True genius is always met with a combination of acclaim and criticism. Elements of the fringe, eager for the latest and greatest, pounce on the innovative. Meanwhile, critics used to the tried and true will fail to see what will become great with hindsight.

This is certainly true for the films of Stanley Kubrick. Kubrick always road the fence between profundity and profanity. As a result, his legacy will be with us for great while.

Kubrick had a talent for creating unparalleled moods in his work, a highly underrated talent. While most directors are struggling to tie together plotlines for our entertainment, Kubrick excelled at actually placing audiences in the setting. He could create a world so real that it was impossible to not get lost in it.

One example of his mastery of mood is “Full Metal Jacket.” During a period in which Vietnam films were flooding the market with their obvious morality and predictable storylines, Kubrick presented audiences with a stylized morality play which used Vietnam as its setting.

The film is not “about” Vietnam, it is about the dual nature of man, simultaneously capable of good and evil. Vietnam becomes the backdrop for something much larger.

It does not hold the conflict up as a singular event as did “Platoon” or “Hamburger Hill,” nor does it make it insignificant. “Full Metal Jacket” paints a landscape of the eternal struggle raging within man and uses the Vietnam war as its canvas.

Kubrick was out in front of the pack. He was so far out in front of the pack that critics failed to see early on the importance of his work.

Though widely considered to be a masterpiece today, “2001: A Space Odyssey” was panned by critics in 1968. Needless to say, they just didn’t get it. For them, the film was a meandering and meaningless excursion in a pop-culture genre unworthy of serious attention.

According to Todd McCarthy, chief film critic for Variety, “2001” received the kind of reviews that would normally make a director either want to kill himself or start looking for work in another field.

This worked out well for Kubrick in the end because the film became the favored flick among the intelligentsia and counter-culture.

“2001” soon ballooned in popularity as countless members of the drug culture began flocking to see this special effects opus in an altered state of conscience, believing it capable of opening wide the doors of perception.

They were not far wrong, and in the years to come, Kubrick would indeed change the way the world saw movies.

Among his more prophetic projects was “A Clockwork Orange” which followed the exploits of a group of murderous thugs in a near-future England.

It examines the nature of moral choices, stating clearly the debate in several key scenes: Which is more important, safety or freedom? Do we as a people want a society where terrible acts of violence are possible or would we prefer to be safe knowing that our fellow man is controlled from above?

It was a compelling theme played out well before the world was ready for it.

The film’s merit was the subject of much debate on both sides of the Atlantic. Kubrick himself pulled the film out of England shortly after its release due to a rash of violence in England closely modeled after scenes from the film.

In the years following its release, “A Clockwork Orange” has become a cult classic and to the present comparisons to gang violence are commonly made about this film.

Of course, Kubrick was one of the first directors to tackle the problem presented by “Lolita.” Though his version was suitable for mass audiences, Kubrick still managed to capture the pathos of the novel.

“Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb” was one of the earliest critiques of the madness of nuclear war. Shot from nearly half a dozen perspectives, three of which were played by Peter Sellers, it showed how insanely comedic our nuclear potential really was.

The one constant among Kubrick’s works is their need for repeat viewings. It is nearly impossible to grasp everything Kubrick throws at an audience in one take. His works are rich montages that work on many levels. It is virtually unheard of to see a Kubrick film and dismiss it outright.

Love them or hate them, you cannot write them off.