TRON (1982)

A young Jeff Bridges, some of the first CG used in cinema, and the inner world of a computer combine to form the 1982 film Tron. I'm not sure how many great science fiction films Disney has been apart of, none come to mind, but Tron is certainly one of them. Although overall I don't think Tron is an Oscar winning piece of pure gold, or something that should be drooled over by the populous, but I do think it is a fun, innovative ride that takes you to places you haven't been: inside a computer.

Story
The film begins with a gifted software engineer, Flynn (Bridges), who is running a local arcade. He gets a visit from his friends Alan & Laura who tell him that his former employer, and their current boss, is shutting down certain parts of the company. The three decide to go back to the company and try and get Flynn into the mainframe. Flynn suggests that their their boss, Dillinger, stole his ideas for some of the most popular arcade games that are now making millions. He wants to try and prove that Dillinger, who is now promoted to President of the company, stole his ideas, thus getting credit for these popular games. The three of them make it inside and Flynn tries to hack into the company's super computer, the MCP (Master Control Program), to try and find the files he needs to prove Dillinger stole his ideas. As Flynn attempts to break in to the system, MCP controls an experimental laser and digitizes Flynn, which brings him into the computers mainframe.

Flynn finds himself standing in a digital world inside the computer. He is taken to a holding pit where he meets two programs, RAM & Tron. The three of them break out of the holding cell and escape. Their goal is to bring down the MCP and make the system free again for any programs and users to use. After escaping tanks, light cycles, and guards, they are finally able to reach the heart of the MCP. After battling a giant Dillinger, they defeat the MCP and make the system free again. Afterwards Flynn escapes the digital world and gets his proof that Dillinger did in face steal his ideas. The film ends with Flynn becoming the President of the company.

The greatest attribute the story has is that for the first time in cinema history, we are taken into the inner workings of a computer. It is the first imagining of what it would be like to be inside that world and what goes on in there. This is easily the best part of Tron. The other interesting part of Tron is the idea of a free system and battling the establishment, and other parts are not so interesting. I can't say from a filmmaking/sci-fi perspective that I enjoy the programs being tiny people in my computer racing each other and battling one another. It has it's pros and cons, but he pros outweigh the latter.

Direction
The film was written & directed by the relatively unknown Steven Lisberger. He was inspired after he saw the video game Pong in the 70's. He had the idea of what would happen to someone if they got trapped inside a computer and what it would be like to be in that realm. He brought the movie to nearly every studio in Hollywood and was turned down by everyone, until he brought the idea to Disney. Disney at the time was interested in more daring and interesting projects and gave the film a budget of $10 million.

Although I am not blown away by Lisberger's direction on acting or story necessarily, what I am impressed with is what he wanted to do with the film. He wanted to bring you into a world that you have never seen and wanted to use different techniques to differentiate it from reality. For example they filmed all the computer world scenes in black & white, and colorized them later using a photo technic called "back-lit animation." Also the computer animation in the film, which is only 15 minutes total, is a milestone in the computer animation industry. It was the first film to use computer animation extensively. In the end Lisberger garners my respect for having vision, and taking the film in directions never before seen in film.

Acting
After I watched the film, the one thing that never made me once think, "Oh that was great" or "Wow, how well crafted," was the acting. It's not that it's anywhere near bad, it's just nothing spectacular or different. Jeff Bridges is entertaining, and the others are the same, but nothing pops out at me. But then I realized that I had just finished watching a Disney film and there you go. I also don't believe Lisberger's focus was on acting, or acting that is beyond and above the norm. Although not bad, not great acting in the end.


Is Tron a classic? Yes. It is a milestone for two big reasons in science fiction and in film. It is the first film to use CGI extensively, and also the first film to take you inside a computer. Although you may not have Oscar winning performances, or spectacular dialogue, you have a entertaining ride throughout that takes you to places you've never seen before. To me, for those reasons, it is still a classic today.

Back to the Future (1985)

Time-travel, adventure, comedy, love, and science fiction all wrapped into one well crafted, well paced film that can be enjoyable for anyone at any age. After watching the film last night, I really fell in love with it for the first time. I wasn't raised on it like many of my peers, but after 25 years, the film still holds up as a great ride for nearly anyone who watches it.

