Reply to Topic
T, post who it is you're talking to...for the longest time, I thought you were adressing me...
Eyes Wide Shut: Masterpiece or Blunder
→ in Movie Reviews
Personally I loved this film. It was everything Kubrick.
The story was cool, and deep. The acting was very good. The nudity was plentiful. And the cinematography? Holy ****. You could mute this movie and still enjoy it. I thought that everything about this movie shinned. I love it and love to love it. Hell, let's be honest, enjoying a pretentiously artful film is something any movie lover wears like a merit badge. And even though I was content with just enjoying the film on a surface level, the more I thought about it the more I realized that I actually understood it's underlying meanings. And that scares me. Anyone else like it? Hate it? Indifferent?
The story was cool, and deep. The acting was very good. The nudity was plentiful. And the cinematography? Holy ****. You could mute this movie and still enjoy it. I thought that everything about this movie shinned. I love it and love to love it. Hell, let's be honest, enjoying a pretentiously artful film is something any movie lover wears like a merit badge. And even though I was content with just enjoying the film on a surface level, the more I thought about it the more I realized that I actually understood it's underlying meanings. And that scares me. Anyone else like it? Hate it? Indifferent?
Originally posted by sadesdrk
T, post who it is you're talking to...for the longest time, I thought you were adressing me...
T, post who it is you're talking to...for the longest time, I thought you were adressing me...
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Eyes Wide Shut
1999/COLOR/159MIN/R/WARNER
Director & Producer
Stanley Kubrick
Producer
Jan Harlan
Cast
Tom Cruise/Nicole Kidman/Sidney Pollack/Marie Richardson
Edited
Nigal Galt
Cinematography
Larry Smith
Screenplay by
Fredrick Raphael & Stanley Kubrick
Stanley Kubrick's final and last great film. He was able to finish editing the film before he died in march of 1999. Inspired by Arthur Schnitzler's Traumnovelle adapted for the screen by Frederic Raphael. One important thing you have to take into consideration is if you like Tom Cruise or not because he's in every scene in the film. Regrettably there's two cuts of the film an American Canadian version and a European version which I got the privilege to see and it was very important to the character and how you would precieve the feelings and implecations and what kind of emotional state he's in.
Tom Cruise plays a high paid N.Y.C. doctor named Dr. William Harford who gets himself into the deepest and darkest ongoings of new york's late night underworld high society. Where he finds himself not realizing the full potention of trouble he's in and all of this because of his wife who said that she was willing to throw everything she had to sleep with a man she didn't even know for one night.What his wife says sets off a chain of events that he will never forget.
* V, DVD the dvd comes with interview with Tom Cruise, Nicole Kidman, and Steven Spielberg
* director's cut - doesn't run any longer but was digitally
edited for America & Canada audiences.
Classic Lines
Victor Ziegler:
What if I told you that what you saw last night was only
a game? Merely staged?
Alice Harford: I do love you and you know there is something
very important we need to do as soon as possible.
Doctor William "Bill" Harford: What's that?
Alice Harford: ****.
Alice Harford: If you men only knew!
1999/COLOR/159MIN/R/WARNER
Director & Producer
Stanley Kubrick
Producer
Jan Harlan
Cast
Tom Cruise/Nicole Kidman/Sidney Pollack/Marie Richardson
Edited
Nigal Galt
Cinematography
Larry Smith
Screenplay by
Fredrick Raphael & Stanley Kubrick
Stanley Kubrick's final and last great film. He was able to finish editing the film before he died in march of 1999. Inspired by Arthur Schnitzler's Traumnovelle adapted for the screen by Frederic Raphael. One important thing you have to take into consideration is if you like Tom Cruise or not because he's in every scene in the film. Regrettably there's two cuts of the film an American Canadian version and a European version which I got the privilege to see and it was very important to the character and how you would precieve the feelings and implecations and what kind of emotional state he's in.
