If it wasn't the famous Kubrick who made the movie in his early days, do you think it would get this amount of praise?
For example, "The Asphalt Jungle" is an incredible, great film (probably better than this and much more seminal) and it isn't even in the top 250 on imdb. It only has around a measly 7000 votes, while this has over 20,000 votes.
Weird, huh?
Of course being made by one of the more praised directors of the 20th century has given this film substantially more publicity than has been allowed for any other similar film made by a lesser director (lesser here meaning in fame, not in ability).
Even if The Killing was made by some other director it would still be liked by most people who enjoy a good ~50's heist/noir but it would be understandably less known among those who haven't initiated themselves fully to the genre.
So yes, being made by most any other director this film would be praised much less in general, but only because of lack of exposure, for it would still be a quality heist film.
You're probably right. It would still be considered a decent flick but would most likely be far less known.
To tell the truth, i'm shocked that Asphalt Jungle is not in the top 250 films. It just shows how the ratings are silly
If Asphalt Jungle is not in the top 250, that's a crime in itself. It should be in the Top 100.
eldo77
nikoteajay nails it.
shareI disagree ..i think the movie still deserves to be at all time top lists for more reasons than one. The movie is clearly not dated but more than that it handles issue of "existentialism philosophy" ...too complicated for young director to handle and as Woody Allen said later on , this inspired him and many directors to look at movies differently.
It shows how the person who believes he has planned everything and beyond the whims of luck are normally the ones most affected by it. It was also first of its kind movie which introduced Gray characters into cinema, if you noticed there are no moral standpoints in the movie. Coppola called it a major breakthrough & also carried same philosophy in Godfather.
And oh yes the resulting film was unusual in 1950s American cinema in that it had a nonlinear storyline (in a manner imitated nearly 40 years later by director Quentin Tarantino in Pulp Fiction) and an unhappy ending.
I hope this convinces you , but if not then console that same IMDB ranking rated "A space Odyssey" far below it deserves to be..so may be it evens out !!
I would argue that The Asphalt Jungle was far more influential on subsequent movies than The Killing. In fact, it was influential on Kubrick himself, who knew the film well and even cast Sterling Hayden as well.
I would also argue that you are wrong about the movie being "unusual" because of an unhappy ending. The Asphalt Jungle (made years earlier in 1950) had an unhappy ending. In fact, so do many earlier film noirs.
What The Killing did very well (although it was not the first, by any means) was to use a nonlinear structure to great effect. Other films had done that much earlier, see Siodmak's "The Killers" (1946).
So all in all, Asphalt Jungle is far under-appreciated compared to this movie, (and by the way it also deals with existential elements).
i donno if this is the answer you wanted but. i don't think anyone else could/would have made this movie. this film warrants all the praise it gets, first it was Kubrick first feature, that plus the low budget he worked with, also the film did not gain higher praise after Kubrick became famous, it was also highly acclaimed when it was released. there are several other reason i cant be bothered writing them down you can look them up if you really care.
now it defiantly gets viewed more because it was directed by Kubrick, instead of another less known director.
and just to comment on Asphalt Jungle i have never actually scene it but it was directed by john Huston, who is also a really well known director. he's basically the Hitchcock of noir/action films and he has a couple films in the top 100 on imdb so i kind of dont get your argument at all because by the same logic Asphalt Jungle should be popular because one of the most renowned noir film makers made it. so really your argument holds no water, do you just not like Kubrick and started this post as a rant? i mean Kubrick is arguably the greatest director it only makes sence that over half his films are gonna be on the top 250, his films all warrant the praise they get.
edit: one more point ill make. this film is just as lost now days as Asphalt Jungle while it has 20,000 veiws. lord of the rings has 340,000 and is twice as high on the top 250 list so if you wanna complain maybe take it to the lord of the rings forum.
Actually, my point was (and I think it holds water) that The Asphalt Jungle is just as good as The Killing, if not better, yet it only has 7000 votes compared to 20,000 for The Killing.
So the reason I posed the question is that it seems all too obvious to me that the Killing gets more viewings and praise because the director Kubrick went on to become super famous, whereas a film like Asphalt Jungle is less praised for some reason, and it is just as good if not better. I wanted to know if others felt the same way.