My favorite aspect of the film is that it is such an optimistic view of time-travel. I feel that every other story involving the subject always has a negative spin on it, such as H.G. Wells "The Time Machine," but Back to the Future actually has a optimistic view on the idea of time-travel. Not only will everything not be worse when you come back to your own time, but everything might be improved and better off because of actions you took to change the time-line. Along with Robert Zemickis' nearly seamless directing, you have special effects that still hold up, and a story that you can completely buy into as a believable concept. As Adam Smith of Empire Magazine said, "if you don't like Back To The Future, it's difficult to believe that you like films at all. "

Story
The film follows Marty McFly and his friend/mentor Doc Brown. Marty is called to a parking lot where Doc says he has a breakthrough with his latest work. McFly films the entire event as he witnesses a DeLorean, with added features such as the flux capacitor, jump through time. Soon after the successful experiment, a group of Libyan terrorist come racing through the parking lot and murder Doc. Marty jumps in the car and goes back to 1955. There he meets his Father & Mother. But he accidentally messes up their chance encounter when he gets hit by his Grandfathers car, instead of his Father. Now his Mother is falling in love with him, instead of his Father, and he has to play matchmaker so his future and his siblings future stays intact. Marty ends up getting his parents to fall in love, which sets the time-line back in place....almost. Instead of him completely messing up the future, he actually makes it better. He makes his Father a stronger person who stands up for himself, and his Mother isn't such a prune on his return to his own time.

Since H.G. Wells classic, "The Time Machine," first hit book shelves in 1895, people have remained fascinated by the concept of time-travel, a term that Wells coined himself. Robert Zemeckis & Bob Gale (also the producer), wrote the script for Back to the Future many years before it was picked up. It seemed no one wanted the story, and even Disney turned it down for being too "raunchy." It went through many carnations before it reached a greenlight at Universal Studios. One of those early drafts, that would make the movie completely different, had the time machine as a giant laser, then a refrigerator, and then finally they chose the DeLorean.

The story is the strongest part of the film. Somehow Zemeckis & Gale bring you into a situation and make you believe what is happening. This is the golden key to any great science fiction film. If your audience believes or can somewhat believe what is happening in the story line, then your in. As I stated above, the true acheivement of the film is it's optimistic view of time-travel. Which is drastically different from any other time-travel story I've come across. Zemeckis & Gale are somehow able to melt many genres into a melting pot of film deliciousness. It has comedic elements, romance, sci-fi, action, and adventure. And not only does it not feel too packed or haywire, it works from beginning to end. Another film that is a classic for a reason, its f#$%ing great!

Directing
Robert Zemeckis directed a couple mild hits before this, Used Cars & Romancing the Stone. He also wrote the script for the Spielberg directed 1941, but what really pushed his name into the stratosphere was this film. In 1985 it was the most successful movie at the box office, and had nearly all positive reviews. After this he was able to do whatever he wanted, which included Who Framed Roger Rabbit & his Oscar winning directing for Forrest Gump.

His charm, wit, and just plain old good directing is all over this film. Although I wouldn't say that Zemeckis has a strong visual style for all of his films, they are usually great. He like all great directors knows what to show the audience, when they need to see it, and why the need to see. This all pays off for the ending emotional effect, which he knows how to get from his audience. He, like James Cameron, is always a front runner for advancing special effects. This film's SFX still hold up, 25 years later. That is the sign of a true visionary in this realm. Although I think that Zemeckis' work now is drifting from his earlier work (his last two films were A Christmas Carol & Polar Express), he still advances technology in filmmaking to places very few are willing to go.

Acting
The cast of the film truly surprised me this latest viewing, I found them believable, phenomenal, and all perfectly casted. Originally actor Eric Stoltz was cast in the role, after Michael J. Fox had to turn it down due to his television show Family Ties. The production went ahead with Stoltz, and after four weeks of filming, Spielberg (executive producer) and Zemeckis thought Stoltz was playing the character too seriously for a comedy, and was let go. Fox was asked again and accepted the role, thankfully. Michael J. Fox is able to pull off a certain earnestness to Marty McFly. The others of the cast are all perfect, especially the zany and haywire, Christopher Lloyd. He keeps the character grounded, where I can see many other actors going off the wall and being outrageous with it. I think the most surprising performance to me was Crispin Glover. At one end he plays a bumbling George McFly to a confident McFly, which wouldn't seem to easy if someone else had done the role.


