Cool News
I Caramba peers at EYES WIDE SHUT
Hey there everybody, Harry here. I have a couple of reviews of EYES WIDE SHUT coming up on the site tonight including Moriarty's... but first here is I Caramba's....
Never wrote before, so this is a newbie review. If you print it, call me I.
Caramba.
Just saw the critics screening of Eyes Wide Shut tonight. I'm a big Kubrick
fan, and all I can say is, I'm disappointed. I like Kubrick, and I had no
idea what the movie would be like, good or bad. So I went to it without any
expectations or preconceptions, and the following is my gut reaction (not
having read any reviews). The movie is 2 1/2 hours long, and you spend the
first hour wondering when it will get interesting. Then there is the scene
with all the people in hoods & masks, and you think, now it will start to
pick up; but then whatever mystery there is quickly dissipates. At the end
you wonder, why was there all the hype about this movie? A lot of the
dialogue is uninteresting and banal, the plot is predictable, and there's
almost no suspense. There are all these scenes which are meant to provoke an
unsettled feeling, a "Blue Velvet"/David Lynch type thing where you wonder
about the "dark underbelly" of the lives of the wealthy & cosmopolitan. But
it all falls flat & seems silly. If you want to see a better movie about the
"dark underbelly" of suburban life, rent Hitchcock's "Shadow of a Doubt." And
if you want to see a more interesting & unsettling movie about sexual
obsession & jealousy, rent the Spanish movie "Open Your Eyes" (if it ever
comes to video). At least in that movie, there are genuine surprises, and you
are kept wondering what is going on.
-
+ Expand All
-
After reading this review, I'm concerned that the movie might be a let down. I'm a big Kubrick fan, and I hope that this movie is a good film, like the first half of "Full Metal Jacket," rather than a disappointing film, like the second half of "Full Metal Jacket."
Oh well, I'll see you all at the movie lines on Friday. I'll still be first on line. -
I'm not surprised. I figured as much. No feature could surpass the hype over Cruise, Kidman and death of Stanley Kubrick. Oh well, there's still Nicole Kidman in her panties.
-
First, I don't belive that this retard could even get into a premire of Care Bears 4. But this is just silly, this person didn't see the movie and if for some reason you don't like the film think about this: A ClockWork Orange was relased in 1971 and wasn't full accepted by the public until 1993. So think before you speak and listen and watch the world around you for nothing is what it seems. Keep your eyes wide shut you idiots if that's what gets you though the day.
-
I Carumba simply didn't get it. I saw the film last night at the Ross theater on the Burbank lot. It will surely disappoint mainstream audiences looking for hot, explicit sex. The logical inconsistencies and pregnant pauses will bother people expecting a Hitchcockian thriller. Kubrick's last word is also his final joke (not that the film is a joke, he's just poking fun at all the stupid audience expectations). EWS is most like Kubrick's misunderstood masterpiece The Shining, in that it combines the banal with high melodrama, careening into a dream zone that only one man -- the master filmmaker -- could have created. David Lynch and Cronenberg fans will love it.
-----------------------------
I won't give much away, but if you're into spotting gaffes (minor spolier ahead) look closely at the reflection in the shower stall in the scene with Sidney Pollack's bathroom. Also look closely at the scene where Cruise is hand deliverd a letter at the mansion, and note that the driver is on the right side of the car. -
I haven't seen EWS yet and this
isn't a bad review (actually, it's a preview of the negative reviews this film is bound to get)
and it's a good critique of why this film may be a major faliure
but the flaw in the review is that the person never gives us evidence that they are a big Kubrick fan by saying "I was sad Kubrick died and wished that I could have said he had said the best for last" or "Kubrick has made better films like 2001 or ACO than this" The reviwer didn't really tells us why this film dissapointed him/her as a Kubrick fan. Or compared it to Kubrick's other work on why it dissapoints and isn't proof of all that Kubrick as capable of as a filmmaker. Critiquing the poor
dialogue and lack of surprises
is the same criticisms people gave
Kubrick's previous films 2001,
The Shining, Paths of Glory.
Instead of comparing EWS with
2001 or Clockwork Orange or
Paths of Glory or Lolita, instead
the reviwer compared it with Hitchcock and Eyes Wide Open and those films aren't Kubrick films but more than often the films people say they like because they feel Kubrick is over-rated.
-
Hey man, people don't understand the beauty behind the most creative yet eerie man, Stanley Kubrick. Just after one viewing, this guy can't have any idea what the hell he's saying. The most amazing aspect of films like 2001 S.O., is that Kubrick felt to understand the movie is not understanding it at all. In other words, his art is not meant to be scrutinized and answered. He's a genious with a taste for another world.
