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?
If another director had made this film in exactly the same way, it would be as good. But you're right: The film has as many votes because posters, including me, are attracted by the name of the director.
Away with the manners of withered virginsshare
If you believe that directors can make a film better in various ways, then it should be easy enough to accept that this movie got better/tighter/more dramatic because of Kubrick.
share
absolutely. The Killing is only considered great because Kubrick directed it, and its greatness is artificially inflated above the true greatness of The Asphalt Jungle, which was directed by some no-name loser associated with such unloved movies as Treasure of the Sierra Madre and The Maltese Falcon
2014 Screenings: http://www.imdb.com/list/ls054830628/
freakyfelix's argument doesn't make much sense. John Huston wasn't by any means an obscure director. The Maltese Falcon and The Treasure of the Sierra Madre both have more votes on this site than The Killing.
shareIt stinks, no mater who made it. Thee's some good acting buy great actors, but the movie is very dull.
shareAgree with the Asphalt Jungle, definitely should be top 250, viewers here are far too young, putting Force Awakens midway in the top 250, that's complete garbage even for a Star Wars film, which seemed more designed to put dumb characters on soup cans than anything to do with good science fiction -- mano a mano swordfights, rather than a pulse pistol? c'mon
My only regret in life is that I'm not someone else - Woody Allen
This would be considered a great movie even if my great aunt Tex Ann had made it.
share