I still find Adam Smith's quote the best to sum up the film, "if you don't like Back To The Future, it's difficult to believe that you like films at all. " It can be enjoyable for kids, adults, and everyone in between. It is a film that sits nearly alone for those reasons, because it is easily accessible, seamless, and beyond enjoyable, all wrapped in one.

Fritz Lang's Metropolis (1927)

In it's time Metropolis was considered a masterpiece, and it still remains one today. German director Fritz Lang created the first great science fiction film that has influenced countless sci-fi films, including Star Wars & Blade Runner. In 1927 it was ahead of its time, for production, story, and cost. The film cost nearly 5,000,000 franks, which for inflation makes it about a $200 million dollar movie today, and took nearly two years to shoot. It has many great trivia facts about it such as they hired nearly 37,000 extras, robot Maria's look in the film inspired the look for C3Po, and supposedly Adolf Hitler loved the film which would later make Fritz Lang despise it.

I was lucky enough to see the film on the big screen Tuesday night. The Complete Metropolis is currently playing at Chicago's own Music Box Theater. I urge you to not miss this chance to see the complete version of the film on the big screen. This is the first time the film has played as a complete version in nearly 80 years. The original film was re-cut and re-edited to make it shorter for American and European audiences, so director Fritz Lang's original vision was thought to be lost. That was until 2008, a complete copy was found in Buenos Aires, at the University of Chile's film library. Now the film is complete once again in all it's original glory. This 153 minute version of the film only deepens the reasoning for Metropolis remaining a classic. If you are unfamiliar with the film, I thought a trailer would be helpful to get an idea of the scope and charm of the film:

Story

Fritz Lang and his wife, at the time, Thea Von Harbou developed the screenplay, then released a novelization to coincide with the films release. The plot of Metropolis takes place in a future city where humans are split into two groups: thinkers & workers. The thinkers are the wealthy people who live in the above ground metropolis, which is ruled by Joh Frederson. Joh's son, Freder, goes down below to the sub-city, where all the workers work on the machinery of the metropolis. He gets a wake up call about what is happening in the worker city when an explosion injures several workers. After seeing a beautiful woman, Maria, giving a speech to the workers, coupled with the injury of the workers, Freder switches lives with a worker. He "wants to live with his brothers," in the underground city.

At the same time, Joh Frederson goes to his old rival, the mad scientist; Rotwang. The two loath one another since they both loved the same woman, Frederson's wife Hel, who died giving birth to Freder. Rotwang shows Frederson the machine-man (robot) he intends to make look like Hel, and marry her. Rotwang captures the woman who has Freder's attention, Maria, and uses her image to transport it onto the machine-man.

After the transformation is complete, Rotwang has his new machine-man Maria, play both sides of the city. He has the Maria look-a-like to go to the worker city and convince them to rebel, and also has it give an erotic dance to the upper class that makes them grow homicidal over sexual jealously for her. With this act Rotwang tries to destroy the city from the top and the bottom. After the workers have destroyed the lower city, they realize what they have done and decide to burn "the witch" (Maria) for her trickery. They tie her up and burn her, but while she burns she reverts back to her robot body and they see that they truly were tricked by something or someone. Meanwhile Freder battles Rotwang over the real Maria (who he mistakes for his robot), and Rotwang ends up falling to his death. In the end Freder unites his father with the chief foreman of the lower city, and ends the brutality of the metropolis.

The story is large in scope, and in meaning. A quote that continually pops up in the film is, "The mediator between the head and hands must be the heart!" This idea, I believe, is still relevant today. I think of it more in a corporate way, the heads don't know the hands who run their business, much like Metropolis, and perhaps a mediator of the heart is needed. I think the best parts of Metropolis are it's statements on class, and the working class. There is one great sequence where Freder is working on a machine and soon the circular machine, pictured left, becomes a clock and he becomes the slave to that clock. Brilliant. The best parts of the class statements are how the rich/powerful make the "hands" work for nearly nothing and suppress them, what occurs when you do this to human beings? They revolt. I think that is still relevant, since America seems to have a growing bubble between the rich and poor. And if your film/story still has resonance after 83 years, I think that is the definition of classic.