Tom Cruise plays a high paid N.Y.C. doctor named Dr. William Harford who gets himself into the deepest and darkest ongoings of new york's late night underworld high society. Where he finds himself not realizing the full potention of trouble he's in and all of this because of his wife who said that she was willing to throw everything she had to sleep with a man she didn't even know for one night.What his wife says sets off a chain of events that he will never forget.
* V, DVD the dvd comes with interview with Tom Cruise, Nicole Kidman, and Steven Spielberg
* director's cut - doesn't run any longer but was digitally
edited for America & Canada audiences.
Classic Lines
Victor Ziegler:
What if I told you that what you saw last night was only
a game? Merely staged?
Alice Harford: I do love you and you know there is something
very important we need to do as soon as possible.
Doctor William "Bill" Harford: What's that?
Alice Harford: ****.
Alice Harford: If you men only knew!
X
User Lists
Merged Tyler's thread with this one. 
__________________
"I was walking down the street with my friend and he said, "I hear music", as if there is any other way you can take it in. You're not special, that's how I receive it too. I tried to taste it but it did not work." - Mitch Hedberg
"I was walking down the street with my friend and he said, "I hear music", as if there is any other way you can take it in. You're not special, that's how I receive it too. I tried to taste it but it did not work." - Mitch Hedberg
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Watched this last night, must say I really didn't understand it all that much. I guess I'll have to watch it again. Usually if I don't get them the first time through I'll give them another chance and end up liking them. Kinda bizarre movie.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
In a chatroom, someone gave me his website he just put up, about the meanings of eyes wide shut. It's only one page but he says he will update it and eventually it'll be a big webpage.
http://www.geocities.com/drbill1977/
It's interesting so far! Bookmark it.
I think Eyes Wide Shut is pretty darn good.
http://www.geocities.com/drbill1977/
It's interesting so far! Bookmark it.
I think Eyes Wide Shut is pretty darn good.
I am SO not getting into this topic again.
I had a look through it and I realised that I posted in it. I didn't remember, but I did. I wasn't very popular.
I still stand by what I said, but.
I had a look through it and I realised that I posted in it. I didn't remember, but I did. I wasn't very popular.
I still stand by what I said, but.
__________________
www.esotericrabbit.com
www.esotericrabbit.com
This thread is 8 years old, lol, but I did a search because I just read the most amazing argument regarding Eyes Wide Shut.
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0096.html
I watched the film last night and I was intrigued in a way I wasn't 10 years ago when I first saw it. The first time, I found it incredibly dull, but last night, I was mesmerized by it the entire time. I was struck by what I thought was a miscalculation on my part 10 years ago -- this movie isn't about sex at all. It's about consumerism -- those that own people and those that serve. Then, I read the argument I linked to, and it all made perfect sense.
The film takes place at Christmas.
The Doctor, Cruise, is not exactly in the same social sphere as Ziegler, yet wants to be. One of the things I noticed was that we are constantly being reminded how much money Cruise spends on his night out.
Kubrick has details that all have a particular meaning, including the recurrence of the color purple.
There are the rich and powerful and those that aren't; there are the men who buy their women. Even the fact that Cruise and Kidman has a daughter is no accident.
You know, maybe it really is true that Kubrick's artistry is often misunderstood or is so vague that many movie goers miss his point. It got me thinking about him.
For any lovers of Kubrick, read this article. I found it incredibly enlightening. I also have a brand new appreciation for Eyes Wide Shut.
Maybe it is more of a masterpiece than a blunder, after all.
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0096.html
I watched the film last night and I was intrigued in a way I wasn't 10 years ago when I first saw it. The first time, I found it incredibly dull, but last night, I was mesmerized by it the entire time. I was struck by what I thought was a miscalculation on my part 10 years ago -- this movie isn't about sex at all. It's about consumerism -- those that own people and those that serve. Then, I read the argument I linked to, and it all made perfect sense.
The film takes place at Christmas.
