bit of criticism is when Malcolm McDowell, always the ultimate Kubrickian icon, describes their relationship like this: "I loved him one moment and wanted to kill him the next!".Overall A Life in Pictures doesn't add much to what we knew about one of the world's best filmmakers, nor does it take anything away. But remembering him through his work and the people who appeared in his movies is the most appropriate way to make a chronicle of his eventful life.

radpix I find the fact Tom Cruise being chosen to do the narration was a terrible idea. Tom Cruise definitely did not help Kubrick's health with his awful acting in Eyes Wide Shut. Malcolm MCDowell would have been the best choice by far.... I mean come on. I found the documentary decent but anything on Kubrick I will watch with an open heart. I will miss his movies. Not many directors make a movie exclusively for sake of art, and the love of directing in general. A lot of people who I know have never seen Paths of Glory, which is a must see. The topic of war was really something that must of weighed strongly with Kubrick, given he made 4 movies about it. Sparticus would be another except for the fact Kubrick did it to save Kirk Douglas's production.

Mort-31 Nobody denies that Stanley Kubrick was a unique director, one of the best ever of those who worked in the United States, and that the story of his life and his pictures is something really interesting and worth seeing. I had devoured a book about Kubrick's films before, and I was absolutely fascinated. But I am not supposed to review Stanley Kubrick but this movie about him.I rate it only 5 out of 10 because in my opinion it is too long but at the same time does not take its time to deal with the individual films – there are too many of them (although Kubrick himself is stated to have considered them too few!). Maybe they should have decided to concentrate on particular aspects of Kubrick's work. The interviewees are credited only by their functions not by their names, so we often do not know who we have in front of us. And altogether, as this film was made as a huge homage to Kubrick after his death, it is much too glorifying, too humble and too full of devotion. And hymns of praise sung to somebody else is not what one wants to hear for 135 minutes throughout.