Question:
What the hell was all that about then???:confused:
The importance of (extra-marital) sexual might-have-beens within a marriage, or something like that, was what Stanley Kubrick said about it. I'm not sure if I would have realised this on my own!
The movie has a lot of fans, but I think unfortunately it's one of the great man's lesser works -- far too long, and with a lousy script which seems to consist of people repeating back what someone has just said to them, after a pause.
Originally posted by Philipio
What the hell was all that about then???:confused:
I said that after 2001 a space oddicy and (20 minutes) of a clockwork Orange. I have come to the conclusion that Stanley Kubrick was strange.
Not strange, he just doesn't give it to you straight, assuming the audience is prepared to think and discuss it afterwards.
Yup I thought about Eyes Wide Shut, discussed it with the missus, and thought it was poor.
Best thing that came from it was Nicole splitting from Tom after it and making a couple of decent films.
I know Kubrick had his devoted fans and he has made some fabulous films but just cos it had his name on it does not mean it had to be a classic. Oddly two guy in the office said they last 20 mins of a Clockwork Orange too.
Strange I dont know over-rated , oh yes.
I love Kubrick films but Eyes Wide Shut was such a let down :oh-hum:
...here's a <a href="http://www.mrcranky.com/movies/eyeswideshut.html">review</a>...
. . . :smokin: . . .
I taped it to watch over the weekend. The only reason I'm interested is that I've heard, since Tom and Nicole split up, that the cracks in their marriage were apparently evident throughout this film.
I know it's meant to be about a marriage falling apart, but some people have claimed that their chemistry just isn't there anymore, and the way they used to look at each other in their other films, unable to hide their real feelings, is gone.
I'm merely curious to see if I can see this.
I thought it was ok, but......why......... does everyone in..........said......film..... talk......so.........slowly?
Originally posted by Panavision
Not strange, he just doesn't give it to you straight, assuming the audience is prepared to think and discuss it afterwards.
I obviously don't like thinking then, I always found the films I mentioned arty, petentious, over rated, clap trap. I know that is not everybodies opinion.
I did like full metal jacket though. Don't know why, the story isn't that great really.
I agree Kubrick gets you talking!
Originally posted by Nibbler
I thought it was ok, but......why......... does everyone in..........said......film..... talk......so.........slowly?
Just like Lion-O in Thundercats!
Originally posted by Willow
I know it's meant to be about a marriage falling apart, but some people have claimed that their chemistry just isn't there anymore, and the way they used to look at each other in their other films, unable to hide their real feelings, is gone.
I liked the film, but it was hit-and-miss. You CAN see the cracks in their marriage in the film and that was one of the hits for me - it came across as a genuinely strained marriage onscreen, and that was a major plus.
I wanted to like the film. I really did. But I'm afraid I will always refer to the film as "Eyes Bored Shut" from now on.
As far as I can tell, the film was all about a steadicam operator following Tom Cruise around lots of streets and hallways for 3 hours. Sometimes he does his patented "grinning because he doesn't understand something". And Nicole Kidman speaks at a rate of three words per minute, to simulate the speech of a stoned person.
Was it a thriller about infiltrating an underground society? Was it about two annoying people having a marriage crisis? Was it a real-time documentary about how a man can get a costume from a costume shop in the middle of the night?
Only an over-rated dead filmmaker can say.
Originally posted by SqueakyG
I wanted to like the film. I really did. But I'm afraid I will always refer to the film as "Eyes Bored Shut" from now on.
As far as I can tell, the film was all about a steadicam operator following Tom Cruise around lots of streets and hallways for 3 hours. Sometimes he does his patented "grinning because he doesn't understand something". And Nicole Kidman speaks at a rate of three words per minute, to simulate the speech of a stoned person.
Was it a thriller about infiltrating an underground society? Was it about two annoying people having a marriage crisis? Was it a real-time documentary about how a man can get a costume from a costume shop in the middle of the night?
Only an over-rated dead filmmaker can say.
Ouch! I quite enjoyed it though it's not on a par with (for me) the great man's best works - 2001, Dr Strangelove, Clockwork Orange.
It's visually stunning though I had some issues with the choreography of the 'orgy' scene - felt too stark and passionless to convince. I also felt the plot devices used to keep Mr Cruise's character as a voyeur were a little clumsy - though this can be attributed to the writer.