Directing
Fritz Lang was a German filmmaker who worked in the German film industry until leaving in 1933. He was supposedly called into a meeting with prominent Nazi member, Josef Goebbels, who offered him the job of production supervisor at his studio. Lang said he would think about it, then left the country within a week of that meeting. He left his wife, writer of Metropolis, behind since she had recently joined the Nazi party. He fled to the United States and worked within the Hollywood system. Although Lang is most well known for his two classics while in Germany, Metropolis and M.

Besides the story of Metropolis, I think the scope of the directing and the imagination within the frame is astounding. Lang is able to take on a film that had never been attempted before, and churned out a classic. With the use of miniatures, simple effects shots using mostly mirrors, and a realistic robot, he creates the first major science fiction film. Although I think that storytelling in filmmaking has only gotten better with new techniques and tighter scripts, I think that Lang's Metropolis is the finest silent movie I have ever seen. With not much dialogue and relying on the use of images and facial reactions, Lang takes you above and beyond his world. He shows you the struggle of the worker, the fear of the people, and the scale of a great Metropolis, with nearly no dialogue.

Acting
I can't say I've ever reviewed or discussed silent era acting, but for the time it seems to be in the same vein as other films of the time, but a step above. Although at points the movements of the actors are violent and over the top, at other times they barely move their bodies or face and you know what they are feeling. I think the film is above standards for the time.

My favorite performance in the film is the mad scientist Rotwang. Somehow I understand his pain and his plot for revenge against the all powerful Joh Frederson. Since Frederson stole his woman, only because he was more powerful, Rotwang has a distaste for him that is understandable. The best thing about Rotwang is that his look, acting, demeanor influenced mad scientists for the rest of film history. He wears a black glove on his right hand which has been homaged in several films since then. His wacky hair and jacket seems to be mirrored by Christopher Lloyd in Back to the Future. True or not, Rotwang is still the most enjoyable performance in the film for me.


Seeing this complete version of the film was great experience and I encourage others to see it on the big screen with the original orchestral score. Like the trailer says, before The Matrix, Blade Runner, Star Wars, and 2001, there was Metropolis. You can see it's resonance throughout all science fiction films afterward, and if you can influence a genre for over 80 years, that is the definition of a mainstay, a true classic.

Star Wars: Return of the Jedi (1983)

Why out of all the Star Wars films, why Return of the Jedi? Honestly I have always thought of Jedi as my #3 out of the original trilogy. I rarely hear people say that it is their favorite, unless they haven't watched it since they were kids. The top dogs in my own polling, over my lifetime, have been Empire Strikes Back then A New Hope. With this blog I didn't want to watch & review films I know inside and out, and the other two Star Wars films I know inside and out. I wanted to give Jedi another shot to see if I would like it more or agree with my former list.

Return of the Jedi has great moments of adventure, love, and that classic good vs. evil. The part that still holds me back from fully loving it are the cute & cuddly Ewoks. I love the movie up until they arrive on screen. I feel their teddy bear look takes away from the dire scope of the universe falling into the wrong hands. Some say they bring comic relief, but since you already have C3P0 and R2D2, you don't need more because it begins to cloud the story. In the end I still find that the film is a great ride with love-able characters, with a story that ends on an up beat note.

Story
This is the 3rd and final chapter of the original trilogy. It begins with our heroes rescuing their comrade Han Solo from Jabba the Hut's palace with great success. This sequence shows off the new Luke Skywalker and a more centered character overall. The rebellion decides that they need to destroy the rest of the Death Star once and for all. While Luke takes on the task of trying to bring his father, Darth Vader, to the light side of the force. The story seems to splinter after you have all your favorites together. Luke goes on to battle his father, Han & Leia are on Endor trying to take down a shield generator, and Lando Calrissian and the rest of the rebel fleet are caught up in a space battle with the Empire.

In the end you have an attempted rising action that doesn't rise that well for me. The best part of the film and the most dramatic is Luke taking on the Emperor and finally fighting Darth Vader. With John Williams emotional score, you can't help but feel something. As for the others, I just didn't feel the high stakes game they were playing. If Han & Leia can't get these shield generators down, then Lando and the rebels won't be able to defeat the Empire in space, but I don't feel this urgency in the film with those two story lines. I also don't know if this is the 3rd film in a trilogy syndrome, where you don't have much, if any, rising action in the film since most of it was done in the previous two. I also feel the same way about Lord of the Rings: Return of the King, I just don't feel the full force of what is at stake, aka I am not as emotionally attached to the story. Either way, out of the three Star Wars film, Jedi has the weakest script structure which hurts it in the end.

