Eyes Wide Suck

[aha]

Well thought I would break the IMHO cherry and ask a question about Eyes Wide Shut.

Here is my opinion:

That huge sucking sound is the world viewing audience being fleeced out of their money. Mine along with them.

I rented this dog last night and watched for two and one half hours and at the end of it I didn't have a clue as to what the late Stanley Kubrick was trying to tell me. And it certainly wasn't worth $4.00 to watch Nicole Kidman say fuck over and over.

Anyway I was just wondering WHAT IN THE NAME OF ALL THAT IS HOLY IS THIS MOVIE WAS ABOUT!!!!!

Color me dumb I guess.

Anyone want to help me out on this? And remember I have already called myself dumb.

[Smokey]

but it'll be on DTV soon. I take it that you don't recomend it?

[realidad]

Right with you there aha (hoo-ha whatever) That movie is seriously the hugest piece of nothing trash that I have seen in a long long time. At least content yourself with the fact that you only saw it on video. I had to pay £8 to enjoy the excrement from the (un)comfort of a cinema seat.

[Initial Entry]

That movie ruled.

It was beautifully constructed, every piece fit into the whole, the characters were fully fleshed and superb. Just because you aren't willing to put the effort into understanding it doesn't mean that it's a bad movie.

Sigh. I'm surrounded by philistines.

[Milossarian]

'Sigh' is right.

It's just that kind of, "you aren't sophisticated enough to understand how great this movie is" attitude that's even more offensive than the movie itself.

A few of Kubrick's old Hollywood buddies are circulating the same sort of message in various magazines.

That movie was tedious. The long, drawn-out pauses in the tepid dialogue - I'm sure it was an attempt to make things more surreal and dream-like. It ended up just being boring.

I'm not going to say it's the worst movie I've ever seen or anything. But it's not a masterpiece, and it's pushing it to say it's even good.

[Initial Entry]

Excuse me, I did not say that they weren't sophisticated enough to understand it, I said that they weren't putting in enough effort.

Kindly read the actual posts I make, I find your implications rather insulting.

If someone said that they read, say, Heart of Darkness, or Crime and Punishment over a weekend, and thought that it was tedious, or poorly written, what would you tell them? Sometimes you actually have to put effort into something rather than just lying back passively and letting the moving pictures entertain you.

[Silo]

I thought it was alright...but then again i'm wierd.

[Devil In Disguise]

The movie made no sense at all, but I got to see Nicole Kidman naked, and other than the fact she has small nipples, I think it was worth the money. Too bad Cruise and her can't have kids, because I think if she dropped a kid or too her breasts would be perfect.

[Brunetter]

I consider myself a fairly intelligent movie viewer. I also am that rare breed: a woman who appreciates movies that most women can't stand. I was quite excited to see the previews of Eyes Wide Shut, and finally went to see it in the theatre with my husband, his friend (who I consider to be one of the most intelligent people I've ever met), and his significant other.

All four of us had been quite psyched for this movie. However, 2.5 hours later, we felt screwed. The movie SUCKED. The plot was weak and not fully explored, the cinimatography was not up to Kubrick's standards, and the most fascinating parts of the movie were cut short in favor of long spaces with NOTHING happening.

We discussed this at length, and are prepared to accept anyone of the following statements as to our disappointment in the movie:
1. The movie was actually good, but our expectations had been raised too high and/or misled by the previews.
2. The movie was originally good, but had been edited (badly) by someone other than Kubrick due to his death.
3. The movie stunk.
4. The movie was an incredible piece of artistry worthy of a great filmmaker, and we are just too ignorant to understand it.

NOTE: I will ONLY accept the last item with FULL EXPLANATION! Prove to me that I'm a Philistine with no taste and that this movie truly was a superb end to a great career. If we're actually going to have an intelligent discussion about this movie, let's not cast our votes as "this movie sucked" or "you're just dumb" ... support your views with the kind of articulate debate I've come to expect from Dopers. I'm listening....

