I have enjoyed the film "2001" countless times, and decided to buy this book; what a waste of time. This book offers little other than very basic scene analyisis, and some general (and fairly weak) speculations about the film. I was also supprised that the author was mistaken about which characters were in what scenes, and seemed to think that both Frank and Dave are interchangble. A large portion of the book doesn't even pertain to 2001, and mostly served as an excuse for the author to promote his other books, which he shamlessly suggests you buy. Well I'm sorry I got this book and certainly won't be purchasing any of his other books. If you want a book about 2001, I suggest looking elsewhere; as I will be!

This analysis of 2001 is one of the most unique and enlightening I've read to date. It finally acknowledges Kubrick's brilliant use of sound and music which few other directors besides Godard and Scorsese have ever rivaled. It's utterly perplexing, however, that for all of Chion's insights he fails to even acknowledge Kubrick's manipulation of Ligeti's "Adventures" for the alien sounds in the 18th Century bedroom sequence (and the composer's successful legal action for this alteration.) His interpretation of "Eyes Wide Shut" is simply bizarre and neglects to regard the return of Ligeti's music and its insistent and concise use in the film. Regardless, Chion's book certainly expands on the formal understanding of what still remains the greatest film ever made.

Although this book saw print only once it still has some very useful information about the late director. Due to its publishing date it stops at A CLOCKWORK ORANGE but does cover that and his other earlier movies with reasonable detail. If you are interested inthe director it is worthwhile to get it.

This is a good example of a terrible trend--the dumbing down of arts books by authors and publishers eager to hop on the pop culture bandwagon and not put much effort into it. The book has zero insights, some truly bad writing, and a modest amount of information. As to the previous reviewer who found it "refreshing" that the author didn't know what one of the films was about--well, this is holding an author to a pretty low standard (Kubrick only made about 13 movies in his life!) And as to the reviewer's statement that this "can and should be read at one sitting" I would suggest that it would be impossible to read this tiny and insubstantial book at More than one sitting.

If you have never seen a Stanley Kubrick film or were unaware of his complete body of work then this book would be of some use. Unfortunately it is far too lightweight to satisfy any serious film enthusiast's needs. This is all the more regrettalble as Mr Duncan is clearly a fan of Kubrick's work. He makes many glaring mistakes and seems to have taken rumour as fact when writing his analysis. It is a shame that a book that seems to have been rushed out following the director's death could not have had more time spent on it and been more considered.

I've seen some bad reviews of this book, and author Paul Duncan's book on Hitchcock, which I find surprising. These books also 'feel' different to other reference books. Normally you have the biography from the director's point of view, then the unauthorised biography with all the dirt, then a 'making of' book, and a book all about the subtext of the movies. Paul Duncan has fused all the types of book together to give both rounded and contradictory pictures of Kubrick and Hitchcock. He has also written it in an enthusiastic 'white heat' style which I find exciting to read. These books can, and should, be read in one sitting. In the case of the Kubrick book, Duncan obviously loves the films but still has the guts to point out that A Clockwork Orange is overrated whilst Barry Lyndon is underrated. Also, he admits to not understanding The Shining - in a world full of ego-centric experts and know-alls, it's refreshing to read something with this level of informality. 'Refreshing' - that's a good word for these books. I am going to look out for more of these Pocket Essentials.

I have a theory: Kagan needed to write a thesis. He decided that Kubrick's work demonstrated the repetition of certain themes, and decided to "argue" accordingly. He wrote synopsis' of all Kubrick's films, then added a few pages to the end of each to justify his [Kagan's] "arguments".

And voila -- a thesis, a C-, and next year it's the PHD...

This is sophomore stuff. If you want critical insight read Nelson; if you want Bio, read Lobrutto; scandal, read Baxter; character, read Herr or Raphael; general information, read Cimet or Walker.

The main problem with this book is the overall sloppy job of writing. It is clear that the author failed to take notes during the films, for his descriptions are filled with incorrect statements about things as basic as the story and other errors. In his analysis of The Shining, for example, he spends a few pages recounting the plot. In doing so, however, he switches many of the events around and getting them out of order. Furthermore, he also has a habit of getting the names of characters mixed up, or getting the wrongs names altogether. If you're looking for a much better book on Kubrick, try Thomas Nelson's Kubrick: Inside a Film Artist's Maze.

Norman Kagan should get an "editing" credit rather than "author" credit. This book on the cinema of Stanley Kubrick is basically an accumulation of articles, interviews and reviews of his films and his life. Albeit some of it was interesting, the book is nothing I found original. At the end of each chapter, however, the author does take it upon himself to interpret the films in a manner in which he sees a destructive, non-sexual, non-emotional Kubrick. That of obsessive and homicidal. Attempting to make a "connection" in all the films which I believe is poorly attempted. I would move elsewhere to find word on Kubrick and his films.