Direction
I know many Star Wars fans are aware of this knowledge, but I am unsure if non-fans are, but George Lucas did not direct Empire or Jedi. Mr. Irvin Kersner directed Empire Strikes Back, and Mr. Richard Marquand directed Return of the Jedi. George Lucas originally offered the directing job of Jedi to David Lynch, but he turned it down the job to direct Dune. Richard Marquand is mysterious because in the Star Wars documentary, Empire of Dreams, Kersner gets a lot of screen time and is talked about in great detail by the cast, crew, & George Lucas. When the documentary reaches Jedi, Marquand is barely mentioned or shown. There seems to be a rift between Lucas & Marquand. Marquand is quoted as saying, "It is rather like trying to direct King Lear with Shakespeare in the next room!"

Someone had to be on set everyday making decisions on the minute details, and that was Richard Marquand, not George Lucas. The credit of the acting, composition of shots, that goes to him. I think Marquand's directing lays heavily in the acting. Maruqand himself said, ""I'm very interested in directing actors, many directors direct cameras." Although I don't think then it's better then Kersners touch, I do think he is certainly more of an actors director then Mr. Lucas. The characters seem more grown-up, more adult, even if there are teddy bears running around their waists. Overall I think Marquand does an overall exceptional job, with his fingerprint predominantly on the acting. I still remain curious about what decisions he was able to make while directing the final film in a blockbuster trilogy.

Acting
I don't think many people are putting Star Wars on to watch an actors film. It is a ride of story, effects, and story. In Empire and Jedi you get to see a better spectrum of emotion & acting from the actors. Mark Hamill is more adult, more "the one," in this film. The Jabba the Hut sequence proves that. Harrison Ford's role is a little smaller but still notable, although he thought Han Solo should have been killed in the beginning, he still puts forth a charming role. I think Carrie Fisher does her best in this film. She seems more like a woman and less of a princess in need. I think Marquand's hand in these three are where he really shines. As he said himself he is an actors director.

I think Return of the Jedi is a classic sci-fi film, and a great installment of the Star Wars saga. Although it may still be #3 on my original trilogy list, I would much rather take part in a Jedi viewing then any prequel, am I right or am I right?

Planet of the Apes (1968)

1968 was named one one of the best years in science fiction by the site io9.com. This was due to the release of some important works which included 2001: A Space Odyssey, Night of the Living Dead, the novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, and Planet of the Apes. Planet of the Apes is more remembered for Charlton Heston's famous lines, ape costumes, and a twist ending. But it really holds some science fiction gold within its frames. With a script that was first written by Twilight Zone's Mr. Rod Sterling, and the talents of director Frank Schaffner (who would go on to direct the war classic Patton), Planet of the Apes is still a classic film today.

Although the film may not be a masterpiece, it is a great film. The fact that Schaffner can bring you into a world that is overruled by apes, and make you feel the emotions of all characters, is the sign of a exceptional science fiction film. I don't find myself laughing at the costumes, as some people say, but I find them wonderfully refreshing. It is nice to see craftsmanship on film, as I've previously grumbled, instead of a world of computer generated images and soul less frames. The film has charm, socially important issues (then & now), and remains a classic.

Story

We'll never know what parts of the script were written by the gifted Rod Sterling and what was written by Michael Wilson, but the melting of the two can clearly be seen. The film is based off the book by Pierre Boule, that shares the same name, but strays a bit from the book. In the script the largest stroke of Sterling's you see is the ending of the film which remained in Wilson's draft. Although it is a departure from the book, I like the film ending much more because it brings the story full circle. Instead of Taylor finding these beings on a different world, our own Earth goes through a cycle and they become the superior beings of the planet. How this happens is due to mankind's nuclear war upon itself, which gave rise to the apes.

The finest parts of the film, and always the most prominent in my memory of sci-fi, are the social commentary sections. Which occurs mostly after Taylor is slave to the supreme ape society. It holds a mirror to ourselves and makes us look at our own prejudice, close mindedness, and inability to accept the science before us. In a lesser way it comments on animal rights, and with the humans as slaves, we are able to see what it would be like to be an animal. Overall I think the story is the finest, standout quality in the film's production.

