Random Mode Keyboard shortcut: Command/Ctrl + Shift + R
thumbnail

Stanley Kubrick Movies Quiz

In his career, Stanley Kubrick directed 13 movies. How many can you name?
Quiz by Quizmaster
Rate:
Last updated: June 28, 2019
You have not attempted this quiz yet.
First submittedMay 19, 2010
Times taken21,009
Average score46.2%
Rating4.37
4:00
Enter movie here:
0
 / 13 guessed
The quiz is paused. You have remaining.
Scoring
You scored / = %
This beats or equals % of test takers also scored 100%
The average score is
Your high score is
Your fastest time is
Keep scrolling down for answers and more stats ...
Year
Movie
1999
Eyes Wide Shut
1987
Full Metal Jacket
1980
The Shining
1975
Barry Lyndon
1971
A Clockwork Orange
1968
2001: A Space Odyssey
1964
Dr. Strangelove
Year
Movie
1962
Lolita
1960
Spartacus
1957
Paths of Glory
1956
The Killing
1955
Killer's Kiss
1953
Fear and Desire
+5
Level 82
Jun 30, 2013
Got 4 and gave up, realized that I knew 4 more that I hadn't guessed. The first 4 he directed and Barry Lyndon I've never heard of before.
+2
Level 61
Mar 5, 2020
That's interesting; not the fact that you only got four, which is pretty typical, but which ones you know. Of the earliest six, you had heard of Lolita and Spartacus, but not Paths of Glory. That's interesting, because I would have thought that that one would be the most famous of all the ones on the right. Barry Lyndon is, I suppose, not one of the most famous Kubrick movies to the average person, but it is definitely one of the greatest, especially with its cinematography.
+1
Level 82
Jul 11, 2021
Though Lolita and Spartacus are less-guessed than Lyndon (which feels odd to me, both seems pretty famous and culturally significant, but maybe because Lyndon is more recent), it seems like I'm not alone in being unfamiliar with the first 4, going by the answer percentages.
+4
Level 33
Jun 30, 2013
I got 8 and forgot The Shining? Are you kidding me? :)
+3
Level 61
Mar 5, 2020
Actually that does make some sense to me. The Shining seems to me sort of separate from all the rest. It seems to me that the connotation of The Shining for most people is "that scary horror movie" or "the one with 'Here's Johnny'" rather than "that Stanley Kubrick masterpiece". I think that the people who have heard of The Shining and the people who have heard of Stanley Kubrick do not always align.
+3
Level 77
Jun 30, 2013
Only 13 movies in 46 years? What a slacker.
+18
Level 90
Jun 30, 2013
Only six of which are amongst the 100 highest-rated movies of all time at IMDB. So not only is he a slacker, he had less than a 50% success rate at making an all-time classic. What a schlub.
+4
Level 89
Aug 10, 2018
I agree. Total chode.
+2
Level 67
Jul 1, 2013
I mean, he was fairly prolific until he finished The Shining. His first 11 movies were in a span of 27 years. That's like one every 30 months. Pretty standard. It's just the last two that make it look so drawn out. And judging by Eyes Wide Shut, he probably should have just stayed retired.
+1
Level 27
Jul 1, 2013
Not his best movie, but still interesting IMO. More than just one of them have great moments but also very weak elements.
+1
Level 82
Jul 9, 2013
I agree with jmellor.
+1
Level 22
Apr 23, 2014
In hindsight, all of those delays were worth the wait. And many of those delays were partially caused by his perfectionism, his numerous failed attempts to get both films Napoleon and The Aryan Papers and other projects that never materialized due to too many numerous reasons (including fights with the various book authors and internal battles with studio heads). Also, Kubrick's final marriage German actress Christiane Harlan (m: 1959 until his death) and the subsequent birth of their children played a big roll in his becoming a family man, after his prior marriages failed.
+1
Level 60
Jan 20, 2021
I think Eyes Wide Shut is great. Definitely not among his best films but still great; imo 8/10. Anything Kubrick made is still way better than most people's best films.
+2
Level 30
Apr 27, 2014
I just love every movie he made. It doesn't matter to me whether he was prolific or not. He contributed a lot to art and that should be enough. He directed thirteen wonderful feature films and three documentary shorts (that we know of), in addition to creating the concept to A.I. - that's a little more than billions of people do in their entire lives, isn't it? Furthermore, although Buñuel, Fellini, Godard, Bergman and Herzog, among some others, could be compared to him, Kubrick had a single, unique style of his own (I'm just trying to emphasize!).

Anyway, all I'm saying is that he should be respected, even by those who can't enjoy his work.