-
I saw EYES WIDE SHUT at a media screening this week as well, and I agree with I Caramba. If you believe the hype that this is Kubrick's final masterpiece, then you're a sucker. It only partially succeeds. As for the so-called steamy scenes between Cruise and Kidman, forget it. Remember the trailer with the two of them in front of the mirror? That's all you get.
-
Morning all. It's 5:00 a.m. here and I just got home from an employee screening of EWS. I must say that having not been impressed with much of Kubrick's work in the past, I was completely blown away.
I never cared much for Full Metal Jacket, but I loved Clockwork Orange. I'm indifferent to The Shining, but I still enjoy Spartacus (a lesser mentioned Kubrick film to be sure). I think after reading the book that 2001 was and still is as boring as whale-shit. However, EWS has caused me to rethink my opinions and give Stanley's work a second look. I don't think this will be the best picture nominee that his fans were hoping for, but I definately feel that this was a strong showing from the late genious. Now, before I see 20 posts about how I am an idiot for not liking 2001 or FMJ, keep in mind that this film has re-opened my eyes to the rest of his work. I found EWS to be interesting and very Stanley from the first seconds to the last. I can't wait to re-watch ALL of his previous work again and then see this another time. Also, there will most assuradly be those that feel EWS is an overhyped piece of trash, however you must understand that to me 2001 is the same way. I want to see it again and give it a fair chance. Just free your mind of any preconceived notions and thake EWS for what it is and you can't go wrong. -
Harry,
Some people understand the depth of Kubricks vision. Others do not. I Caramba is wasting our time with this review. I can go in any shopping mall, pick up some goon, get them to review the film and tell me it was boring. Let's keep the reviews on here at an intellectual level. -
Don't know how to start. Let's just say that this was the 1st time I've watched a Kubrick film, and the last. I don't what makes critics call this man the 'greatest' director ever. I will admit, that EWS had a good story and his use of colors was excellent (shall I say that red is his favorite color?). BUt this thing dragged and dragged. I've sat through 4 hour sermons at church, but this movie is sooo damn slow. This movie should've been left better as a book. I think if an airline would want all their clients to fall asleep during a nyc-la flight, they would put this movie on. I was yawning and looking at my watch every 20 mins. God, I don't know because I'm young or what, but this movie dragged (BTW, all the people in the theater watching this flick were above their 50s). And this flick took 3 years to make and 65 million? Shit, I would've shot principal photography in 2 weeks, and post production in another 2. And for alot of less money (excluding Tom and Nicole's salaries). There were some parts in this movie that looked like a student film (and I'm not talking about grain in the film). Jeez, this is the slowest movie in history. I counted a total of no more than 175 cuts for this 2:50 hr film. Armageddon at one point had 30 cuts in less than 3 seconds, maybe I'm used to fast movies. I again will admit that it's a wonderful story, great acting, but this flick dragged like an old tired horse. Can someone tell me why Kubrick is considered the GREATEST film maker of all time??
-
Amazing! This movie will go right over the top of most viewer's heads. Look at how the mainstream media is concentrating only on sex and nudity etc. They've missed the whole point completely! How many of them even bothered to try and figure out what this movie was really about?
Their tiny little minds can't make sense of what they just saw, all they can remember about it is who was naked or whatever. They might as well go rent "Showgirls." This only proves Kubrick's genius.
While the rest of the film industry was turning into complete shit, at least we had Kubrick. And we won't see anyone like him again with the way the executives have ruined everything. Take George Lucas for example: Artistic integrity, right out the fucking window, let's just sell action figures and tacos to kids dumb enough to know any better (for god's sake, at least let someone else direct the next two movies).
And it's only going to get worse.
p.s.
Phil - the guy delivering the note was just a passenger. The other guy driving was on the left side of the car.
I Caramba - go back to watching your MTV, and leave writing reviews to the grownups.
-
Thanks for proving my point completely. Now go back to your MTV and Taco bell.
-
You know, I didn't grow up watching MTV -- our family couldn't afford cable. The first video I ever saw was in 1993, and I hate American-wannabe-Mexican-food of Taco Bell. Let's face it, this is a film I would show at a nursery home. Yeah, what's the big *genius* about what Kubrick is trying to say. So Tom comes across this orgy and realizes that human beings are capable of some genuinely twisted
behavior, including himself? To Kubrick, this is apparently the Holy Grail of consciousness. Jeez, I'm gonna have a film and have no more than 200 cuts and a decent story with a subliminal message, and *maybe* I'll be the greatest director of our time.
Hey Matt, go back to your elitist nusery home environment...and Denny's.