Quite mesmerising - even if it ultimately doesn't really go anywhere.
Eyes Wide ****
Fantastic film.
Many thought it was rubbish because it didn't live up to the hype that it "revealed all" (which was what the 'teaser' trailer hinted at). Others just didn't "get it" so they just come back with "it's rubbish". Watch it again I suggest.
As with so many Kubrick films though, half of it is about visual style, especially given his photography roots. I'm surprised so many people can't see the artistic side to a film and just look for a simple plot and/or lots of easy-to-watch action/comedy/sex (okay, I'm not surprised actually ;)).
If it had Shannon Whirry in it instead of Kidman, then it could have been shown on C5 late night! :p
Originally posted by john316
If it had Shannon Whirry in it instead of Kidman, then it could have been shown on C5 late night! :p
:lol:
Good to see at least Deadkenny standing up for this film. It's a stunning and brave piece of cinema and the performances for Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman are very good indeed. Far too many people expect something else from this film - it is not meant to be taken on face value and it is not 'realist' in any sense. It deals with fantasies and it projects them fantastically.
This has been discussed many times on the forums, so for further discussion on 'what is it all about?', you should have a look at this thread and this thread .
I agree with Noel and DeadKenny... I have kept out of this until now because I could be said to be slightly biased :)
Quite honestly this film is an acquired taste... The visual imagery is absolutely stunning with those beautiful scenes at the party with the thousands of twinkling lights. On first watching at the cinema I found myself almost hypnotised by the visuals and the haunting piano refrain and Ligeti music pieces.
The story is of course fairly simple on the surface which has annoyed a lot of people but peek beneath it and you see what it has to offer... There are a multitude of layers explored in this film, not just infidelity it is more about how we perceive sexual situations from an objective viewpoint... and if there is one person who could give us a purely objective viewpoint it was Kubrick. This is why Cruise seems to be on autopilot ... he is trying to provide an almost blank canvas so we can see these events through his eyes without being told that he is "good" or "bad".
The detached quality in the film helps us to emotionally detach ourselves from it and thereby view the events objectively.
For those who say that nothing happens I'll simply say that sometimes the journey is more enjoyable than the destination. That was certainly the case here.
Anyone who thought that Tom & Nicole were going to be "at it" all through the film were, sorry if I offend anyone here, complete idiots. If you thought for one minute Kubrick was going to make a film that was wall to wall sex then you don't know Kubrick*** He was a clever man and his teaser trailer was intended to drag in the people who wanted to see Tom & Nicole in action... he hoped that some would enjoy it, I guess, but mostly it was about bums on seats if he hadn't tricked those people into seeing it the film wouldn't have made as much money and Kubrick always liked to make financially successful films. Even the orgy scene was utterly cold and clinical which obviously disappointed the mac-brigade.
Personally I think this film garnered so much negative response because ultimately Kubrick marketed it cleverly and loads of people who went in expecting sex,sex,sex were bitterly disappointed.
You have to be in the right mood to enjoy this film and you have to have a certain mindset at the time... those bandying about phrases such as "I thought it would have more sex" or thought that nothing happened and it was "boring" should probably not bother and go and watch something else.... This isn't an insult, people watch films for all sorts of different reasons and some like pure escapism (see Lenny Nero) which is fine.... but you really shouldn't bother watching a film like this.
As for the rest of you keep plugging away at it if you can... Kubrick's films are usually growers, critical acclaim for his films has built up over the years and few have gotten all their plaudits immediately.
<b>As for the rest of you keep plugging away at it if you can... Kubrick's films are usually growers, critical acclaim for his films has built up over the years and few have gotten all their plaudits immediately.</b>
Or on the other hand you could give up and watch something by Ford, Peckinpah or Hawks - all of them far greater talents than Saint Stanley.
Originally posted by Mike
Or on the other hand you could give up and watch something by Ford, Peckinpah or Hawks - all of them far greater talents than Saint Stanley.
Or on the other hand you could do both... I didn't realise that the two activities were mutually exclusive ;)
As for being greater talents... well that is subjective of course and we've had this discussion before...
Originally posted by Nibbler
I thought it was ok, but......why......... does everyone in..........said......film..... talk......so.........slowly?
The dialogue coach was probably Adam West:lol:
Answers:
The importance of (extra-marital) sexual might-have-beens within a marriage, or something like that, was what Stanley Kubrick said about it. I'm not sure if I would have realised this on my own!
