Rafael Jaramillo An excellent examination of an excellent artist, but also, an honest one. "A life in pictures" depicts every essential moment in Stanley Kubrick's life, not leaving aside any detail, just as he used to do at the moment of making a film. It is true, he was an odd person and different from others, some hated him and others loved him; at the end, he wasn't praised for being an example of human being, he was praised for the quality of filmmaker and artist he was.The film has the testimony of people who knew him, from schoolmates to actors. This gives you a more wide perspective of who he was as a person, and as a filmmaker. It will prove a challenge to label him as a person, especially when you see his relationship with Shelley Duvall, but his work as a director is miraculous. One thing that I found amusing was the fact that he shared one specific characteristic with Alfred Hitchcock: he assumed complete control of his movies. That's what made his movies, well, HIS MOVIES! Gloriously detailed work from the life of undeniably, the best movie director of all time.FINAL CONSENSUS: From birth to death, from personal footage to actual interviews, A Life in Pictures portrays in an excellent manner both the man and artist that worked behind the lens.

MissSimonetta Stanley Kubrick is a cinematic god, up there with Orson Welles and Akira Kurosawa as one of the greatest directors to have ever walked the planet. Made by his brother-in-law shortly after his sudden death at age 70, Stanley Kubrick: A Life in Pictures (2001) could have been quite sugary and light, with nothing but praise for the late filmmaker.While there is a lot of praise on display, the documentary does portray a more even-handed view of Kubrick. The man could be difficult to work with, a trait most acutely displayed in his appalling treatment of Shelley Duvall during the making of The Shining (1980). However, he could also be warm and generous. He was, in short, perfectly human. I did wish some of his other collaborators could have been interviewed, but I'm perfectly happy with who did appear. Kubrick's career is covered in great detail, with the film itself clocking in at almost two and a half hours. Kubrick fans will definitely be interested.

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.

Dr. Gore *SPOILER ALERT* *SPOILER ALERT*I've always been fascinated by Stanley Kubrick. Everyone knows he's a genius, made great movies etc. But the thing I found most intriguing about him was how intellectually interested he was in almost every subject matter under the sun. He could talk your ear off about whatever topic was on your mind. War, science, philosophy, you name it. In many of the books I've read about him, most people talk about how Kubrick always kept in touch with them yet they hardly ever saw him in person. Kubrick would constantly be asking them questions to see what knowledge he could get out of them. I also thought it was interesting how he always seemed to be sending books to people whenever something struck him as interesting and how you should drop what you're doing and read what he sent you.Another aspect of Kubrick I admired was how he wanted his movies to be seen by as many people as possible. It seems like some directors make movies only for themselves. Kubrick wanted mainstream success but made his movies as challenging as possible. I wonder if he ever saw a contradiction in making movies as intelligently as he did and the desire of the mainstream film going public for simplistic entertainment."Stanley Kubrick: A Life in Pictures" goes through each one of his movies and talks to various participants about their memories of working with Kubrick. But clearly since the documentary was put together by Kubrick's friends and family, it's not going to take an overly critical view of him or his movies. Ask Stephen King how he feels about Kubrick and you might not get the glowing praise that everyone else lays out. But overall, I found the documentary to be interesting. It's just unfortunate that Kubrick never took the time to set the record straight on anything. It would have been nice to hear him speak for himself instead of having half of Hollywood do it for him. That, of course, is his appeal. In an age of blah, blah, blah celebrities, here's a guy who doesn't care what you or I thought about him or his movies. His job was over when the movie came out. You liked it or didn't and life went on.For people who don't know anything about Kubrick, the documentary is a good overview. But for others who do know a little something, it doesn't really add anything new to the Kubrick picture with the exception of a few home movies. This is not the last word on Stanley Kubrick. There probably never will be a last word.One last thing, check out the "making of" documentary on "The Shining" DVD. It has a lot of scenes of Kubrick at work. It gives a fascinating look at Kubrick dealing with the actors, especially poor Shelley Duvall. He was the kind of boss who never raised his voice but you could tell by looking at his eyes that he was fed up with you.