-
relax, everybody. here's an objective review: EWS is not that great. It's interesting to follow Cruise through his seamy night journey, but it's as seamy as a studio set. the orgy scene is straight out of a late 1960's adult film. who cares if they digitized genetalia? kubrick loves filming naked women. fine. but there ain't no sex here. kidman has a nice accent, but she reads her line so damn deliberate. kubrick's precision kills acting spontanaiety. and visually, there's nothing to look at here except for the twilight zone masks and a phony new york stage. syndey pollack is great. but the film drags, and drags. and you can see the last line coming by a mile--especially since kidman's speech sums up the movie's theme like an aesop fable. kubrick didn't put tom cruise and nicole kidman in his film because he was after art, kids. better actors would have made this a better movie. oh well. we have dr strangelove....
-
All I can say is: stick to reviewing mainstream movies like "The Mummy" and "American Pie" because you obviously didn't get "Eyes Wide Shut," which was hideously apparent by your review.
-
Really, there where about 3 times you could see the crew reflected of chrome and mirrored surfaces. The first one, when Tom and Sidney are leaving the bathroom after the girl had overdosed. Another thing, notice that most of the women in the orgy scene were all flabby and some with cellulite...jezz! For $65 million, could you get some decent models!!?? What really made me laugh was Kubrick's attempt to use Tarsem's style of photography. This movie is as dead as Stanley.
-
Nelson, I don't post on the talk backs much, but I read most of them. Let me say something: you have no idea who Stanley Kubrick is, do you? I just back from seeing this film and I thought it was great. A fitting finish for a truely great director. Also, if you hate this movie so much why are you constantly writing messages on the talk-back about how bad it was? The talk back should be used for people to discuss the movie..if they liked it or not, etc. But, if you don't like the movie, don't post and re-post about how bad it was. And hey, if you are counting cuts during this film, then you are obviously not paying attention to the film, and obviously, sitting in a theater for an hour and a half counting cuts in a film is going to be boring. Also, why are you concerned that a lot of the people who went to see the movie are 50+ in their ages? Should that matter? Honestly, I think you need to find something to do if you spend your time writing several posts on the same talk about about why you didn't like a movie. Okay, I went through the whole registration process for that.
-
...the Swan Song of Stanley Kubrick and it is Good. This is a feast for the eyes, and suspenseful, a truly Adult film.
Thank you, Stanley Kubrick for one last masterpiece! -
I figured out the kind of person who wouldn't like EWS in particular and a Kubrick film in general: a fat, middle-American, couch potato, too busy stuffing his face with Big Macs and molesting his daughter to understand or appreciate true art. In fact, I take faith in the fact that such people despise this movie, because it only proves how great it is. Why don't you sniveling louts go back to watching Jerry Springer and Armageddon. -
HORRIBLE!! And I thought the English Patient was bad. Sorry folks, this movie takes the cake for the shittiest and most boring movie of the year. Funny, the box office at the local cineplex was jammed, not for people wanting to see this movie, but people demanding their refunds. I got mine, my girlsfriend's and all our frat buddies $8 back. Critics are predicting this movie will make $150 million?? Huh?? What universe?? I fell asleep on what was the orgy scene. DAMN!! Shit!! This word alone can not begin to describe how bad this movie is and was and will be. First, cruise as a MD is hard to believe from a guy who didnt even graduate from highschool. This movie was highly overrated and absurd. I know the really deep and artistic cinema folk will want you to believe this movie was a masterpiece, don't be fooled, it was trash. Ive seem more eroticism in grade school sleepovers. Stanley Kubrick was a genius in his time but his time has passed. It took him3 hours to boringly tell us about a married couple who have fantasies of adultery (how cutting edge, I could've told you that in a minute). And ponder the age old question, to cheat or not to cheat. Like someone said: " Kubrick observed a generation's worth of cultural change from within his self-imposed bunker, and the remove shows. It's his eyes, I'm afraid, that seem to have been wide shut, and his movie that wears a mask."
-
How does anyone begin to describe this movie? There is no good way to start. If you want an explanation, you will get it: What this movie did was take what one considers to be the standards of marriage in the conventional sense and redefined it, it brilliantly offered no conclusions and made you figure them out yourself (something that must have been to difficult for our poor horny frat boy), and it is thick with intense subtlety and realistic portrayals. It in many ways is like a eschewed version of adam and eve, except that adam takes a walk through hell and finds earth on the other end. To frat boy, and all the others who bash this movie since it was not fed to them with a silver spoon and sweetened with the purest sugar, this film has so many themes intertwined into it, it is no wonder that you couldn't comprehend them. For one, as previously mentioned, Adam and Eve, Two, Picasso, Matisse, and the distortion of reality, Three, fidelity (remember the password.) Like the Heart of Darkness, this is the most complex story packed into a simple one. This is not just a story of sexual obsession, it is a story of an aspect of the human condition. Everything, from the paintings in the background, to orgiastic scenes is an allusion. I really feel sorry for those who missed this, their eyes are really wide shut.
-
I admit that theres little things that I still have to figure out. However, I thought that the basic moral of this film was- Don't be so scared of who you are, that you forget to appriciate that you are. I also got- When your in love with someone, you can't worry about the bull shit, you just have to love them. Then I thought I also got Stanly's opinions about christianity [that its a hoax, or something]. Can some one tell me what they think?