Direction
I have to admit, besides this film, I am unfamiliar with Frank Schaffner's work, since I have never seen his other classic work; Patton. After doing some research on the director, I found out that he had an interesting career, and worked constantly. He worked as a TV counselor for John F. Kennedy during his presidency, he won an Oscar for Best Director for his work on Patton, and then was President of the Directors Guild of America from 1987-1989 up until his death. Schaffner has a striking visual style that grabs hold of you and brings you inward. It was refreshing to see a possibly awful ape sci-fi film, be well shot both emotionally & aesthetically. He may not be one of the legendary filmmakers we'll be hearing about through time, but his work on Planet of the Apes and Patton solidifies his talents as a great director.

Acting
Schaffner's was always known as an actors director. Early in his career he did a CBS teleplay of 12 Angry Men, which won him a directing Emmy. I always thought if you could direct 12 Angry Men in any form, your probably an actors director. Besides the story, I find the acting in Planet of the Apes to be exceptional. At times it may feel a little melodramatic, but Charlton Heston is always charming and engaging. I think what I enjoyed more though was the performances from the many primates. They never feel cheesy or unnatural and I do believe that they are human-like apes talking to Taylor like an animal. That takes some talent on both directing and acting.

In the end, it may not be in the top 10 of science fiction films, but it certainly deserves notoriety as a great film with still resonating messages.

Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

I'm starting to sound like my grandfather these days. In a world of computer generated images, special effects, and 3D, I find myself saying more and more, "they don't make em' like they used to." Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey is a perfect example of classic filmmaking, and what you can do with a vision, a message, and no CGI.

Kubrick has remained and will forever remain one of the most revered filmmakers in history. As a good friend of mine always quotes, "In cinema history there is before Kubrick & after Kubrick." As each year passes and my tastes become more refined, I am slowly realizing how more and more true this statement is. Kubrick is nothing but a true auteur. And with 2001 he sets out to make an epic science fiction movie and exceeds beyond the cosmos. I believe 2001: A Space Odyssey is his biggest achievement in his career. He directed, produced, co-wrote, and did the special effects for the film, so it is his baby.

Story: Kubrick developed the screenplay with famed sci-fi author Arthur C. Clarke simultaneously with Clarke's book. The story does not aim low in its scope and in it's message about space, evolution, and mankind's thought. Kubrick & Clarke bring the idea of how man's thought evolved and formed, which was helped by alien intelligence. The opening sequence (The Dawn of Man) is one of the finest scenes in cinema with zero dialogue and only action bringing the story forward. The greatest achievement about Kubrick & Clarke is that they don't hold back on what they want to say about the world and about evolution. I find that some people don't enjoy 2001, but I believe that is mostly due to how intellectually challenging it is. There are no explosions, no aliens battles, just grand ideas about humankind and our place in this universe. I can't say many filmmakers have the balls or intelligence to try and tackle such an important & widened scope of our world, species, & our universe.

Directing: When you watch a Kubrick film you know you are watching a unique corner of the film industry. With every film he wanted to further filmmaking and expand the minds of his viewers, and he accomplishes this with 2001 (which is named the #1 sci-fi film of all time by AFI). The film has many images from space looking down on planet earth, but the astounding part is that at the time the film was made we had no idea what Earth truly looked liked. Kubrick seems to have taken an educated guess at what the Earth appeared to be, and got pretty close to the real thing. The way Kubrick chooses to shoot space, spaceships, and traveling through space has influenced any science fiction film after this. Star Wars definitely takes a page out of 2001's book for spaceship design & general space shots. That's when you know when you have one of the greatest films in the genre, because it influenced and continues to influence the genre of science fiction.

Over forty years later, Kubricks 2001: A Space Odyssey still astounds audiences & filmmakers all over the world. It remains a timeless classic in sci-fi, and in film history. Without using CGI or even blue screen you have some of the most realistic, and revolutionary, special effects in film (which one Kubrick his only Oscar in his career). I think 2001: A Space Odyssey will forever remain a classic, will make audiences expand their minds, and will astound filmmakers for decades and centuries to come. It is without a doubt, a crowning achievement in filmmaking and one of the many peaks of Stanley Kubrick's phenomenal career.