The movie has a lot of fans, but I think unfortunately it's one of the great man's lesser works -- far too long, and with a lousy script which seems to consist of people repeating back what someone has just said to them, after a pause.
Answers:
Originally posted by Philipio
What the hell was all that about then???:confused:
I said that after 2001 a space oddicy and (20 minutes) of a clockwork Orange. I have come to the conclusion that Stanley Kubrick was strange.
Answers:
Not strange, he just doesn't give it to you straight, assuming the audience is prepared to think and discuss it afterwards.
Answers:
Yup I thought about Eyes Wide Shut, discussed it with the missus, and thought it was poor.
Best thing that came from it was Nicole splitting from Tom after it and making a couple of decent films.
I know Kubrick had his devoted fans and he has made some fabulous films but just cos it had his name on it does not mean it had to be a classic. Oddly two guy in the office said they last 20 mins of a Clockwork Orange too.
Strange I dont know over-rated , oh yes.
Answers:
I love Kubrick films but Eyes Wide Shut was such a let down :oh-hum:
Answers:
...here's a <a href="http://www.mrcranky.com/movies/eyeswideshut.html">review</a>...
. . . :smokin: . . .
Answers:
I taped it to watch over the weekend. The only reason I'm interested is that I've heard, since Tom and Nicole split up, that the cracks in their marriage were apparently evident throughout this film.
I know it's meant to be about a marriage falling apart, but some people have claimed that their chemistry just isn't there anymore, and the way they used to look at each other in their other films, unable to hide their real feelings, is gone.
I'm merely curious to see if I can see this.
Answers:
I thought it was ok, but......why......... does everyone in..........said......film..... talk......so.........slowly?
Answers:
Originally posted by Panavision
Not strange, he just doesn't give it to you straight, assuming the audience is prepared to think and discuss it afterwards.
I obviously don't like thinking then, I always found the films I mentioned arty, petentious, over rated, clap trap. I know that is not everybodies opinion.
I did like full metal jacket though. Don't know why, the story isn't that great really.
I agree Kubrick gets you talking!
Answers:
Originally posted by Nibbler
I thought it was ok, but......why......... does everyone in..........said......film..... talk......so.........slowly?
Just like Lion-O in Thundercats!
Answers:
Originally posted by Willow
I know it's meant to be about a marriage falling apart, but some people have claimed that their chemistry just isn't there anymore, and the way they used to look at each other in their other films, unable to hide their real feelings, is gone.
I liked the film, but it was hit-and-miss. You CAN see the cracks in their marriage in the film and that was one of the hits for me - it came across as a genuinely strained marriage onscreen, and that was a major plus.
Answers:
I wanted to like the film. I really did. But I'm afraid I will always refer to the film as "Eyes Bored Shut" from now on.
As far as I can tell, the film was all about a steadicam operator following Tom Cruise around lots of streets and hallways for 3 hours. Sometimes he does his patented "grinning because he doesn't understand something". And Nicole Kidman speaks at a rate of three words per minute, to simulate the speech of a stoned person.
Was it a thriller about infiltrating an underground society? Was it about two annoying people having a marriage crisis? Was it a real-time documentary about how a man can get a costume from a costume shop in the middle of the night?
Only an over-rated dead filmmaker can say.
Answers:
Originally posted by SqueakyG
I wanted to like the film. I really did. But I'm afraid I will always refer to the film as "Eyes Bored Shut" from now on.
As far as I can tell, the film was all about a steadicam operator following Tom Cruise around lots of streets and hallways for 3 hours. Sometimes he does his patented "grinning because he doesn't understand something". And Nicole Kidman speaks at a rate of three words per minute, to simulate the speech of a stoned person.
Was it a thriller about infiltrating an underground society? Was it about two annoying people having a marriage crisis? Was it a real-time documentary about how a man can get a costume from a costume shop in the middle of the night?
Only an over-rated dead filmmaker can say.
Ouch! I quite enjoyed it though it's not on a par with (for me) the great man's best works - 2001, Dr Strangelove, Clockwork Orange.
It's visually stunning though I had some issues with the choreography of the 'orgy' scene - felt too stark and passionless to convince. I also felt the plot devices used to keep Mr Cruise's character as a voyeur were a little clumsy - though this can be attributed to the writer.