-
A year and a half to work on this turkey?????? With all due respect to the late Stanley Kubrick, but if this film was made by anyone BUT Mr. Kubrick, it would have gone straight to video. It reminded me of some obscure french soft porn I had seen years ago on Cinemax or Showtime...I will admit some scenes kept me involved but it all fell apart by act III. A great story has a beginning, middle, and an end....this movie was missing the END. An audience will not forgive you for a bad or a non-ending...EVER!!! The set up was interesting, the conflict was building and then.....and then...and then.....it ends with the word, "fuck"....huh??? The quick explanation for the masked party, the piano player, and the death of the young woman was inexcusable...as if a novice screenwriter was hurrying up to tie up all the loose ends because he/she had written too much and needed to finish the script around page 120. What's worse is Dr. Bill's reaction to seeing the mask next to Alice...so what??? The resolution and the pay off were surprisingly weak...and who allowed a five year old to play the piano on the soundtrack???? Eveytime the piano theme was played, the audience would moan and sigh. I couldn't blame them...I'm not disappointed because I had no expectations...I'm just pissed that Mr. Kubrick co-wrote a bad screenplay. Stanley Kubrick was a great director, but not a great screenwriter, and unfortunatley his marvelous directing couldn't save EWS from being what it is: A poorly written story.
Directing: A-
Story and concept: C-
Screenplay: D -
I never post on Talk Back, but I usually do read most of them. This is one matter that I felt should end my silence on this website. While all of us have the right to express our opinion of any movie, I do feel that those who have been against Eyes Wide Shut have obviously no idea of just what a Stanley Kubrick film is all about. From the beginning, the movie has always been about more than just sex and nudity. It's just in our twisted world, that is what got the most hype. Secondly, while I still think A Clockwork Orange is still Kubrick's best, I must say that Eyes Wide Shut is one of his best. The orgy scene did what it was meant to do. It sent chills down my spine. Cruise's performance was superb (check out the look on his face when Kidman's character tells him of her fantasy about the sailor), and Kidman gives an Oscar worthy performance. EWS was not meant to be a "steamy sex film" which seems to be the main reason why all of you are disappointed. Kubrick knew better than that. This film is an examination of sex, desires, and jealously in our world. It IS Kubrick's final masterpiece.
-
another thought on EWS after reading the new posts: people that call others IDIOTS in screaming capital letters because they are just not hip to what this kubrick dude was all about strike me as the people least likely to get anything. i am a kubrick fan, not worshipper, so i can call a spade a spade. did you kubrick lackey's notice this is his first film (besides shelly duvall's no-part) to actually include a woman character? and when he does, he films her naked, many times, for no particuular reason. zalman king does the same thing. kurbickites, you must note that EWS is badly edited, whether WB did this or not, it's true. when cruise arrives home after his long night, in a long take he wanders the house, obviously grateful to have survived. then he sees the mask on the bed. great. EXCEPT: before he even walks in the door, they show the mask next to kidman, killing the surprise. even the process shots are bad. i advise people to SEE the movie for it's still more intelligent than most films out there, but 65 million dollars and 3 years...nahhhh. there's no reason for it. unknown actors on existing new york locales and the film would have cost ten million.
-
I saw Eyes Wide Shut yesterday and just have to say one thing about it: brilliant.
-
the best thing about this film was the appearence of the end credit
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Baz's THE GREAT GATSBY explodes with one helluva dazzling trailer! -- 171 total posts 154 posts
- G.I. JOE: RETALIATION Delayed Nine Months...Thanks To A Force More Sinister Than Cobra!! -- 141 total posts 141 posts
- UPDATED!!! A Six-Pack Of New Character Posters For THE DARK KNIGHT RISES Forecast A Lot Of Gotham Rain And Snow!! -- 265 total posts 129 posts
- Who Is The Voice Of Batman In WB's Animated Two Part THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS? -- 129 total posts 129 posts
- Cats Beware!! An ALF Movie May Soon Come Our Way... -- 126 total posts 126 posts
- Zach Galifianakis Is Ignatius J. Reilly? -- 81 total posts 81 posts
- AICN COMICS REVIEWS: INCREDIBLE HULK! DANGER CLUB! CLiNT 2.1! JAMES BOND! BATMAN INC.! AND MORE!!! -- 62 total posts 62 posts
- The Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day… the horror… the horror… -- 45 total posts 45 posts
- Quint has seen Andrew Dominik's crime thriller KILLING THEM SOFTLY starring Brad Pitt! Cannes 2012! -- 41 total posts 41 posts
- The Next Season Of DOCTOR WHO Was Delayed To Fall Just To Build Anticipation?? -- 68 total posts 38 posts