The Doctor, Cruise, is not exactly in the same social sphere as Ziegler, yet wants to be. One of the things I noticed was that we are constantly being reminded how much money Cruise spends on his night out.
Kubrick has details that all have a particular meaning, including the recurrence of the color purple.
There are the rich and powerful and those that aren't; there are the men who buy their women. Even the fact that Cruise and Kidman has a daughter is no accident.
You know, maybe it really is true that Kubrick's artistry is often misunderstood or is so vague that many movie goers miss his point. It got me thinking about him.
For any lovers of Kubrick, read this article. I found it incredibly enlightening. I also have a brand new appreciation for Eyes Wide Shut.
Maybe it is more of a masterpiece than a blunder, after all.
X
Favorite Movies
I just read through this thread and got a bit confused - have some posts been deleted?
Anyway, to answer the title question, neither. But it is closer to masterpiece than blunder, certainly. It's been a while since I've watched it, but I was mesmerised by this all the way through and there was some genuinely funny sequences, I don't think it is taking itself as seriously as some people seem to think.
Anyway, to answer the title question, neither. But it is closer to masterpiece than blunder, certainly. It's been a while since I've watched it, but I was mesmerised by this all the way through and there was some genuinely funny sequences, I don't think it is taking itself as seriously as some people seem to think.
X
Favorite Movies
It's amazing, yes. I could go on about it, but it's already been said. Most people are torn on whether they like it or not, but there's so much more to it than the nudity. It's a great play on the idea of being faithful and the chances to break that commitment. Also it's a wonderful "journey" film largely taking place over one exciting and hellish night.
__________________
"A candy colored clown!"
Member since Fall 2002
Top 100 Films, clicky below
http://www.movieforums.com/community...ad.php?t=26201
"A candy colored clown!"
Member since Fall 2002
Top 100 Films, clicky below
http://www.movieforums.com/community...ad.php?t=26201
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Wow. I definitely need to see it again, but after I watched it last night, I was largely impressed. Made with skill and precision, and told at a very controlled pace, it's certainly a very visual experience, but with different themes constantly thrown around. And Tom Cruise gives a top 5 performance.
And that country house orgy scene? The shots and lighting of that entire sequence are amazing. If I am still as impressed with it on the second viewing, I'd consider it the second best Kubrick film I've seen yet.
And that country house orgy scene? The shots and lighting of that entire sequence are amazing. If I am still as impressed with it on the second viewing, I'd consider it the second best Kubrick film I've seen yet.
__________________
"George, this is a little too much for me. Escaped convicts, fugitive sex... I've got a cockfight to focus on."
"George, this is a little too much for me. Escaped convicts, fugitive sex... I've got a cockfight to focus on."
X
Favorite Movies
I love Stanley Kubrick. How can I forget Clockwork Orange, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Paths Of Glory, The Killing?
Twelve years after his arguably best movie and one of the best war movies of all time, " Full Metal Jacket " , and on the year of his death ( he was 71 at the time) he made a movie about modern sexuality: Eyes Wide Shut. I was surprised that he would make such a movie at that age and be so out of touch with what was going on.
To me this movie was like a parody of real life, although I doubt that that was the director's intention. Paradoxically, it was just a vehicle for Cruize and Kidman ( who I believe were married to each other in real life at the time )
to bore me to death with pretensious scenes of thinking about it rather than doing it.
If their chemistry was as bad in real life, then it's no great surprise that their marriage did not last.
I'm truly sorry to have the great Stanley Kubrick assossiated with this movie.
I much rather think of Full Metal Jacket as his last film and feel that he went out in great style.
Twelve years after his arguably best movie and one of the best war movies of all time, " Full Metal Jacket " , and on the year of his death ( he was 71 at the time) he made a movie about modern sexuality: Eyes Wide Shut. I was surprised that he would make such a movie at that age and be so out of touch with what was going on.
To me this movie was like a parody of real life, although I doubt that that was the director's intention. Paradoxically, it was just a vehicle for Cruize and Kidman ( who I believe were married to each other in real life at the time )
to bore me to death with pretensious scenes of thinking about it rather than doing it.