+2
Level 82
Dec 31, 2018
Kubrick definitely did *not* invent the concept of artificial intelligence. Come on. Even discounting things like Frankenstein, the Golem myth, or various creation myths that have existed forever and even just looking at the concept of computer intelligence in popular fiction we've got 1956's Forbidden Planet, Asimov's "I, Robot" published in 1950, the 1920 Czech science fiction play Rossum's Universal Robots, Erewhon published in 1872, and Darwin Among the Machines in the 1860s among many, many others that predate 2001.

Dartmouth College opened a workshop to research AI in 1956. Alan Turing described the "Turing Test" in 1950.

+3
Level 85
Jun 30, 2019
Kubrick planned out the movie "A.I.", later directed by Spielberg. Not the concept of AI!
+1
Level 82
Jun 30, 2019
I'm pretty sure that Mila is referencing 2001: A Space Odyssey, a science fiction film from 1968 about artificial intelligence, not A.I. by Steven Spielberg. And Mila was suggesting that in 1968 the concept of artificial intelligence was something new, which it wasn't. But I could be wrong.
+4
Level 73
Jul 1, 2019
Clearly she means the movie A.I. which Kubrick worked on for some time. Which was later finished by Spielberg.
+1
Level 82
Jul 1, 2019
If it was clear it would be clear.
+5
Level 72
Jul 2, 2019
Seems pretty clear to me. You know it's okay to be wrong sometimes, Kal, don't you? ;)
+1
Level 82
Jul 16, 2019
Yes and more than anyone I know I readily admit it when I am and welcome people pointing it out. Again, if it was clear it would be clear, and this comment thread would not exist.
+4
Level 23
May 2, 2014
Why everyone forgets about Barry Lyndon, I'll never understand. It's easily his best film.
+1
Level 55
Sep 29, 2015
It's ARGUABLY his best film.

But then again, every film he made from The Killing forward is arguably his best film.

+1
Level 84
Dec 22, 2016
I guess I should check out his early work. I only missed one from the left column, but only got one from the right.
+1
Level 89
Aug 10, 2018
Paths of Glory barely remembered? What a shame, a truly great war movie.
+1
Level 70
Jun 30, 2019
Best director ever. He has done "only" 13 films, but all of them became the top in their genre. Paths of glory is the best war film, Space Odyssey best scifi, Eyes wide shut best drama, or something like that. :)
+1
Level 82
Jun 30, 2019
I like some of his movies but Eyes Wide Shut was crap, Space Odyssey is boring and far from the best science fiction film ever made; I've never seen Paths of Glory. I liked Full Metal Jacket but it was also far from the best war movie ever made. On the other hand, The Shining is pretty high up there on a list of top horror films.
+1
Level 78
Jun 30, 2019
Calling '2001' boring is boring :P
+2
Level 77
Jun 30, 2019
I think the only time I ever gave a film a one-star rating on IMDB was for 2001: A Space Odyssey. What a steaming pile of crap. I didn't just dislike it, I was angered and insulted by it. I know I'm in the minority here but I will say it...the emperor has no clothes!
+2
Level 69
Jun 30, 2019
calling 2001 boring seems legit. now 2000 was exciting with your Y2K, and all.
+1
Level 82
Jun 30, 2019
camus: because it's such a commonly cited criticism due to the fact that it's true? I apologize for my lack of originality.
+1
Level 78
Jun 30, 2019
@kalbahamut: Yeah, it's getting lame if the common criticism towards the movie consists of just one word, which is of course not a fact since "boring" describes a subjective experience. I once read a slam of "2001" by Pauline Kael, who at least provided interesting arguments that (almost) convinced me. What I wrote wasn't in ill will against you though.
+1
Level 82
Jul 1, 2019
All film criticism is arguably subjective, but if a film bores a large number of people it is boring- something that causes boredom.
+2
Level 78
Jul 2, 2019
If we go by popular verdict, Transformers: Dark of the Moon is entertaining and Twilight is touching.
+1
Level 82
Jul 16, 2019
If the vast and overwhelming majority of people are entertained by a film it's appropriate to call it entertaining. Pretty conceited to imply we shouldn't. Though I'm also sure that the percentage of people touched by Twilight is far smaller than the percentage of people bored by 2001, whether your sample size includes average audience members or even just premiere film critics.
+1
Level 78
Apr 16, 2020
The word truth evokes something objective and universal; it's as if those people who enjoyed 2001 are wrong. But in the way you phrased it, if "boring" implies "many people find it boring"... yeah, then you're right. @eric29: I'll try my best to describe the emperor's clothes. The best way to start is to tell the story, because many people who hate "2001" don't even see that there is a story. So: back when our ancestors were ape-like and at the brink of extinction, a giant monolith appeared and inspired them to use tools. Flash forward a few million years, modern mankind has found a similar monolith on the moon. It is perfectly shaped and its origin can't be explained. The monolith points to Jupiter, so a space team travels there. The HAL sequence is understandable without further explanations. The last astronaut reaches Jupiter, finds another monolith, and is transported into an unknown place. The monoliths were planted by some powerful entity (aliens? God? whatever).
+1
Level 78
Apr 16, 2020
(continued) The same entity provides the astronaut with a richly furnished room that evokes human civilization. The astronaut ages and is somehow reborn, probably symbolically for all mankind. (END OF PLOT). In case you've read Nietzsche, it is pretty clear that Kubrick ransacks his philosophy for the movie.

