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

Lyndon has grown on me over time. The look of the film was always impressive, I guess Kubrick chose Ryan O'Neal as he was close to his preferred acting style already.

 

I'm surprised that nobody here has said that 'The Moon Landing' was Kubrick's best work

 

This is what made him so great.

 

If you're talking about Kubrick and Eyes Wide Shut, he fully completed it before he died.

As for the poster that said Kubrick took so many takes "because he didn't know what he was doing"...

 

Kubrick chose Ryan O'Neal because he wanted a bankable star. The studio gave me a choice of the top actors during that time period. Robert Redford turned Kubrick down (I think each of them both felt it wasn't a good fit)
Turns out Ryan O'Neal was only the top grossing actor that one year.
Anyways it was a great choice.

 

I think Kubrick is a great director. But Eyes Wide Shut is one of my least favorite by him. Maybe he went out on a weak note?

 

Please read this article....he delivered a cut but he usually trimmed and did not do music and sound work
http://kubrickfilms.tripod.com/id79.html

 

What are power windows, in this context?

 

I had pretty much the same reaction. I wasn't sure whether I liked it or not. (That was back in 1998. More recently I've started to think that if I have that kind of reaction, then it worked.) I agree the lighting and brightness are essential to the mise-en-scène and the mood.

I think that's exactly right, that it looks wonderful in a theater. In fact as I recall the interiors look sort of like an extension of the theater walls, the dark red side curtains that used to be more common than they are now, and it draws the viewer into the image, in a voyeuristic way.

 

I thought O'Neal was perfect for the role. From my review:

"O'Neal offers a pretty bad performance as Lyndon but ends up accurately portraying the character. O'Neal seems stiff, wooden and flat, but in reality, that's probably the way Lyndon should appear. Lyndon seemed to be a virtual cipher, a fairly dull-witted guy with few obvious talents who got by on his good looks. Hmm - sound like any actor you can recall? I don't know if O'Neal actually tried to play Lyndon as such a dud, but it works spectacularly well. "

 

Was SK a good director? Yes.

Is "EWS" a good film? No. Leave out the hot naked women and it's borderline unwatchable.

SK peaked with "Clockwork". He started to go downhill with "Shining" - his last 2 movies are weak, IMO...

 

Yes, his camera is great. Seeing director-as-painter Kubrick is great. No doubt, and this is a great piece from that body of evidence.

 

Is "Eyes Wide Shut" a good movie? I can't seem to get in the proper mood to watch it or Barry Lyndon, so I can't say.

Was Stanley Kubrick a good director? I believe he was a brilliant director. He directed some of my favorite films. Why can't I get in the mood to watch Eyes Wide Shut or Barry Lyndon??

Semi-related question: Is "A.I." a good movie? YES.

 

One of my favorite Christmas movies.

 

And that may have been calculated on Kubrick's part. His main characters are often not the types you would identify with. Can't stand them? Even better

 

Exactly. I thought Cruise did a very good job in playing a very, very insecure person who was not very likable. I wonder, with the rumors of Cruise's sexuality, was this in fact part of Kubrick's plan in casting him? I know he wanted a real life acting couple, at first seekingAlec Baldwin and Kim Bassinger for the roles. And if Cruise's supposed sexuality WAS part of it, how does that inform the character he plays? Personally I think Kubrick was ambivalent/hostile to humans and was using the actor/mask motif to poke around a little like a specimen in a petri dish.

 

Really? I thought Ryan was awful in that.

 

Viewed via mid-1990s eyes - when Cruise was cast - the notion of picking him because he was disliked doesn't make sense, though. Cruise was a massive star and lots and lots of people loved him.

The Cruise backlash didn't really set in until the mid-2000s, IMO - around the time he started acting like more of a kook. Mid-1990s Cruise was arguably the biggest movie star on the planet - casting him to "capitalize" on negative attitudes toward him wouldn't have made sense because those negative attitudes didn't exist in the mainstream...

 

He was - which made him great in the part. As I mentioned in the blurb I posted, O'Neal fit the role perfectly, largely because he was awful. A better actor would've made Barry a more well-rounded character - in O'Neal's inept hands, Barry was the non-entity he needed to be...

 

But he made the film tough to watch - I haven't seen it since its release. I found him totally unbelievable in the part.

 

I also think Kubrick shared Alfred Hitchcock's view that the camera told the story and that actors were secondary. As much as I have enjoyed both of their films and admire their and well-choreographed masterful cinematography, I admit I sometimes find their actors' (even when they have great ones) acting a little stiff, and their directors a little cold.

 

Very good point.

 

Kubrick at his best was extraordinary, IMO, a unique cinematic visionary. (I view Strangelove-2001-Clockwork Orange to be his peak period.) But Eyes Wide Shut was a huge bore for me, meticulously crafted as ever but lifeless, stilted and empty. It just felt like one gigantic, belabored tease with no meaningful payoff--I just couldn't get invested in any of it, even the naughty bits. I remember feeling profoundly relieved that it was over when I walked out of the theater, though disappointed at what had become of one of my favorite filmmakers.

 

This book is a good read regarding the movie EWS.


http://www.amazon.com/Eyes-Wide-Open-Stanley-Kubrick/dp/0345437764

My opinion,yes Kubrick was one of the greatest directors,and yes EWS is a good movie.