Is "Eyes Wide Shut" a good movie? Was Stanley Kubrick a good director?

Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by Steve Hoffman, Jan 31, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. chacha

    chacha Forum Resident In Memoriam

    Location:
    mill valley CA USA
    Kubrick is a totally unique creative visionary. EWS is certainly one of his lesser films but worth seeing once. I remember no chemistry between Tom & Nicole but perhaps that was the intent plus 50 takes.
     
  2. junk

    junk Hellion

    Location:
    St. Louis
    Great sets and cinematography for sure. That's about all. Can't stand Tom Cruise.
     
    jkauff and thestereofan like this.
  3. profholt82

    profholt82 Resident Blowhard

    Location:
    West Michigan
    It's the coda of a slightly mad genius who, at that point, was very reclusive and far removed from reality. I think that it is an incredibly interesting and engaging movie, but it definitely doesn't hold up well in comparison to most of his previous pictures. Actors and crewmen had complained over the years about his obsessiveness and insistence on shooting the same scenes over and over ad nauseum, but at this late point in his life, that obsessiveness had grown to an incalculable level, and it was clearly a strain on his actors. You can see it in their performances in the movie. Most of them just seem to be so aloof and exhausted. It was a fascinating picture though. I actually haven't seen it since it was first released in the theaters. I remember that I was vacationing in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware at the time, but I didn't want to miss a new Kubrick picture, so I had to talk my buddy into going with me (he was upset because he wanted to troll the boardwalk). I was 16 at the time, so my dad had to get us in as well. :laugh:
    Perhaps I'll revisit it soon now that you've got me thinking about it again.
     
    SandAndGlass likes this.
  4. redmetalmoose

    redmetalmoose Forum Resident

    Location:
    New England
    To co-write and direct "2001 A Space Odyssey" should answer that question.Its like asking if you think the Rolling Stones are a good band.Not every albums going to be "Exile on Main Street". There's gonna be a couple of "Steel Wheels" too.Its tough to hit it out of the park every time.I think Stanley had many thought provoking, cutting edge movies. Unfortunately his last movie wasn't one of them.
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2015
  5. The Wanderer

    The Wanderer Seeker of Truth

    Location:
    NYC
    Not a fan of the film and consider Kubrick the beneficiary a moment in time.
     
  6. Michael

    Michael I LOVE WIDE S-T-E-R-E-O!

    Loved it.."can you give me a discount"? priceless.
     
    Moonbeam Skies likes this.
  7. kevinsinnott

    kevinsinnott Forum Coffeeologist

    Location:
    Chicago, IL USA
    My opinion is that Kubrick is a photographer's director. His sense of story is good, but not great and his actor direction is good, but not great. He errs on clever, exact choreographed moves, more than emotion. I realize I'm being very flip, and I apologize as I realize I'm judging a man's career. I still like several of his films. I really enjoyed The Shining and Barry Lyndon. Eyes Wide Shut didn't appeal to me for some reason. I find Dr Strangelove is overrated and far prefer Fail Safe (non Kubrick) as a similar-themed film from the era.

    As far as 2001, A Space Odyssey goes, I prefer the McGuinn-Hippard song on Notorious Byrd Brothers.
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2015
  8. Michael

    Michael I LOVE WIDE S-T-E-R-E-O!

    ...quite liked EWS...but, I have yet to see the uncut version as I may like it even more...yes, IMO he is an excellent director and I have enjoyed all of his movies that I've seen...
     
  9. jojopuppyfish

    jojopuppyfish Senior Member

    Location:
    Maryland
    Kubrick is my favorite director. As someone once put it.....he almost has the best film of all time in every Genre.
    2001 -Sci Fi
    Shinning -Horror
    Dr Strangelove -Black Humor
    The Killing -Up there with the best of Film Noir
    Full Metal Jacket -One of the best Vietnam movies
    Paths of Glory -One of the best anti war films
    A Clockwork Orange is my favorite film that he directed.
    As for Eyes Wide shut, he died after the first screening of the movie. Which means he didn't edit down the film. He also wasn't involved in the sound mixing of the film.
    So, its my least favorite of Kubrick's films. But it has some amazing moments......the early dance scene with Nicole and that guy who wants her. And Sydney Pollack is great in it.
    But if Kubrick wanted a Hollywood couple, he should have gone with Baldwin and Bassenger.
    I don't think he finished it.
     
  10. nojmplease

    nojmplease Host, You Can't Unhear This

    Location:
    New York, NY
    Was Monet a good painter? Beethoven a good composer? The Beatles a good rock and roll band?

    I'd easily consider Kubrick in the same echelon as the aforementioned legends in their respective fields.
     
  11. kevinsinnott

    kevinsinnott Forum Coffeeologist

    Location:
    Chicago, IL USA
    Agree with this.
     
    junk likes this.
  12. GlamorProfession

    GlamorProfession Forum Resident

    Location:
    Tejas
    Boring and not very good at all imo. I think Kubrick was a visionary for sure but not necessarily a great director. Very overrated.
     
    junk and GuildX700 like this.
  13. agentalbert

    agentalbert Senior Member

    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    I never read the scene that way at all. The mask is the one he forgot to return and accidentally brought home with him, and then hid it. She found the mask, and he thought he was busted and then confessed everything.
     
    carrick doone and AndrewS like this.
  14. cwsiggy

    cwsiggy Forum Resident

    Location:
    Vero Beach, FL
    It's amazing to me how Hollywood really does pass over actresses once they r
    ahhh. been a while since I've seen it. I thought it was hers....
     