[Initial Entry]

The plot was weak and not fully explored, the cinimatography was not up to Kubrick's standards, and the most fascinating parts of the movie were cut short in favor of long spaces with NOTHING happening.

On the issue of the plot you're going to have to be more explicit, are you referring to the "secret society of sex fiends" bit of the plot, or the represented breakdown and rebuilding of the marriage between the two characters, or the coming realization of the underlying darkness to their existence?

The cinematography I found to be excellent, but since I'm really not qualified to judge it-essentially I don't have the right vocabulary- I'm not going to.

Now we get to the last bit, which I find interesting. As far as I could tell the most interesting parts were where exactly nothing was happening. The use of lighting and color in this movie, more than any other thing, was the most interesting bit of the movie. The way the society functions were lit, the comparisons between the cold blue outside and the warm golden interiors of the houses, the dark hustle of the streets, all of these were incredibly important in the story. The true story in Eyes Wide Shut was the story of the colors interacting. Dr Hartford's perceptions of the world - his naive morality demonstrated by the black and white imagination sequences, the bright gaudy lights shown against a background of shadow, the alternation between the blues and golds during the scene of their first argument, these were the most interesting bits of the movie. If you don't pay attention to these the entire movie just becomes a rather fanciful episode of Melrose's Place.

[Wumpus]

The movie sucked.

It pains me to say it. I'm a huge Kubrick fan, 2001 is my favorite movie, and it seems really ungrateful to complain about a movie featuring a nude Nicole Kidman ... but ... the movie sucked.

One big problem is that the movie was totally out of touch with the times. I'm sure when the original novella appeared in the 20s, it was really hot stuff, but what wowed 'em them doesn't cut the mustard today.

1) The movie's premise -- that a respectable young married man can't accept that his wife has sexual thoughts about other men -- seems pretty musty when you transfer it from 1920s Vienna to 1990s NYC.

2) In an era when graphic depictions of every form of possible perversion are just a video rental or mouse click away, the orgy scene couldn't help seem a bit tame and, well, cheesy. (This is the best the decadent rich can do?)

3) After umpteen seasons of THE X FILES, the whole secret society angle comes off as just another cliche.

Add to that the leaden pace, Kubrick's trademark cold touch, and an unspectacular performance from Cruise, and you have the worst movie of Kubrick's career.

(There was more to the movie, to be sure, such as the question of what was *really* going on, but the movie's not good enough to spend your precious time digging into.)

[Initial Entry]

1) The movie's premise -- that a respectable young married man can't accept that his wife has sexual thoughts about other men -- seems pretty musty when you transfer it from 1920s Vienna to 1990s NYC.

Um, thoughts so strong that his wife would leave him and their child even if she knew it was only for one night of sex with this man? Yes I think that would be a bit disturbing.

2) In an era when graphic depictions of every form of possible perversion are just a video rental or mouse click away, the orgy scene couldn't help seem a bit tame and, well, cheesy. (This is the best the decadent rich can do?)

Let me try and get this straight. Your complaint is that the movie isn't pornographic enough? Uh huh. I'd just like to ask what sort of viewing experience you were after when you went to see this movie? Did it involve having your hat in your lap?

3) After umpteen seasons of THE X FILES, the whole secret society angle comes off as just another cliche.

Um, so the X files's creation of a secret organisation designed to perpetuate ignorance of an alien race's attempts to colonize the earth is somehow the same as a bunch of rich guys getting together to have sex? Look, this sort of idea has been around since De Sade, and probably earlier - it's a tool he's using, it's not necessarily supposed to be a breathtakingly original idea. You were expecting, perhaps, to be shocked by something in this movie?

If nothing else the previous movies that Kubrick has made, and the controversy this movie has stirred up are enough reasons to "waste your precious time" trying to figure out whats going on. Just because something isn't immediately accessible to you doesn't mean it's not worth it.

