Eyes Wide Suck

In My Humble Opinion
21

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.

22

Apology accepted.

23

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…

24

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:

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.

25

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.

26

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

27

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.

28

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.

29

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.

30

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

31

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.

32

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.

33

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.

34

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/archives/1999/0799/07239.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.

35

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.

36

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.

37

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.

38

Probably because we were all sleeping.

Are you serious?

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

39

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.

40

How old is this thread? Yawn