Eyes Wide Shut is on Showtime - watch it or not?

[T Roosevelt]

I love Nicole Kidman, and Tom Cruise is ok...

[AlCzervik]

1. run away!!!!!!

[celestia671]

2. Nooooooo!!!!

I like them too, but that movie was just horrible!

[Feathered Fish]

3. The movie is not about the actors

It's great if you want to invest some brain power. Most people who are not prepared to do this think it's crap, but it's their loss as far as I'm concerned. However, I've never met a Kubrick flick I didn't like.

[sundog]

12. thank you

:hi:

[Feathered Fish]

15. We seem to be alone on this one

but that was expected. :)
:hi:

[leftofthedial]

4. watch!!

definitely watch

[Nay]

5. DH watched it all the way through (major NK drooler), but I got

bored and wandered off.

[tjdee]

6. Step AWAY from Showtime. NOW, NOW!!

You do NOT want to watch that.

You do NOT want to watch it. It is really, really bad in an arthousy, "I'm Stanley Kubrick, so this is obviously the DEEPEST thing you will EVER see" sort of irritating stink of a film.

I like Tom Cruise (I hate Nicole Kidman)--but NO.

You can't get those hours back.

[blondeatlast]

28. "You can't get those hours back." Precisely.

Walk away from the tube slowly, but do it now.

[AccessGranted]

7. It was okay . . . watch it.

It was a strange movie, but interesting. Wasn't the best thing I've ever seen, but I guess it's worth a watch.

[JimmyJazz]

8. only if you have insomnia

:boring:

[sundog]

9. awesome flick - but everyone will tell you it sucks

don't believe them :7

[jonnyblitz]

10. I liked it and I dont like tom cruise. nt

[libnnc]

11. we sooooooo hated that movie

my partner and I saw it in the theater and came so close to walking out. We stuck with it but it was a serious waste of bucks.

It's the only movie we both despise.

[YNGW]

13. Fair, but not all it was made out to be.

nc

[MADem]

14. STUNK. Stunk like a rotted fish!!!

Stunk like a skunk!!!

Stunk like some rancid crap at the bottom of the vegetable crisper!!!

Stunk like the baby's diaper after the kid got into something iffy!!!

STUNK ON ICE!!!

My hopes were high, seeing as it was Kubrick. Had he left the setting the same as the original work (the roaring 20's) it might just have worked. Instead it was STUPID. AND IT STUNK!!!!!

[tjdee]

16. The twenties would have made MUCH more sense!

That would have made SO much more sense.

[MADem]

26. It would have...it would have made the NK role easier to understand

And if you try to watch the film understanding that the 20's was the original setting, you can see where it would have worked. It would have resulted in way better sets, costumes, accoutrements such as cars and old time telephones and whatnot, and it would have made the gender roles more realistic. Of course, they would have had to make the naked people look more "2O's" so you'd see a lot more pubic hair and real boobs, to say nothing of less in the way of Pilates muscle tone....guess they wanted the fake shit!

It was a lame movie as produced. So much work, so little result!

[blondeatlast]

30. I didn't know that. It would have been FAR better in that setting.

I had to suspend an enormous amount of disbelief in the contemporary setting.

That really explains a lot, actually.

[complain jane]

17. don't bother it sucked

[complain jane]

18. Was that supposed to be based on "The Story of O"

or something like that? I was on vacation with someone I had just started dating. They couldn't wait to rent this movie and show it to me. A short lived romance, that was.

[Feathered Fish]

21. Traumnovelle

AKA - Dream Story by Arthur Schnitzler.

[alvis]

19. The movie really heightens the lack of interest in the film

Crow, of MST3k said it best.

[Liberal In Texas]

20. Brilliant movie -

It engages your the brain as opposed to watching a movie to mindlessly occupy your evening while eating a pizza.

Kubrick was a wonderful director. He is missed.

I won't watch it again until I can find a European version. I can't stand it when the prudes in the country censor movies.

[libnnc]

24. don't get me wrong

we're anything but prudes! We went because of the sex but it just got really boring and (we thought) pointless towards the end.

It fizzled out. No offense to Mr. Kubrick (rest in peace). I'd much rather watch his "Lolita". Now THAT'S a damn good picture.

[Liberal In Texas]

25. I'm sure it's not everyone's cup of tea.

(BTW, the prudes I was speaking of that I don't like are the censors.)

In many ways, it's like going to a gallery and looking at art. Your frame of mind has to be tuned differently from how you watch most films.

The "haunting" effects of Stanley Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut can be identified as creating curiosity, fear and anxiety in the viewer. They can be understood as painting a mosaic of symbolism in the viewer's eye, and as depositing fragments of concepts inside his mind. The film's slow pace seems to open wide gaps between the joints of the story's framework, causing the viewer to lose his secure sense of balance during the progression of the plot. Eyes Wide Shut is not a tale of terror nor one of mystery or of love; it is not a documentary about a married couple nor a psychological drama. It pretends to be all of these, and in so doing explores the filmic medium and secures the effects of its own elements.

more: http://www.cinephiles.net/Eyes_Wide_Shut/Cinephiles-Gate.html

[Zorro]

22. It has one redeeming feature

you get to see Nicole Kidman undressed.

Otherwise it's pretty stupid and an enormous disappointment.

[rug]

23. watch it with your eyes closed

[blondeatlast]

27. It's like a train wreck. You can avoid it completely, but once

you've peeked, you'll want to watch to see if it gets worse.

SPOILER ALERT: It gets worse. Trust me on this one.

[miss_kitty]

29. you're already paying for it

might be something you can make wicked fun of...:)

[blondeatlast]

31. I'll bring the popcorn...

:evilgrin:

[K8-EEE]

32. Worst. Movie. Ever.

horrendous.