[Wumpus]

Initial Entry:

"Let me try and get this straight. Your complaint is that the movie isn't pornographic enough?"

No. My complaint is that a sequence that Kubrick obviously intended to be disturbing and provocative came off as an outtake from a Zalman King direct-to-video production.

"Look, this sort of idea has been around since De Sade, and probably earlier - it's a tool he's using, it's not necessarily supposed to be a breathtakingly original idea. You were expecting, perhaps, to be shocked by something in this movie?"

Yes, because Kubrick so desperately *wanted* people to be shocked.

"If nothing else the previous movies that Kubrick has made, and the controversy this movie has stirred up are enough reasons to "waste your precious time" trying to figure out whats going on. Just because something isn't immediately accessible to you doesn't mean it's not worth it."

I guess you misunderstood my post. I wasn't saying that I hadn't tried to figure out what was going on. I had and I did. I was just telling others on the board that it wasn't worth *their* time to watch a labored Jungian parable that would have worked much better in its original time and setting. (IMHO, of course.)

[Initial Entry]

No. My complaint is that a sequence that Kubrick obviously intended to be disturbing and provocative came off as an outtake from a Zalman King direct-to-video production.

Can you provide any evidence that he intended that sequence to be disturbing?

Yes, because Kubrick so desperately *wanted* people to be shocked.

Again, I have to ask for some evidence that this was intended to be shocking. I seriously doubt that Kubrick was so out of touch with current day standards that he couldn't have come up with something better. (And remember that if you're watching the edited-by-the-MPAA that almost anything even remotely shocking has been covered up anyway)

I guess you misunderstood my post. I wasn't saying that I hadn't tried to figure out what was going on. I had and I did. I was just telling others on the board that it wasn't worth *their* time to watch a labored Jungian parable that would have worked much better in its original time and setting.

I can identify, and this is from only one viewing, three separate plots, all of them intertwined through each other. I seriously doubt that this is intended to be a simply fable.

(IMHO, of course.)

In this forum at the very least, this goes without saying.

[Brunetter]

Okay, first of all let me say that I basically agree with everything that Wumpus is saying, and so I will try not to respond to things that he/she has already covered. The one specific aspect that you commented to me on, the plot, I will delve into a little bit ....

First of all, as I say, it is ill-defined. If you choose to define it as "the breakdown and rebuilding of the marriage" (the secret society really takes up such a small amount of screen time that it seems unlikely as the topic) then I would have liked to see more exploration of that. As I recall, Tom Cruise is upset that his wife thought of being unfaithful (more on that later), takes off for a night, then comes back ... the only thing mentioned about all of this is in the last scene of the movie, where they decide they should fuck.

Okay. First of all, very little of the movie actually focuses on these events. I remember several other sub-plots which were more developed and more interesting, but had absolutely nothing to do with this (or one another). Secondly, nothing that happens throughout these events is well-motivated or explained AT ALL. I'm not saying it should be ground into meatloaf for the masses, but even compared to 2001 (Kubrick's other confusing/controversial movie) this one is scattered. Why does Tom Cruise come back? would be my first question, and Why do they not discuss his leaving/returning? Not that I need this all spelled out, but that would help in the plot development department!! (I also wouldn't class, "Hey, we should fuck," as rebuilding a marriage.)

I realize I've already blathered on for quite awhile, but I do want to touch on the subject of Nicole Kidman's "unfaithfullness". As a woman, I firmly hold the view that she would not have cheated on her husband ... it's easy to say "I would have made this choice if it was presented to me", but you never REALLY KNOW until you do have the choice ... which she never did. Plus, she is trying to get a reaction out of her husband, and thus is prone to exaggerate.

[aha]

Initial Entry:

Just because you aren't willing to put the effort into understanding it doesn't mean that it's a bad movie.

What a chicken shit way to disagree with someone!