As mankind, we were once like monkeys, but we learned to use tools and make evolutionary progress. But we still have a long way to go, and have to make the next step; we have to become super-humans (the whole Übermensch thing). To the powerful entity that placed the monoliths, we probably look as primitive as monkeys. That's why the astrounaut (and the viewer) has a hard time understanding the last scenes. "Thus spoke Zarathustra" is played at the beginning and the end of the movie. The music's title directly refers to Nietzsche's book about the Übermensch. Many people think that the movie means nothing, hence the "emperor without clothes" remark. But all of what I described...

+1
Level 78
Apr 16, 2020
... is very evident in the movie and becomes more clear if you read the original book, and Nietzsche's books. I don't think that this is very deep philosophically, but it's definitely there. But here are some reasons why I think that "2001" is a great movie nonetheless. 1) Some of the most awe-inspiring imagery in movie history. 2) We go from a bone thrown in the air to a space ship that floats through the air. Millions of years of human technological progress skipped in one cut! 3) Who in the world would think to link space ships to classical music? And yet it works. The space ships elegantly float, as if dancing a waltz, to the tune of "The Blue Danube". 4) The monolith is a symbol for never-ending progress. It is present in every stage of mankind. It is opaque. It can't be fully unerstood. It is intimadating and awe-inspiring. It always makes us go forward, but we can never really reach and fully grasp it. 5) The HAL 9000 sequence is a slow-burning mini-thriller.
+1
Level 78
Apr 16, 2020
The sense of being trapped with this super computer that controls everything in a space ship that doesn't seem to have a private corner, a dark spot, is truly frightening. Although admittedly, other movies have explored AI better than this one. 6) Kubrick knew that in space, no one can hear you scream. 7) Consider that this movie was made in 1968. The special effects are unheard of for that time and still don't look shabby. The design is more reminiscent of modern technology than what you would see in just about any SF movie for a long time. 8) When people talk about entertaining movies, they often compare them with roller coaster rides. Fair enough, "2001" is anything but that. It's more like a solitary walk in the mountains, a gaze from a cliff down a waterfall while lost in thoughts, perhaps a stroll through a large cathedral or a museum, or listening to long Pink Floyd songs. In fact, Pink Floyd's "Echoes" is noted to fit the last 23 minutes of "2001" well.
+1
Level 78
Apr 16, 2020
I have my gripes with the movie. Among them is the emptiness of its main characters, save the computer. This was intended, but I still see it as a flaw. Some human quirks would have worked well against the contrast of cosmological amazement. John Carpenter made his movie "Dark Star" (1974) as an answer to Kubrick, for exactly the same reason. But it's still a beautiful movie full of innovation and interesting cinematic ideas. And to make a little return to kalbahamut, I'll set up extremely crude equivalences. Transformers = Justin Bieber (popular, and therefore entertaining in a sense, but crap). Terminator 2 = Michael Jackson (popular and great, certainly entertaining). 2001: A Space Odyssey = Nine Inch Nails (what shall we make of those? found to be boring by many, but recognized by a certain audience...)
+3
Level 53
Aug 15, 2019
In this context, stating that some of Kubrick's films are the "best" in their particular genre is neither helpful nor accurate (albeit because determining the best or your favourite is entirely subjective). 2001, for example, is one of the most groundbreaking films ever made but it is boring for long stretches and is utterly unfathomable unless you've read the book.

I think Kubrick is one of the most influential filmmakers of all time but that isn't saying he made the most entertaining films. The Killing and Strangelove excepted of course. But he did make some of the most thoroughly researched and impeccably produced films in the history of the medium. That's beyond argument.

+1
Level 68
Sep 13, 2023
You should probably update this. jk