Quite mesmerising - even if it ultimately doesn't really go anywhere.
Answers:
Eyes Wide ****
Answers:
Fantastic film.
Many thought it was rubbish because it didn't live up to the hype that it "revealed all" (which was what the 'teaser' trailer hinted at). Others just didn't "get it" so they just come back with "it's rubbish". Watch it again I suggest.
As with so many Kubrick films though, half of it is about visual style, especially given his photography roots. I'm surprised so many people can't see the artistic side to a film and just look for a simple plot and/or lots of easy-to-watch action/comedy/sex (okay, I'm not surprised actually ;)).
Answers:
If it had Shannon Whirry in it instead of Kidman, then it could have been shown on C5 late night! :p
Answers:
Originally posted by john316
If it had Shannon Whirry in it instead of Kidman, then it could have been shown on C5 late night! :p
:lol:
Answers:
Good to see at least Deadkenny standing up for this film. It's a stunning and brave piece of cinema and the performances for Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman are very good indeed. Far too many people expect something else from this film - it is not meant to be taken on face value and it is not 'realist' in any sense. It deals with fantasies and it projects them fantastically.
This has been discussed many times on the forums, so for further discussion on 'what is it all about?', you should have a look at this thread and this thread .
Answers:
I agree with Noel and DeadKenny... I have kept out of this until now because I could be said to be slightly biased :)
Quite honestly this film is an acquired taste... The visual imagery is absolutely stunning with those beautiful scenes at the party with the thousands of twinkling lights. On first watching at the cinema I found myself almost hypnotised by the visuals and the haunting piano refrain and Ligeti music pieces.
The story is of course fairly simple on the surface which has annoyed a lot of people but peek beneath it and you see what it has to offer... There are a multitude of layers explored in this film, not just infidelity it is more about how we perceive sexual situations from an objective viewpoint... and if there is one person who could give us a purely objective viewpoint it was Kubrick. This is why Cruise seems to be on autopilot ... he is trying to provide an almost blank canvas so we can see these events through his eyes without being told that he is "good" or "bad".
The detached quality in the film helps us to emotionally detach ourselves from it and thereby view the events objectively.
For those who say that nothing happens I'll simply say that sometimes the journey is more enjoyable than the destination. That was certainly the case here.
Anyone who thought that Tom & Nicole were going to be "at it" all through the film were, sorry if I offend anyone here, complete idiots. If you thought for one minute Kubrick was going to make a film that was wall to wall sex then you don't know Kubrick*** He was a clever man and his teaser trailer was intended to drag in the people who wanted to see Tom & Nicole in action... he hoped that some would enjoy it, I guess, but mostly it was about bums on seats if he hadn't tricked those people into seeing it the film wouldn't have made as much money and Kubrick always liked to make financially successful films. Even the orgy scene was utterly cold and clinical which obviously disappointed the mac-brigade.
Personally I think this film garnered so much negative response because ultimately Kubrick marketed it cleverly and loads of people who went in expecting sex,sex,sex were bitterly disappointed.
You have to be in the right mood to enjoy this film and you have to have a certain mindset at the time... those bandying about phrases such as "I thought it would have more sex" or thought that nothing happened and it was "boring" should probably not bother and go and watch something else.... This isn't an insult, people watch films for all sorts of different reasons and some like pure escapism (see Lenny Nero) which is fine.... but you really shouldn't bother watching a film like this.
As for the rest of you keep plugging away at it if you can... Kubrick's films are usually growers, critical acclaim for his films has built up over the years and few have gotten all their plaudits immediately.
Answers:
<b>As for the rest of you keep plugging away at it if you can... Kubrick's films are usually growers, critical acclaim for his films has built up over the years and few have gotten all their plaudits immediately.</b>
Or on the other hand you could give up and watch something by Ford, Peckinpah or Hawks - all of them far greater talents than Saint Stanley.
Answers:
Originally posted by Mike
Or on the other hand you could give up and watch something by Ford, Peckinpah or Hawks - all of them far greater talents than Saint Stanley.
Or on the other hand you could do both... I didn't realise that the two activities were mutually exclusive ;)
As for being greater talents... well that is subjective of course and we've had this discussion before...
Answers:
Originally posted by Nibbler
I thought it was ok, but......why......... does everyone in..........said......film..... talk......so.........slowly?
The dialogue coach was probably Adam West:lol:
1 2