Also, just to correct you, "The Killing" was not Kubrick's first feature. He had done two features before that - "Fear and Desire" and "Killer's Kiss"!
oh ok i get your point i just would assume your answer would be blatantly obvious. its like saying "nude descending stairs" by Picasso is a more famous painting then "women with guitar" by Georges Braque only because Picasso was a more critically acclaimed artist and it is a better picture for that exact reason. so assuming we are looking at films on a technical artistic level, the killing is the better film because Kubrick directed it and because Kubrick went on to be the great director that he was. and because this film is an embodiment of all his work which together makes him one of the greatest directors. so to answer your question this is the better film because Kubrick directed, but that's only part of the overall reason and if someone else directed it and it was the only film they ever made it would not be considered as good.
on the other hand if you are comparing both films clearly on entertainment value you can make an argument that asphalt jungle is the better film, but really you cant compare cause there can be no consensus. what one person likes another person might not. once again its just like art. I don't like surrealist art and i don't enjoy Salvador Dali's art particularity but technically and critically as an artist the man was a genius so agree that his art is great, because it is.
and finally if you want to analyze films don't go by the votes on imdb because like i said earlier lord of the rings is considered on of the greatest films ever according to imdb voters, ask any real film critics and i doubt they would even have it near there top 100 greatest films ever.
" its like saying "nude descending stairs" by Picasso is a more famous painting then "women with guitar" by Georges Braque only because Picasso was a more critically acclaimed artist and it is a better picture for that exact reason. so assuming we are looking at films on a technical artistic level, the killing is the better film because Kubrick directed it and because Kubrick went on to be the great director that he was. and because this film is an embodiment of all his work which together makes him one of the greatest directors."
Sorry, but that reasoning is very flawed.
You are saying that because Kubrick went on to be super famous that makes his movie better? That is silly. For example, if a lesser known painter did a knock-out amazing painting and that one single painting is better than a similar Picasso painting, than no matter how famous Picasso is, the lesser known painter's painting would still be better. Your reasoning is flawed, it assumes that the more famous the artist the better all his work is. That's not necessarily so.
Also, on a technical artistic level, the two films are at least equal and you could argue that the performances in Asphalt Jungle were far better, but that's subjective.
However, I do agree with you on one thing. The imdb voting numbers don't mean that much.
Looks like u have some bias against Kubrick. I do agree completely with earlier post that because Kubrick made it "deserves" more praise ...the point I was making was that it IS "worthy" of all that praise!!
To correct u "Fear & Desire" & Killers Kiss was not a full length feature & also not funded by any production house. So this is the FIRST Kubrick film which is full length & this first for all the practical reason. (BTW Kubrick himself de-circulated "Fear & Desire"). Now you cant ignore the fact that someone directing his first movie & that two at such a young age ; if gives such a stellar output ..its worthy to call a masterpiece. ??
I mean if a 7 year old child is to play a piano , then doesn't it deserve to be called a genius ? even if it is " just good" and not directly comparable to other work of geniuses at their prime? The child here is of course "Beethovan" and if you were to say that his 7 year old performance pales in comparison to best performance of Mozart (who by the way called him child prodigy) then that's really unfair...? The same logic is true for Kubrick , this film as well ...its a work of an art by a genius ....& thus this movie does deserve all it has got...
and yes we can all agree that imdb votes are *beep* look at rating of "2001"...it should be much higher..!!
I have nothing against Kubrick at all, I like his films. My point was the comparison that Asphalt Jungle is far under-appreciated, especially since it is at least the equal of this film, if not better. It receives more praise than the Asphalt Jungle because Kubrick is more well known.
By the way, you are flat-out wrong about this being Kubrick's "first feature".
I will correct you. "Fear and Desire" (72 minutes) and "Killer's Kiss" (67 mintues) are most definitely considered feature films, even if the running times are slightly shorter than usual.
The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, the American Film Institute, and the British Film Institute all define a feature as a film with a running time of 40 minutes or longer.
Even though most features are usually from 80 to 120 minutes, Kubrick's first two features certainly qualify as feature movies. And what nonsense are you talking about? You think that because Kubrick decirculated "Fear and Desire" that for some reason that means it never happened and doesn't qualify as a feature? Ha ha. Very funny.
"The Killing" was Kubrick's 3rd feature film.
you are certainly dead wrong ..and also have little knowledge about facts and far so much little respect for a genius !! check official biography of Kubrick
"Like Fear and Desire, Killer's Kiss is a short feature film, with a running time of slightly more than an hour. It met with limited commercial and critical success. Both Fear and Desire and Killer's Kiss were privately funded by Kubrick's family and friends.[14][15]
The Killing was Kubrick's first full-length feature film, shot with a professional cast and crew. "
Sources--
# ^ Stanley Kubrick:Interviews - Page 190
# ^ Major Film Directors of the American and British Cinema - Page 127 ISBN 9780934223591]
Apart from this it is mentioned many times in his biography & other sources as well that his first two features were experimental and unlike anything Kubrick wanted to work like movies based on novels , specific aspect ratios etc.