  15. Well he really didn't totally finish EWS
     
  16. HiFi Guy 008

    HiFi Guy 008 Forum Resident

    Location:
    New England
    It isn't bad, but could have been extraordinary. It needed tightening up. The unease, fear and tension just doesn't build up the way it could have.
    And the sloooowww pace didn't seem to project anything "dreamlike" to me.
    The bedroom scene is excruciating to watch - Kidman really tries - but her attempt at being interesting, languid and stoned is lost due to the long pauses. I don't blame her or Cruise one bit. Maybe Valium would have been a more plausible drug.

    Having been undoubtedly stalked by paparazzi, curious innocents and genuine wackos, maybe Kubrick thought Cruise and Kidman could bring something of their unease to the screen? Well, that was a lost opportunity. He didn't and they didn't.

    All of the street scenes look like they were shot inside a studio. NYC don't look like that!

    So is it supposed to be a nightmare? Well, that doesn't work either. Because nightmares are frightening. And this one didn't deliver on that level.
    But it could have. That being said, I liked the ending with the mask.
     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2015
    junk likes this.
  17. Ghostworld

    Ghostworld Senior Member

    Location:
    US
    I listen to the soundtrack about once a week. Same thing with Barry Lyndon.
     
    coffeetime likes this.
  18. Scooterpiety

    Scooterpiety Ars Gratia Artis

    Location:
    Oregon
    EWS is the only film of Kubrick's I truly dislike. I'm not terribly fond of Tom Cruise either.
     
    Gavinyl, junk and GuildX700 like this.
  19. Myke

    Myke Trying Not To Spook The Horse

    In checking www.movie-censorsip.com , the only difference is 11 explicit sex scenes, digitally altered in America, to achieve the "R" rating. The German DVD includes these scenes.
    .
     
  20. GuildX700

    GuildX700 Forum Resident

    Location:
    USA
    It just did not do a thing for me. My wife OTOH thought it was great. Go figure.
     
  21. GuildX700

    GuildX700 Forum Resident

    Location:
    USA
    2001, Shinning, Dr Strangelove, A Clockwork Orange, yeah, WOW.

    But this flick?

    Oh my my, oh no....... NO!
     
    GodShifter and junk like this.
  22. Todd Fredericks

    Todd Fredericks Senior Member

    Location:
    A New Yorker
    A lot of great points about this film and Kubrick. I'm most likely going to repeat something's with my thoughts.

    There has been a lot of speculation that if Kubrick had lived he may have done some more fine tuning with the editing. He was known to keep working like this until the very last moment of release and sometime afterwards (The European cut of "The Shining"). I remember there were many comments about this when the film was released. I believe based on my knowledge of his work that this is close to ready rough cut. All of his films have a very distinct pace and rhythm (part of his genius) and from what I can recall there are some bumpy moments in this one that seem miss his polish.

    As mentioned earlier in the thread Kubrick did many, many takes to break down the actors. This technique is to bring them out of "performing" and make them more "there". I recall there is an interview with Scatman Crothers where he discusses what it was like going through this experience. I think I remember seeing an interview with Tom Cruise discussing this as well. I've noticed this seems to bring out a very measured, almost making a statement/declaration quality to how the actors speak (almost in some cases monotone) and their overall presence. Very interesting to watch. As an actor I've experiment with this technique during private prep time and rehearsals. It does take you to a different place. I felt like I do not care if the scene works or not just do it. There is no need to immerse in thoughts to "get there" because you are "there" (in the moment).

    I also remember there was criticism when the movie was released about it being too grainy. I think it looks wonderful (especially in a movie theater). The lighting, the color, and the overall "look" I feel makes the dreamlike (or nightmare) world Tom Cruise finds himself in live. It is almost like another character.

    The movie took a long time to make. I recall Tom Cruise saying he spent more than a year working on this. There was also a lot of work done with Harvey Keitel before he was replaced by Sydney Pollack.

    I do not think this is one of his strongest films but it does have that Kubrick quality of taking you somewhere different, holding you there, and having the desire to discuss the experience (as we are doing now almost 16 years later).

    I now want to watch this again but will have to wait until I find a place to live and get settled. All my worldly goods (plus my bluray of this movie) are in storage.
     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2015
  23. Ghostworld

    Ghostworld Senior Member

    Location:
    US
    The "Kubrick Touch" with actor is so easy to discern. It's exactly as you describe. However, it always feels like so many takes has stripped the actors of any spontaneity or emotion. I don't know if it's because they're exhausted; want to make sure they say the lines perfectly so Stanley will quit; or they've been turn into automatons by repetition; but I know that's what Kubrick liked -- very robotic and leadenly precise. In all his mature films his actors perform that way. Yes, you could call it an auteur at work, making his imprint. But I was never sure if this was exactly subtle or a good thing, as Kubrick handled it. I think maybe it got a bit to0 formulaic over the course of his career. I suppose one could also take it as another "control freak" aspect of Kubrick: Strip actors completely of what they might bring to a role as an individual and turn them into a "Kubrick Zombie," a creature unmistakably of his creation.
     
  24. I do like it better than Barry Lyndon
     
  25. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR!

    Location:
    Hollywood, USA
    Yes, my joke at the time was that Kubrick shot at 10 footcandles, literally from actual candles. They were using handbuilt f0.7 lenses, which is ridiculously fast. The problem with shooting with a lens that wide open is that if the actor moves his head about an inch... he's out of focus. Very, very narrow depth of field... but many filmmakers (like Chris Nolan) really like that look.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine