Eyes Wide Shut: Masterpiece or Blunder

I like Eyes Wide Shut well enough. I don't think it's one of Kubrick's masterpieces but there are others here I respect who do. It's certainly as good as The Shining which is actually the film I believe it most closely resembles. Now. I'll make it clear that I believe that Kidman is only a supporting character since the whole thing is about Cruise flippin' out at his wife's fantasy and going on his own selfish sexual odyssey. This may be the same thing which ca is addressing, but I never really had a problem with the acting of the couple together, except for when they were playing stoned. It's difficult for me to believe for a second that Tom and Nicole had ever been stoned on marijuana. I would have at least figured that Kubrick could tell how that scene was whack.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

I'll take that as a compliment. They were a couple because they hadn't learnt any better, the movie was the turning point of their relationship, amongst many other things. I figured that would be obvious.1) Huh? 2) Critics mean less than nothing to me 3) You can agree with them all you want, but don't be an arrogant ass and say the film is pretentious because you didn't get the most basic part of it. He's not being an arrogant ass.
I never said anything about standards or implied hope that I would keep you up at night with my apparently sinister intentions. Are you sure you know what delusional means?

I know what you obvioulsy don't know and that is that the mind of a 21 year old kid ( which is what you are ) functions differently than that of a full grown man. Don't you think it's kind of absurd that you find yourself talking down to someone that has more experience than you can not even inagine. So when it comes to sexuality and complex human psycho-sexual relationships you are at a 101 level and yet you presume to school someone that's allready go his doctorate. I don't need movies to educate me about what's real. Been there, done that, can understand it. I know what pretentious is. I've experienced it moving in circles that you can only dream about. Arrogant ass is somerone that doesn't have a clue but thinks that his opinion is more qualified than that of others. I think you fit that profile better than me but you don't seem to get it. That's why you are delusional and if I was you I would appologize for your blatant disrespect, as this is the last lesson you will get from me.

Never seen it, is it worth a watch?

__________________

~In the event of a Zombie Uprising, remember to sever the head or destroy the brain!~

Absolutely. Give us your opinion when you do. I would be curious to see if you find this movie " cheesy" ?

Cool, I'll see about picking it up at some point

Huh? Like spelling oh wait. Yeah I should listen to the psychic who "somehow" knows my age. Speaking of delusions you believe age has so much of a brace on experience that it must be impossible for me to be more mature than anyone older than me, and that's what's funny. I know it may be hard to believe but there are people my age who have mentally aged more than people older than us, experienced well enough of "psycho-sexual" relationships to understand any film like Eyes Wide Shut. You're the only one presuming here, this is the most ironic post I've ever encountered. Uh. Duh? Art has been referred to as reflections of the intangible for a reason, you can't learn about the real world. Why am I allegedly dreaming about moving circles of pretentious acts? I'd rather dream about the things and experience that make me relate to this film, which I've done many times over shocking I know. Did you notice the insolvent ethics of Christianity Kubrick laced throughout the film? How about how rarely does any other film work so well as a whole that the ambiguity is not only alluring but helps it make more sense? Or maybe I'm just making things up because I have no knowledge about anything. No wonder you hate this movie, the title describes you perfectly. "You have no experience, intelligence, and are delusional. I'm way better than you because I came out of a vagina before you. Btw you should apologize for being so rude."

Yeah, seriously: argue on the ideas, man. There will, of course, be some things in life that only experience can teach you and you genuinely can't explain to someone younger, but I'm pretty sure cinematic interpretation isn't one of them. You can/should definitely be able to argue that on the merits.

The moment you find yourself straying from what's in the movie and into psychoanalyzing the person you're talking to, you've probably strayed off the path.

Then he can start with explaining what was pretentious so we can explain it to him, or address the couple of things I've already brought up but were ignored because, seriously, the complaint about the relationship is one of the most foolish I've heard. I love talking about this film and I'm sure many others do as well.

Listen Wintertangles, you didn't really address the comments I made about this movie. Instead you chose to insult me by saying that I am lowering myself.
I presume you didn't mean lowering myself to your level. I felt it was an immature way to start a debate. So I looked up your public profile and I saw you list your age as now being 21. So either you lied or you are 21. I'll take you at your word.
I probably could be your father ( if I married very young ) and I've managed to see over 9,000 movies. If I was a champanzee, I would still have considerably more experience than you. I pretty much watch everything and I also read. I'm also very physical as I was raised on the Roman premise of a healthy mind in a healthy body. Unless your IQ is over 150, I doubt that there is anything I can learn from you ,but surpisingly you keep on addressing me in a condescending manner. I was raised to be respectfull towards my elders and my father was a harsh disciplinarian. I like to treat others as they treat me. Your behaviour is disrespectfull and in the real word you would be severly chastised for it. But since you have the benefit of the internet you can still choose to pick your battles with people more suited to your status. Intelectualy, emotionaly and physicaly you are not even in the same league. I suggest you drop your posturing and do your best to ignore me. You not worthy of my time. I'll do my best to not comment on your posts and I expect the same from you. I am done and have nothing more to say to you.

What abased me, was the Father and his daughter ...Leelee Sobieski. I was very hurt by that. I know it's a Movie but Jesus Christ.

- "they're a horrible couple, that's the point."
- They were a couple because they hadn't learnt any better, the movie was the turning point of their relationship, amongst many other things. I figured that would be obvious.
- Did you notice the insolvent ethics of Christianity Kubrick laced throughout the film? How about how rarely does any other film work so well as a whole that the ambiguity is not only alluring but helps it make more sense?

Nope I didn't address anything apparently.
Yeah I knew that

Is this a job interview or a superiority complex? If you were a "chimpanzee" you would have never watched dick. Except maybe dick.

Irony dude. Get a dictionary. Or open one of the ten you bought to prove how intellectual you are.

Well I can spell those adverbs correctly. Does that count?
...after a giant paragraph.

Man I addressed the film within this "debacle" but you never ever ever touched it. I brought up 3 points, you brought up 0. If you want to make up a bunch of stuff about me then get a tabloid position but if you want to discuss why you hate this film then do so because even though I'm clearly a moron (with an IQ of 160, since you brought it up) I can handle my own in a film discussion. Too bad you can't. OR prove me wrong and explain why Kubrick is a fool for wanting the relationship to be a failed one from the start. I'm sure I'm not alone in saying it was intentional.

An IQ of 160? Surprising, since you apparently don't understand the meaning of the word IGNORE but maybe not, as there is a very fine line between genius and madness, but if you were a genius, then we probably would'nt be having this discussion. But , since you persist,
life is somewhat sometimes AMBIGUOUS just like the Kubrick movie you are so passionately defending, as if you were the only one that clearly understood it's ambiguousness.
Surprising, for one so bright ( or so you say ) that you missed the point that I clearly made and that there was absolutely no connection ( no personal chemistry) between the two main characters, and that fact wasn't by their design rather their total inability to connect and make believable that their marriage ever existed and that there was something still worth salvaging. I don't blame Kubrick for that. I'm sure that he's overall intention was not total ambiguity but I haven't talked to him, so I don't really know. Whatever his intention, it was not spun fed to us to interpret. We all don't perceive the same, so our individual interpretation will vary. Is that so hard to understand?

It's one thing when a film fails to achieve its goals, and it's another thing when someone provides their own goals that they wish the film had been reaching for, and then faulting them for failing to live up to them.

Isnt the film precisely about the complete breakdown of intermarital relationship? How can you be so sure from the way they behaved in the film that marriage between them right from the start was impossible?

Let's straight with common ground: the film is about a broken marriage, yes? Would you expect people in a broken marriage to display a lot of chemistry, or would you expect them to be distant?

Kubrick was making a statement: Perhaps marriage these days between couples have lost their significance. Fidelio. Tom Cruise's character (and similarly Kidman's) were simply hollow devices which Kubrick used to show how unfaithful couples of today are. They probably married in the "spur-of-the moment", without realising what genuine marriage was all about (that of dedication). Subsequently, they both cheated on each other. Is Kubrick trying to warn us about the future of marriages? That the once loyal and devotional implications of traditional marriages have been lost in our society due to wanton lust? The masked ball which the doctor attended may represent the pornography of the internet, though that is just my opinion. Also, there is a lot of talk about 'redemption'. What is with the redeeming of the other sex?

At no time before or during the movie does Tom's or Nicole's character have real sex with anybody. Tom feels up a couple of women, but technically he does that routinely on the job and I don't consider any of that cheating. It's the possibility of cheating which is being discussed and shown, and I believe that's a fair discussion in a marriage.

Hm, you're right, my bad... I think Kubrick was also implying on the paranoia which couples face?

I'm not proclaiming my intelligence, Napoleon, chill out. Also, ambiguity is not the topic of discussion and no one had any problems understanding it as an element but thanks for figuring it out for us
Tyler and Yoda said what I needed to say here. Also I can make an easy link between this and Bunuel's That Obscure Object of Desire regarding the theme and what I call surrealism; you call it ambiguity, same difference. It wasn't spun fed to us to interpret....Uh that's the point of reflection man. Movies that are set up for interpretation are the ones that aren't nearly as engaging because interpretation of film happens throughout the entire process of viewing, so if they are set up as such, there's no point to the film. The allure of good films, at least for me, is that they assume intelligence of the audience of so it's like a jigsaw exercise the whole time regardless of genre, on top of being a story. Eyes Wide Shut wouldn't be anything more than a romantic comedy/drama with a random orgy if the premise was to be easily digestible. It's puzzle is made for the audience to decipher with and without Tom Cruise's character, addressing not only the actuality of the events but, like someone said, questioning what a relationship is, what a marriage is, the purpose of them, the intangible relation between the character and random news headlines like "Lucky to be Alive" or that neon EROS sign. And so on.

What is this? Thank you for calling me Napoleon. I'll take that as a compliment.
It just appears you like to see yourself in print and debate for the sake of debating. Why the professorial attitude? Everything you say has allready been said and understood but you go on and on as some sort of self affirmation. This has allready been talked to death and there is nothing left for you to explain. Simply put, you and I perceive this movie differently. You seem to think it's some kind of a masterpiece and I just find it boring. Why is it so hard for you to accept that?