And the reason for asking to not analyzing "Fear & Desire" was because , when director himself wants to de-circulate then it should not be analyzed as the director doesn't himself treat it as his finished product. whats the funny about it? and whats wrong in a director asking the people not to review a certain peice of his art because he himself treat it as incomplete? An artist must have that right & ownership and so should be respected .
Unfortunately, once a film is made, whether the director wants to dismiss it or not is irrelevant. It exists and can be discussed. If every filmmaker wanted to dismiss a movie that didn't come out as he/she had planned, very few films would exist. So your point is silly and ludicrous.
Further, whether the first two features Kubrick did are "Short features" or "long features" is irrelevant. They are feature films. That makes "The Killing" Kubrick's THIRD feature. It's pretty simple. Those are the facts.
He did however do several short films like "Day of the Fight", "Flying Padre" and "The Seafarers". Those are short films, obviously.
The feature films start with "Fear and Desire" in 1953.
Interesting discussion. Every time I think of this type of film, I think of The Killing and the Asphalt Jungle in the same bubble of thoughts. With that said, I don't especially like to think of The Killing as a Kubrick film, but rather a great crime genre film, that certainly deserves attention and an audience. The IMDB top 250 is a silly list any how. Many classics are overlooked because many of the voters don't like Black and White films, and refuse to watch anything older than Star Wars. Their loss.
shareChances are it wouldn't be so great if some other director did it, but if it was the exactly same films, it would've just raised someone else in the cream of hollywood.
shareIt is great, so deal with it. Kubrick made this film, this film is amazing, most of his other films are just as good if not better. Just accept that Kubrick is a god and that The Killing is a holy work and you'll be better off. Or don't, and go back to Transformers and Avatar.
shareI feel like you asked this question already knowing the answer.
But to keep on point. It's not about which film is better, but rather which director are people more familiar with.
For the most part people today know more about Kubrick's work rather than Huston's. This isn't to say Kubrick has had a bigger impact on cinema. It's just a fact that people tend to like what they know, and what they know is usually whatever is most recent.
If this film wasn't made by Kubrick it would most likely get the same amount of attention as "The Asphalt Jungle". Probably less. But it's no different than any other artist having their old art being praised as great because of what the artist has become.
And since I assume you know more about movies than the average IMDB user, you should know better than to equate the worth/quality of a film based on it's IMDB rating. Especially older films. Even if you are just trying to make a point.
The ranking of a film in IMDB and relative quality of two movies are two different things.
"Weird, huh?"
Then you add this. It's not weird at all. It's to be expected. People vote on what they know. More people today know Kubrick than they do Huston.
Just like another user said. It sounds like you have something against the popularity of Kubrick. If not that, you want to educate people about another great film (Which The Asphalt Jungle is) but you come across as a little bitter towards Kubrick.
"the famous Kubrick"
When you use wording like this it sounds like a backhanded compliment to Kubrick. If Kubrick is as famous as you think, you didn't need to add "the famous". We all know him. It sounds like a petty dig at him.
I'm not trying to twist your words or be a jerk about it. I'm just telling you how your wording and question come off. I understand your basic argument "Should the work of a more popular artist be given more praised just because more people know it?" Or something to that effect. But the way you ask the question comes off as a little bitter.
Getting passed all the wording, it's a valid question.
Another question would be if Huston's name wasn't attached to "The Asphalt Jungle" would many critics and those who have seen it still consider it as seminal? Maybe, but part of it's appeal is that Huston did direct it. It's still a great film no matter who directed it.
The Asphalt Jungle was amazingly similar to this film except the for being inferior--especially the ending. The Killing is a gym and I would have loved this film no matter who made it.
shareI'm a little late to this party, but, what the heck? I'm trying to decide which Kubrick film to watch, this one, or "Paths of Glory", and figured I'd stop in online and read things. I've seen them all numerous times.
In answer to the OP, I think it's a valid question, as the films are comparable.
But for me, here's the deal: Huston is largely forgotten by modern audiences.
Kubrick? Not yet. Another interesting difference would be this: Hustons seminal works are largely based on his writing, particularly dialog writing. Kubricks forte was disturbing imagery, even in non disturbing concepts. That is not to say Kubrick couldn't write or Huston couldn't "frame". They were both excellent. They just had different strengths.
I would say one of Hustons more visual efforts would be "Reflections In A Golden Eye", a film that was too moody and possibly disturbing to the general public. Kubricks "The Killing" and "Lolita" were two of his more well written, but less technical (for him) films. And they generally lag behind when people speak of the seminal Kubrick works.
Different strengths. I like both films.