Just because I don't agree with your positive review of the movie I am too lazy to understand how really great it was.. right? That's the way I read it. I am remembering that we are not in the pit so here is my counterpoint.

I have seen all of Kubricks films...all of them. For the most part they are all classic ground breaking works of art. I expected no less from this film. However I should have taken the hint that it was not up to snuff when it made it's way from the big screen to dish network PPV in less than a year but I was willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. As it turned out I personally was disappointed.

Do you think this film will be remembered in film history like 2001, A Clockwork Orange and Full Metal Jacket? I think I can empatically say no it won't.

I realize that Kubrick liked to put his movies together in parts to make up a whole and that he used symbolism...believe it or not. But he failed miserably on this one.

And so that leaves us with the actors. Do you really find Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman so interesting that you can sit and look at them for two and one half hours act out (poorly I might add) a script so disjointed and vague?

Yours is the second opinion of EWS that I have read about the colors and the symbolism of black and white vs. color sequences. So fucking what? That has been done done done.

So let me say, without insulting you personally that I thought this movie sucked a donkey dick. A droner taking up space in cinematic history. If you liked it then swell. Don't try and force it up my nose by insinuating that I am too lazy to understand it.

[Milossarian]

Initial Entry, perhaps you wouldn't have found my first post insulting, if you had taken the time and effort to really dig into it, to understand and appreciate its underlying richness and myriad of intertwining complexities at work within it.

For example, the way the colors interplay. The uncompromising blackness of the letters in the post's words against the unchanging slate background. And isn't life really all just shades of gray? The unspoken allegory is sheer mastery.

When, like a philistine, you don't take the time to appreciate my first entry's full brilliance, it probably just comes off like another inane Milo post. Don't blame the post or the post's director, I.E. -- the fault is yours.

[Initial Entry]

Anyway I was just wondering WHAT IN THE NAME OF ALL THAT IS HOLY IS THIS MOVIE WAS ABOUT!!!!!

Color me dumb I guess.

Just because you aren't willing to put the effort into understanding it doesn't mean that it's a bad movie.

What a chicken shit way to disagree with someone!

Just because I don't agree with your positive review of the movie I am too lazy to understand how really great it was.. right?

Uh huh. Now how could I have possibly gotten the impression that you didn't understand this movie...hmmm.....

Oh Yeah! It was that bit in the OP where you said you didn't understand it.

I think I can emphatically say no it won't.

If for nothing else, it will be remembered for the controversy it stirred up.

I realize that Kubrick liked to put his movies together in parts to make up a whole and that he used symbolism...believe it or not. But he failed miserably on this one.

And yet again I ask for examples of things he tried to do but failed. I provided examples of things that I believe he attempted to do and succeeded, surely you can provide some sort of evidence to support your position.

And so that leaves us with the actors. Do you really find Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman so interesting that you can sit and look at them for two and one half hours act out (poorly I might add) a script so disjointed and vague?

Well, Nicole Kidman maybe...wait, no.
And yet somehow I was captivated for the entire 2 and a half hours.

Yours is the second opinion of EWS that I have read about the colors and the symbolism of black and white vs. color sequences. So fucking what? That has been done done done.

Hey, there are people moving about on the screen! That has been done done done. Whats your point? I never said he did all sorts of new avant-garde shit, I said it was a good, well constructed movie.

So let me say, without insulting you personally that I thought this movie sucked a donkey dick. A droner taking up space in cinematic history. If you liked it then swell. Don't try and force it up my nose by insinuating that I am too lazy to understand it.

And if you claim to not understand it then don't take offense when people tell you that you don't understand it. I would, by the way, prefer to think of you as lazy for not understanding it - something that is reasonable, not everyone feels like putting the effort into something to understand it- than to think of you as simply to oblivious to get it at all. Would you perhaps prefer me to think differently?

[aha]

aha:

Anyway I was just wondering WHAT IN THE NAME OF ALL THAT IS HOLY THIS MOVIE WAS ABOUT!!!!!

My quote above was an effort to illicit some kind of intelligent explanation as to why this movie was so bad, instead I got this:

The use of lighting and color in this movie, more than any other thing, was the most interesting bit of the movie. The way the society functions were lit, the comparisons between the cold blue outside and the warm golden interiors of the houses, the dark hustle of the streets, all of these were incredibly important in the story. The true story in Eyes Wide Shut was the story of the colors interacting. Dr Hartford's perceptions of the world - his naive morality demonstrated by the black and white imagination sequences, the bright gaudy lights shown against a background of shadow, the alternation between the blues and golds during the scene of their first argument, these were the most interesting bits of the movie

Head nodding then bumping the keyboard...snort! what? oh look a novel! And psuedo intellectual in nature! *yawn* Oh yeah the colors...yes you were saying?

[Initial Entry]

My quote above was an effort to illicit some kind of intelligent explanation as to why this movie was so bad,

Well pardon me, I thought you were actually asking some sort of question or opening some sort of topic up for discussion. I didn't realize that what you wanted was mindless affirmation. I apologize for making such a stupid mistake.

And it's so bad because Kubrick blows goats. That better?

[Silo]

IMHO the acting and the plot were kinda weak. Now that i'm thinking about it, remember the scene where Nicole is drunk and the one where Nicole is stoned. Knowing how people react under these drugs, it seemed to me that in the drunk scene Nicole acted like she was high (on weed). And likewise, when she smoked pot, she acted like she was drunk. So they fu*ked that part up. BUT, the movie was dramatic and I did like the way tension was built in certain scenes. Tension and release is important, but so are many other things like acting and plot.

The editing could have been bad (?). Oh Well...enough on this.

[aha]

I apologize for making such a stupid mistake.

Apology accepted.

[neutron star]

Count me as one more vote for tedious, vapid snoozefest. If my wife didn't insist on watching the movie the whole way through (I'm not sure why. She hated it too), I'd have turned it off after 15 minutes, just like I did with the Matrix. Ugh...

[evilbeth]

What the hell, it's late and I don't have anything better to do.

Initial Entry, I happen to agree with you that it is a good film.

I concede to the others that Tom Cruise's acting was bad. But then, I have felt that way about him in several movies.

Yes, Nicole Kidman was naked. Yes, I think her body is very sexy. No, her being naked was not a major part of the film as the trailers would have had you believe--the movie was not supposed to be pornographic--it was intended to leave the viewer frustrated. (Can we please refrain from such sophomoric responses as, "Yeah, I was frustrated--'cause it sucked!" and focus on actual intelligent comments?)

I don't care who liked it and who didn't. I am not the official ambassador for Stanley Kubrick films. You didn't like it, fine. At least understand that there are people who do like it and who appreciate the craftsmanship that went into making the film.

Maybe I am strange and unusual in this regard, but I can watch a film and not like it but still understand and appreciate the technology and skill that went into making it. I do not like most John Woo films. I just don't. However, I can and do appreciate the wonderful choreography and amazing camera work involved. I also understand that John Woo is a great director and many other directors admire his skill and attempt to imitate him. I understand that he has had tremendous influence over an entire generation of filmmakers. However, to borrow a colorful phrase from an aforementioned post, I think many of his films suck "a donkey dick." But I would never challenge someone who enjoyed his films to prove to me that they don't suck. It is a pointless argument--if you do not like a film, no amount of detailing the finer points is going to make you change your mind.

The fact remains that the lighting in Eyes Wide Shut was amazing. Stanley Kubrick can do wonderful things with incidental lighting. If you think that lighting is a non-essential part of a film, of course you are not going to see that as a selling point. The fact remains that the story is about insecurity, infedelity, obsession, and trust. The story is complex. If you see it as just a story about a guy who is upset because his wife almost cheated on him, then you are not going to appreciate the film. The fact remains that the music is cacophonous for a reason. It is supposed to twang and be discordant--it is paralleling Dr. Harford's mental state. However, if you find it just irritating and grating, then you are not going to enjoy the film.

Some people really like the film, others don't. Maybe everyone hates it except 50 people. That still doesn't make it a bad movie. Millions of people love Chinese food. I think it sucks. Yet, I can not expect someone to be able to convince me that I should like it because it doesn't work like that. By the same token, I cannot convince millions of people that Chinese food actually blows because it doesn't work that way either. Initial Entry has provided many good explanations about why the film is good but just like the Chinese food, he is not going to be able to change someone's mind just because he tells them the lighting is great.

Now, just some points:

So far as Brunetter's options, I vote that #1 is the biggest reason that most people do not like the film.

Wumpus said:

No. My complaint is that a sequence that Kubrick obviously intended to be disturbing and provocative came off as an outtake from a Zalman King direct-to-video production.

I don't think he intended it to be so much disturbing and provocative as he meant for it to be so surreal and bizarre that it was overwhelming to the point of numbness. There is only so much a "normal" everyday mind can handle when presented with something so out of sync with reality. To oversimplify it, if you've seen one table full of writhing, naked, nubile young women engaging in sexual acts your fantasies have never even included, you've seen 'em all.

The point is art is subjective. And yes, this film is art no matter how you feel about it personally.

[Typo Negative]

I'm in the 'it sucked' camp.

I found the pace too slow and the dialog too thin.

And the 'secret society' orgy scene was, for lack of a better word, dull. The last thing an orgy scene should be is dull.

And the worst part of all was that tinkering piano soundtrack.

[billehunt]

Sucked big time. And I'm such a Kubrick fan; what a disappointment. I didn't realize it was possible to make porn boring.

[Max Torque]

Here's an article on Eyes Wide Shut that I found interesting, written by DVD Savant.

bill - I think that was the whole point: showing so much nudity in such odd contexts that nudity itself is no longer sexy.

[Biotop]

Eyes Wide Shut was great! And speaking of lighting, no one can argue that those overlit, overdecorated Christmas trees in every scene weren't downright creepy.

[Wumpus]

That's a nice article, MaxTorque. I pretty much agree with it, except that I see the glass as half empty, not half full....

As the article says, if the movie didn't have "Directed by Stanley Kubrick" splashed on it, the critical reaction would have been much different.

[WhoaNellie]

Is this an old thread that got boosted? The movie won't even rent anymore.

[Brunetter]

Evilbeth:
"You didn't like it, fine. At least understand that there are people who DO like it and who appreciate the craftsmanship that went into this film."

No! Sorry! I refuse! And there's one reason: up until the point where I read your message, no one had been able to give me an intelligent discourse on why this movie didn't suck. And no, I am not looking for someone to convert me to the fan camp: I am looking for proof that the person talking is not simply a parrot of "The Emperor's New Clothes" syndrome. I've read many reviews and critiques (including some on this board) that essentially say, "This movie was AMAZING. Stanley Kubrick is GOD. I know this because I am SMARTER/MORE SOPHISTICATED/LESS LAZY than you, and all those who disagree with me are PEONS."

I would hope that if we are going to have intelligent discussion of topics of this kind, that we are able to defend our opinions more rigourously than simply saying "you're stupid if you disagree."

That said, your comments on the film are the most detailed and intelligent I have seen to date. You have explained your point of view well, and as such, I can accept it as the reason we differ. All I was looking for (from anybody posting here) was someone to dare stand up and say "I like the film because ..." not simply resort to name-calling to make him/herself feel bigger than all the other morons. Let's leave that to the critics, shall we?

Wumpus, that is an amazingly good point ... as usual!

That's all for now.

