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

Cruise was well cast considering the alternatives:

Brad Pitt: "Who's behind the MASK?!" (à la Se7en What's in the BOX?!)

Tim Roth: "If you don't remove your mask, I'm going to unload in your ****ing face." (à la Pulp Fiction briefcase)

Drew Barrymore: "Is this some kind of joke?" (à la Scream)

 

I think it's been well discussed over the years that Kubrick did not rate actors very highly as important factors in a films artistic success. I think he believed he could get what he wanted in any case, no matter who he decided to cast. The Grand Puppet Master.

 

for what it's worth, I like Tom Cruise, and thought he was perfect for the role.

during the first ten minutes or so of Barry Lyndon, I asked myself "Can he [Ryan O'Neal] act?" About an hour into it, I thought to myself, I still don't know, and the movie's so well made, that I really don't think it matters.

 

Of course Ryan O'Neal can act. I'd seen him in TV series Peyton Place and in
several other films and he was an excellent actor, most notably in Love Story
(1970) and Paper Moon (1973) before he undertook Barry Lyndon. If you can
actually watch Barry Lyndon and not be able to tell if Ryan O'Neal is a good
actor then the problem is with you, not him.

He'd have made a better choice for Dr. Hafford than Tom Cruise, that's for sure.

False choices. There is no reason to think the above-named were considered.
There were many other actors who might have been considered, but not them.

 

Lots of "Tom Cruise hate" here.

 

Harvey Keitel was Cruise's friend in the film, and he eventually was fired from the film halfway through (replaced by Sydney Pollack). The reason given was 'scheduling conflicts', but later on Keitel admitted that he and Kubrick had issues, and that he (Keitel) was finally fired by Kubrick.

 

I completely agree. O'Neal was the one factor that kept the movie from being great. "Can he act?"

 

I thought cruise did a good job of portraying a clueless, self absorbed man. His choice of being shell shocked by the circumstances rather than being emotive, like Nicholson et al may have played it, seemed to fit.

 

actually, I don't think O'Neal hurt the movie. I was puzzled at first at how inexpressive he was, but after a while, I was entranced by the movie and stopped thinking about his acting.

 

Where on earth did you get that from???

 

Sure. But intellectually and emotionally her character within the movie runs circles around his as well, so it's actually really well executed.

 

For anyone who's not totally sated at this point, Rob Ager - a Liverpudlian - has dedicated much time researching the more esoteric themes of EWS. His website is replete with videos on Kubrick's work and highly recommended. A representative example:

 

There's indeed many details that corroborate that, such as Bill Harford sleepwalking through the movie, never partaking in the dangerous pleasures, he simply spectates. The music during the "ritual" is played backwards.

 

It's a different movie

 

Kubrick made everyone do hundreds of takes.

 

Not hundreds, but he made them do a lot.
Not as many as Cruise. Cruise broke the record and then some.

 

Watch

The Killing
Paths of Glory
Dr Strangelove
Lolita

and both your questions answered will be answered

 

I'm sure I've mentioned before, apropos nothing, that the house where some of the scenes were filmed - with a gorgeous staircase which wraps around a large hall - was my workplace for many years in the Nineties. The movie "Basil" was also filmed there, and a TV movie about Princess Diana (where someone gets thrown into the pool, that's all I know). Gaddesden Place

 

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

Firstly, Stanley Kubrick was not a good director he was a brilliant director and "Eyes Wide Shut" is a beautifully made enigmatic film (typically Kubrick).
Having said that, my feeling has always been that Kubrick shouldn't have ever made it in the first place. I wish during the 1990's he would have challenged himself more by persevering & finally completing one of his other dream movie-projects, either the "Aryan Papers" project or the "A.I." project, & ended his transcendent career upon completion of one of those movies instead of "Eyes Wide Shut". Yeah I know, Steven Spielberg shot his black & white WWII flick first and it conflicted with Kubrick's visual plans but still... "Aryan Papers" would have been a masterfully crafted oeuvre d'art whatever the case. Same goes for "A.I.", as Kubrick was the master of film-making, especially science-fiction film-making, and his original vision for that film would have been without doubt an incredible experience for moviegoers had it ever got to the silver screen. Perhaps there's a parallel universe out there somewhere where Stanley Kubrick did indeed do this & instead never got around to completing his other dream movie-project based on Arthur Schnitzler's novella Traumnovelle? Oh well, whatever, nevermind.

 

My wife and I watched Eyes Wide Shut last night (it's a Christmas classic in our house!) Although I've seen it 3 times before, I was fascinated and didn't want to miss a second of it. Kidman does give a very impressive performance. And I think Cruise is perfect for the role, which is actually a very difficult role. I don't think Bruce Willis or Brad Pitt, to take two examples, could have pulled it off. One thing that struck me watching it this time is what a funny movie it is--there's several moments of great comedy.

 

If he'd only given us 2001: A Space Odyssey, Stanley Kubrick would be a great director. Add on A Clockwork Orange, The Shining, Dr. Strangelove, and Paths Of Glory and there can be no doubt.

 

FYI - the R rated cut of Eyes Wide Shut is on sale right now for $4.99 in iTunes (Movies). Great if you have an Apple TV, etc. It's in HD of course.

 

Say what you will about Tom Cruise, he never phones it in. Plenty of better actors - Laurence Olivier, Orson Welles, John Gielgud - let you know when they were only in it for the money. Whether Cruise is doing Eyes Wide Shut or some run around action movie, he gives it everything he has. I can name plenty of bad Tome Cruise movies, but I can't think of a bad performance.

 

The more I revisit his films, the more I scratch my head and wonder why he is considered one of the greatest. I recently saw Full Metal Jacket. It's dreadful in every way. Sophomoric directing, acting and narrative. Vietnam movies in general are hard to watch, but some of them are captivating and find some plot device or theme to draw you in, and organize the acts in a compelling way that makes the film worthwhile. Kubric is just plodding and lacks any capacity for subtlety, even when it's required. I'm not just talking about FMJ; his films constantly hit you over the head with the exact same thematic elements over and over and over again with very little moving of the needle from beginning to middle to end. His portrayal of everyone from the marines to the Vietnamese prostitutes is built on stereotypes that are just lame. His use of camera and music is also stilted. Just awful. The climactic scene in FMJ that should be so emotional is wrecked by the telegraphed build-up and the way he draws it out with many cutaways and close-ups. Ugh! And he couldn't even be bothered to shoot on location in a tropical jungle. He flew in a bunch of palm trees into UK, and it shows. Just a terrible movie, and the more I rewatch the others, most of them are terrible, too.

I suppose I can agree that he always brings a certain energy to his roles, but I can't find that energy believable. He provides no gravitas that his roles require. For EWS he was supposed to play a medical doctor. Leaving aside you've already seen his face in everything from Risky Business to Minority Report, can you really accept this actor as a physician? He just doesn't command that type of medical authority and scholarly accomplishment. I think to mention him in the same sentence as Olivier and Welles is a bit crazy. They could bring that gravitas every time to varied roles. Cruise never lets you forget he's acting, whereas you often forget that watching top-tier actors.

 

A lame movie from a great director.
I walked out of the theater thinking what a joke.