If their chemistry was as bad in real life, then it's no great surprise that their marriage did not last.
I'm truly sorry to have the great Stanley Kubrick assossiated with this movie.
I much rather think of Full Metal Jacket as his last film and feel that he went out in great style.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
there he goes, another drive by cineshooting ... 
"it was part of the art of cinema to figure out the meaning for yourself. "
I agree. Director's can tell if they want, but they're job is to show so well they don't need to and it's the audience's job to experience that director's art to the fullest and hopefully glean that meaning with nothing but the film and it's parts to take them there. Works, ironically (compared to your arguments) just like a book. Just like any work of art.
Of course, there is a huge margin for error, but in film, it is not error. It becomes the fluidity that makes the very work of art itself even more complex and beautiful. It's like the director hands us ... what, a crystal ball, a mirror, whatever. Each person who looks into it will see something different. They may see things similar to what others see (hence, most people going to see Rush Hour will think it funny) but others won't (hence the others who found it offensive). Doesn't matter what they see. Doesn't matter how they got there. What matters is that they're looking, and the thing that they are looking at. It's a 1-1 relationship. It's a world of connection and possibility. It's a limbo of ideas that happens with all art that I love, and that's why I love movies, becuase it's so visual, sensual, it's a world that sucks you in in ways a sculpture or a painting has never done for me.
the film ...
I totally agree about the visuals. Beautiful. Lush. However, I found the film itself bland. I don't know if Cruise was actually giving us any true display of "acting." And there was such a lutter lack of chemistry between him and his wife that I came out surprised by how unerotic the film was. Not to say I expected the film to arouse me. I expected the film to show me sensual things that would reveal the characters to me, make me feel and see and explore and comprehend. This did not happen. Perhaps it's because I'm a jaded sensualist and Kubrick's idea of exploring the wants and desires of a married couple entirely ... how shall I put it ... dry. Nothing new was shown to me. Nothing shocking at all really. I suppose it might shock mainstream viewers but I sat there and pretty much ... I wasn't bored. It was unmoved. Things felt soft focus and for me, without depth, without connection, without emotion. I felt very little emotion at all and truly, cared VERY little for the characters.
And I can only blame that on the director because I went in there wanting to be moved. Everyone was talking smack about the film and how awful and long it was and how shocking this or that and I said - a film meant just for me. Let's go see what it's all about. And I sat down and got nothing that pushed any boundaries, unravelled any mysteries, tangled any preconceived notions.
This was why I found it a blunder. I really think Kubrick was so caught up in his presentation that he failed miserably on the content. I'm not talking plot or such. I'm talking ... like biting into the most perfect apple you'll ever see and finding it's mushy and tastes like water. Like you guys said, unhappy endings do not make masterpieces. Neither do gorgeous set pieces, soft focus, and lush cinematography.
"it was part of the art of cinema to figure out the meaning for yourself. "
I agree. Director's can tell if they want, but they're job is to show so well they don't need to and it's the audience's job to experience that director's art to the fullest and hopefully glean that meaning with nothing but the film and it's parts to take them there. Works, ironically (compared to your arguments) just like a book. Just like any work of art.
Of course, there is a huge margin for error, but in film, it is not error. It becomes the fluidity that makes the very work of art itself even more complex and beautiful. It's like the director hands us ... what, a crystal ball, a mirror, whatever. Each person who looks into it will see something different. They may see things similar to what others see (hence, most people going to see Rush Hour will think it funny) but others won't (hence the others who found it offensive). Doesn't matter what they see. Doesn't matter how they got there. What matters is that they're looking, and the thing that they are looking at. It's a 1-1 relationship. It's a world of connection and possibility. It's a limbo of ideas that happens with all art that I love, and that's why I love movies, becuase it's so visual, sensual, it's a world that sucks you in in ways a sculpture or a painting has never done for me.
the film ...
I totally agree about the visuals. Beautiful. Lush. However, I found the film itself bland. I don't know if Cruise was actually giving us any true display of "acting." And there was such a lutter lack of chemistry between him and his wife that I came out surprised by how unerotic the film was. Not to say I expected the film to arouse me. I expected the film to show me sensual things that would reveal the characters to me, make me feel and see and explore and comprehend. This did not happen. Perhaps it's because I'm a jaded sensualist and Kubrick's idea of exploring the wants and desires of a married couple entirely ... how shall I put it ... dry. Nothing new was shown to me. Nothing shocking at all really. I suppose it might shock mainstream viewers but I sat there and pretty much ... I wasn't bored. It was unmoved. Things felt soft focus and for me, without depth, without connection, without emotion. I felt very little emotion at all and truly, cared VERY little for the characters.
And I can only blame that on the director because I went in there wanting to be moved. Everyone was talking smack about the film and how awful and long it was and how shocking this or that and I said - a film meant just for me. Let's go see what it's all about. And I sat down and got nothing that pushed any boundaries, unravelled any mysteries, tangled any preconceived notions.
This was why I found it a blunder. I really think Kubrick was so caught up in his presentation that he failed miserably on the content. I'm not talking plot or such. I'm talking ... like biting into the most perfect apple you'll ever see and finding it's mushy and tastes like water. Like you guys said, unhappy endings do not make masterpieces. Neither do gorgeous set pieces, soft focus, and lush cinematography.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I'm truly sorry to have the great Stanley Kubrick assossiated with this movie.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
they're a horrible couple, that's the point. I will come back to this I don't have time right now.
__________________
“The gladdest moment in human life, methinks, is a departure into unknown lands.” – Sir Richard Burton
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I have Eyes Wide Shut on my DVR, and I've seen half of it so far. Pretty good so far, this would be the 6th Kubrick film I've watched.
__________________
"Puns are the highest form of literature." -Alfred Hitchcock
"Puns are the highest form of literature." -Alfred Hitchcock
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
[quote=wintertriangles;794938]Wow you just keep lowering yourself. The chemistry isn't good, no ****, they're a horrible couple, that's the point. I will come back to this I don't have time right now.[/quote}]
You make some really outlandish comments. You say " you keep lowering yourself " ( if I had to depend on your taste in movies, I'd probably shoot myself ) but you agree that there was no chemistry between Kidman and Cruise. So you mean it was Kubrick's intention to bring out the complete lack of chemistry between the two? Then why were they a couple to begin with? I can see couples fading down the stretch, but those two didn't even show that they had anything to begin with and in my opinion were miscast. If I was some goofball that didn't have a clue about what I thought, perhaps you could make some silly comment on how I'm lowering myself, but the thing of it is that most serious critics mentioned the lack of chemistry and blandness that made this movie boring. I just happened to agree with them. Why don't you tell Yoda that he's lowering himself? He didn't think much of this movie either.
Dude, don't be delusional. Your standards are not all that. I won't have a problem sleeping beacuse you choose to disagree with any of my comments.
You make some really outlandish comments. You say " you keep lowering yourself " ( if I had to depend on your taste in movies, I'd probably shoot myself ) but you agree that there was no chemistry between Kidman and Cruise. So you mean it was Kubrick's intention to bring out the complete lack of chemistry between the two? Then why were they a couple to begin with? I can see couples fading down the stretch, but those two didn't even show that they had anything to begin with and in my opinion were miscast. If I was some goofball that didn't have a clue about what I thought, perhaps you could make some silly comment on how I'm lowering myself, but the thing of it is that most serious critics mentioned the lack of chemistry and blandness that made this movie boring. I just happened to agree with them. Why don't you tell Yoda that he's lowering himself? He didn't think much of this movie either.
Dude, don't be delusional. Your standards are not all that. I won't have a problem sleeping beacuse you choose to disagree with any of my comments.
X
Favorite Movies
X