Kubrick's output is fantastic, he is 9 feet tall, but I don't know about his last work.
2006-12-04 22:18:11 · 29 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Movies
No, the hype about it was just that, hype, it turned out to be quite a boring movie in the end.
2006-12-04 22:20:56 · answer #1 · answered by Charmaine 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
While this movie certainly has many flaws, I wouldn't dismiss it as a total POS. As far as Nicole naked, she's much hotter in the Human Stain....
Word on the street is that Kubrick died before making the final edits, so it's interesting to wonder what might have been different had he lived a little longer.
If you are a student of film or even literature, Eyes Wide Shut has some interesting plot devices-- for example, some of the Christmas decorations appear in more than one scene/setting.
Admittedly, some of the acting and dialog is incredibly bad, laughably so-- for example, when they smoke pot, NK gets angry and loopy, which is not convincing at all. And the old dude who tries to pick her up at the party is pathetic.
Even so, there are all kinds of little "tricks" going on in this movie. I know someone who argues that it is a retelling of the story of the Nutcracker.... and others who say it is a classical story of a descent into the underworld (takes place over three days, steps are repeated in reverse).
At any rate, depite its flaws, this one is thought-provoking and good for a few laughs. And Tom Cruise is a hoot playing "himself" and tossing around self-important BS ("I'm a doctor...")
2006-12-05 06:25:33 · answer #2 · answered by Ms. Switch 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's definitely worth a watch - quite atmospheric/mysterious in parts - but is not really up to the mark of some of his earlier films, but then again, neither was Full Metal Jacket. It plods a bit and overall is pretty obvious. The novella upon which it is based (Traumnovella by Arthur Schnitzler) is more interesting because it gets to the point and is over in an hour. Kubrick really stretches Eyes Wide Shut out, until you've really got the point, and the point is not really that interesting. So, watch it once - but I can almost guarantee you won't want to watch it again.
2006-12-04 22:39:02 · answer #3 · answered by Alyosha 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you like Kubrick, why not give it a watch? If you don't, but are curious enough (take it that you could be quite a film buff yourself), you should just go give it a watch instead of asking what people feel about the film. Like they say, de gustibus non est disputandum. There's not arguing about taste. Be your own judge. Then come back and let us know what you feel.
PS. I'm a big fan of Stanley Kubrick. While I don't particularly feel Eyes is entirely load of crap, it still isn't my most favourite Kubrick film.
2006-12-04 22:27:54 · answer #4 · answered by bluefossil 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Definitely the worst of Kubrick's films, and very probably the worst of Nicole Kidman's films too. Its just so boring....so in short the answer is no, don't bother. Its not even that sexy. The only worthwhile thing is the excellent Chris Isaak song in the soundtrack "Baby did a bad, bad thing".
2006-12-04 22:47:27 · answer #5 · answered by alanth 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hmm let's see. It's not just a regular Hollywood piece it's more like an art. You may spent hours to understand their convs but you won't get it as you need to interpret what's the pictures about. One thing for sure, the movie showed that the elite sex party is really exist believe it or not. It's a general secret afterall.
I watched it once but that's enough to rate it as a good movie. Sometimes there is a movie who you should just watch one time as it would lost the magic if you watched it over and over. Forget about Cruise, it's Kidman who took the attention. I'm always a big fan of her.
2006-12-04 22:30:47 · answer #6 · answered by Ophelia a.k.a Mia 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Anything Stanley Kubrick ever did was worth watching-the film industry is a poorer place without him RIP.I can't take my eyes off Nicole Kidman every time I watch this movie-mmmmmmm
2006-12-05 00:36:10 · answer #7 · answered by CHARLIEDONTSURF 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I've seen Eyes Wide Shut a couple of times, and unless you are a Very big Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman fan -there's not really that much to it, in my Opinion anyway.
2006-12-04 22:22:28 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I haven't seen it but I heard it was awful. Even Kubrick himself was not pleased. I know a few friends who did and said it was a pile of crap.
2006-12-04 22:20:32 · answer #9 · answered by parrothead2371 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I never like to force an opinion on someone - in movies it's each to their own. But to be honest I thought it was a waste of time. It COULD have been good - but was not at all.
2006-12-04 22:21:52 · answer #10 · answered by fruitloop 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO!!!!!
That was a piece of crap movie.
Nasty too seeing Nicole Kidman on the toilet!!
Just proves Tom is a weirdo!
2006-12-04 22:24:23 · answer #11 · answered by Cat 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