[ReservoirDog]

No, no, no, people. You are all focusing on the wrong things. This movie will be remembered and cherished for years to come. Not because of the plot, or the acting, or the lighting. No -- because of the beautiful score:

DING! DING! DING! DINGDING! DINGDINGDINGDINGDING!!!!
DINGDING! DING!!

I go by this simple rule when it comes to music: If I can play it, it ain't good.

[Dinsdale]

I am in the philistine camp - I watch movies primarily for entertainment. And EWS did not entertain me. Nor did 2001. Watched both in the past few months and thought SK could use a good editor to move things along. Found both pretty to look at, but boring. FMJ seemed like 2 movies - loved the 1st half, found the 2d half kinda blah.

I certainly will not deny, however, that film can serve a different purpose for someone else.

Ulysses - the greatest book ever? Darned if I can get past them oxen. And Crime and Punishment? z-z-z. Same for Brothers K. But I love my Tolstoy.

I think there is a continuum of types of art (film/literature/visual art). At one end might be a film that is purely for escapist entertainment. At the other end may be a work that is intended to be a commentary on something to be interpreted by educated viewers within the context of its genre. And being on one end or the other may say more about personal choice, that the inherent "worth" of the work. Perhaps much of Kubrick's work tends towrds the "interpretive" end of the continuum.

I can imagine the argument being made that the "best" films are those which appeal to folks whose preference generally lies at opposite ends of the spectrum.

[Sam Stone]

Try reading this review of 'Eyes Wide Shut' from the Reader's own Jonathan Rosenbaum. (he's the guy being promoting in that perennial banner at the top of the SDMB pages).

http://www.chireader.com/movies/arch...799/07239.html

Read it, and maybe it'll make you think a bit differently about the film. Besides, I'm sure Cecil and Ed would like the click-through.

[Brunetter]

http://www.scour.com has a very amusing indie film called "Pies Wide Shut" that you should have a look at for comic relief.

Also ... Dinsdale's comment that "...{on one end} may be a work that is intended as a commentary on something to be interpreted by educated viewers within the context of its genre" brought to mind my opinion of Nirvana's "Smells Like Teen Spirit", which is the same as my opinion on EWS. If you got something so damn important to say, Kurt and Stanley, fucking well say it then.

DING! Thanks ReservoirDog.

[L.Ron Hoover]

I thought it was slow moving but hypnotic, almost like a three hour long dream. I also thought that Stanley knew he was going to pass away before the movie came out, and that the movie is some kind of cosmic joke at the moviegoer's expense. Otherwise why would so many people dislike a movie that features Nic Kidman getting naked?

Stanley always did like to make movies more for himself then anyone else.

I'm on the liked it side on this one.

[Diane]

Zzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzz

Not only did I pay close attention to this movie, I even attempted to watch it a second time to see if maybe I missed something. I didn't.

It sucked just as bad the second time. What a piece of crap!

Here's a newsflash - Weird lighting, black and white to color, creepy music (I found the DING DING DING crap annoying as hell), long drawn out pauses, and surreal settings have been done over and over and over, and may I add much better than this garbage. Nothing new or impressing here.

[Diane]

almost like a three hour long dream.

Probably because we were all sleeping.

I also thought that Stanley knew he was going to pass away before the movie came out, and that the movie is some kind of cosmic joke at the moviegoer's expense.

Are you serious?

He was probably feeling like shit and it showed up in his work.

[Shirley Ujest]

I haven't seen this movie yet, and I probably will get around to it eventually.

My question for those that saw it is: If you hadn't heard all the ballyhoo about Cinematic Masterpiece and
Kubrick's Last Film and knew nothing about it, watched it with a clean slate, do you think it would still suck?

I've discovered the anticipation and watching the commericals and previews and critics has ruined more movies for me.

[Water Boy]

How old is this thread? Yawn

[Diane]

do you think it would still suck?

Not only yes, but HELL YES!

You really need to rent it so you can appreciate just how bad it really is.